Hereora Dave: Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hereora Dave: Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6751] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to make a few comments in relation to the issues raised by the previous speaker. He talked about the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill as being Wayne Mapp’s bill. I have to say that a lot of worker groups have asked for my opinion on this bill and in doing so have also referred to it as being Wayne Mapp’s bill. The first thing I said to them was that it is not Wayne Mapp’s bill but is National’s bill. The reason I told them it is National’s bill is that in the first instance it strips away workers’ rights. It strips away the personal grievance provisions and gives no insight into health and safety issues on the job while someone is employed. I made that very clear by getting the brand right. The brand is that this bill is the very essence of the National Party’s policy to strip away workers’ rights and reduce their terms and conditions of employment. That is the first thing I told people. 
The second thing I want to comment on relates to Lindsay Tisch’s statement that this bill will give some certainty continuity and investment. Well pray tell me how it will do that. The opening remarks in the explanatory note of the bill state: “The purpose of a probation period for new employees is to enable employers to take a chance with new employees”. How will that give certainty? It actually does the reverse of that. If employers promote the fact that they want workers on a trial basis for 90 days then those workers will be employed for fewer than 90 days—in fact for 89 days—before they get the sack. This bill contains no provision for them to find any recourse or redress if that happens; they will be gone down the road by lunchtime. I cannot see how the heck that member thinks this bill will promote any certainty. 
The second thing Lindsay Tisch mentioned was continuity. Continuity means the opportunity to have security on the job. Well how the heck will we get security on the job if we are saying that employees will be employed for only up to 90 days? Members know as well as I do that if there is a chance for some employers to keep workers employed on a casual basis they will take it so this bill is just a platform to achieve another extension of the casualisation of the workforce. 
The third issue raised by Lindsay Tisch that I want to talk about is that he saw this bill as being an investment. How the heck can this bill be seen as an investment when we all know that the only investment in employment is to train workers? How will training be introduced in fewer than 90 days? What sort of promotional opportunities and security will that give to employees? Absolutely none! Members know as well as I do that those three points that Lindsay Tisch raised are a lot of hogwash. There would be the opposite of certainty continuity and investment under this legislation. 
The other issue I have shared with workers who wanted my opinion related to the group of workers this legislation would attack. I spoke to a lot of Pacific Island and Maori workers and predominantly to those groups in areas where trials have been introduced. Under the current Act there is an opportunity for trials to be held but going along with that opportunity there are also protections in terms of personal grievance rights health and safety provisions and at the end of the day the chance for redress through the courts if employees are sacked. 
So I tell Wayne Mapp that I cannot see any reason why he is promoting this bill other than because of the fact that it is at the very heart—it is the very essence—of the National Party’s policy to strip away workers’ rights. At the end of the day that is the intention. 
Hon Members 
: No. 
DAVE HEREORA 
: Yes that is the intention and we know that is a core policy plank of the National Party.