Goff Phil: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Goff Phil: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:324] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 That was an angry and out-of-control speech from Nick Smith. Of course he has the right to be angry because he was not given a trial period when he was deputy leader of the National Party. He did not get 90 days; he got 14 days and he was sacked. But we do not need the protection of industrial law to stop that happening. The law at the moment states that one can be sacked for incompetence and irrationality and that was almost certainly what Nick Smith was sacked for.  
Nick Smith said that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill gives a trial period. That shows how little Nick Smith understands about the current law. Section 67 of the Employment Relations Act allows for a trial period. I tell Dr Smith that that was put into the law by a Labour Government. But the Labour Government did not say that during that 90-day period people could be sacked wrongfully unfairly illegitimately and without cause. No New Zealander believes that any Kiwi should be able to be sacked for no good cause and to have no right of redress. That is why what Kate Wilkinson said—“This bill is not about taking away rights;”—is the opposite of the truth. This bill does one major thing: it takes away the right of the ordinary Kiwi worker if a bad employer dismisses that person without cause in the first 90 days of employment to the protection of being able to take up the matter as a personal grievance or to take it to the Employment Court. Which New Zealander does not believe that it is fair that every other New Zealander should have that right of redress?  
We are fundamentally against this bill on that matter of substance. All New Zealanders who are wrongly dismissed are entitled to the protection of having an avenue of redress. That is the right— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He won’t promise to repeal it though. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do promise to repeal what the National Government is doing. It will be gone as one of the early steps of the next Labour Government in 2011.  
But I will promise that when we do that we will do it with due process because the other thing that we fundamentally object to about this legislation is that it takes away such a fundamental right of an employee without due process. Having a job is fundamental to every New Zealander. To lose that job is serious and New Zealanders have to have that right of redress. I say to Kate Wilkinson that this right is being taken away without the due process of the normal democratic procedures of this House. It is an absolute outrage as the human rights commissioner said that such a fundamental right should be withdrawn from New Zealanders without even one New Zealander having the right to have his or her voice heard before a select committee.  
We know why all bills go to a select committee. All bills go to a select committee—  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: When did the KiwiSaver Bill go to a select committee? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: All bills go to a select committee with very rare exceptions and I tell Nick Smith that there is a good reason for that. When one rushes legislation—and it is impossible to describe the Employment Relations Amendment Bill as anything other than rushed—mistakes are made. That is why every member of this House who is not a member of the executive is on a select committee: to put Government legislation under scrutiny to make sure the Government got it right. That will not happen with this bill.  
Secondly bills go to a select committee because New Zealanders have the right in a democracy when other rights are under attack to go to Parliament and present submissions. There is no justifiable reason why New Zealanders should be denied the right to have their voice heard on this legislation—no reason at all. Nor was any notice given that this legislation was to be rushed through the House. There was no notice in the Speech from the Throne. Kate Wilkinson herself said that the bill would not be part of National’s first 100 days in Government.  
National made this decision and we have to ask why. Was it because National had so little confidence in the equity of its own legislation that it did not want New Zealanders to look at it? Normally in the case of legislation like this a Government would give the chance for conflicting opinions to be heard before a select committee. I know for a fact that Business New Zealand would probably support this legislation but I heard its chief executive say on  
Breakfast 
 the other morning—I was in the studio with him—that this is the wrong way to do it. Even those who think there might be some merit in this legislation believe there is no merit in not giving New Zealanders trade unions business groups or any other stakeholders the right to have their voice heard before this legislation is rammed through.  
This Government has been so arrogant in its first week in office that Gerry Brownlee had to be shamed into putting the legislation on the Table so that the Opposition could even see it. 
Hon Member 
: At midnight.  
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Actually it was not at midnight; it was at a quarter to midnight. I say to Mr Brownlee that suddenly at a quarter to midnight eight bills or five bills—or whatever the number of bills was—were put on the Table. So not only does this bill not go to a select committee not only are New Zealanders denied the opportunity to have their voice heard not only do members of this House not have the opportunity to carefully scrutinise that legislation but National did not even want New Zealanders or members in this Chamber to know what was in the bill until just hours before it was going to be rammed through. I say to Mr Brownlee that that is a disgrace and it is an ominous sign from a Government that has been so arrogant in its first week in Parliament of what it intends to do for the future. In Opposition the National Party said what an outrage it was if any matter was placed under urgency but although the latter stages of a bill may sometimes have gone through under urgency the Labour Government still put bills through select committee hearings.  
I endorse what the Human Rights Commission said about the process of this bill. The commission said that “rushed legislation is … risky legislation”. This legislation is being rushed. The commission said that this is such a fundamental change in employment law that it should go to a select committee. That is what the Human Rights Commission said. Its job is to uphold the rights of New Zealanders and it said that this bill should be considered at a select committee and that people should have the right to have input. The commission said that basic democracy requires “transparency participation and accountability.” The National Government is so arrogant that it is denying New Zealanders those things—transparency participation and accountability.  
The Human Rights Commission itself wanted to make submissions on this bill because it will have a particularly negative effect on vulnerable New Zealanders: school-leavers seeking their first jobs and those who are disadvantaged in the employment market. I say to Kate Wilkinson that under this legislation these people can be sacked because the employer does not like the colour of their eyes and they have no redress. It is unheard of that a Government in one of its first steps could deny people the right of fundamental justice which is that when people have been treated unfairly or wrongly they have some redress for that treatment.  
National says that this provision applies only to those firms where there are 20 or fewer workers. I ask Kate Wilkinson what percentage of New Zealanders comes into that category. This arrogant Government will deny workers in the 96 percent of businesses that employ under 20 workers their rights of protection against unfair dismissal. This Government is prepared to strip people of basic rights. John Key’s Christmas present to New Zealand workers who are already under stress because of the uncertainty of their employment future is to put them under even greater stress by removing this basic principle—this basic human right.