Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:399] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 This bill is wrong both in process and in substance. If it is so urgent we have to ask why it was not identified as part of the 100-day programme and was not outlined in the Speech from the Throne. It seems to me that the only answer to that question is that the Government is trying to get it through quickly so that people might forget about it over Christmas. They will not have had the chance to speak on it and when they see the consequences of it it will be too late. 
In essence this bill is about removing workers’ rights. It allows workers to be sacked for no good reason. It would allow employers to sack somebody because they wanted to replace him or her with somebody else. It would allow employers to sack somebody because they did not like that person or did not like something about him or her. It does not even have to be rational; it can be for any reason at all. This bill removes the worker’s right to seek redress for unfair dismissal. I remind the other side that workers are people. They are not commodities. They are people who have feelings who have financial obligations. This goes against core New Zealand values; it goes against values like fairness and the belief in natural justice. 
Who will be most likely to suffer under this bill? I can tell members—and the Human Right Commission obviously shares this concern—that it will be young people. I wonder how members on the other side of the Chamber would feel if their child or grandchild were sacked because an employer did not like the look of him or her on any given day. It will be young people it will be lower-skilled workers it will be new migrants it will be Maori workers and it will be Pasifika workers; they will be the people who suffer as a consequence of this bill. 
This bill is particularly cruel and particularly cynical in the current economic climate. There is already a great deal of insecurity. People are worried about unemployment—we all are. This bill reminds me of the cynicism and cruelty of the National Government in the 1990s; it also attacked workers and stripped away their rights in a time of high unemployment. People will be less likely to raise issues with their employers less likely to question things if they believe that their employers have the right to sack them for no reason. 
The point about there being a choice is absolutely laughable. In the case of most people—especially those whom I have outlined who feature in high unemployment statistics—it is absolutely laughable to think that when they get a new job they will turn round and say “Oh I am sorry but I will not accept it with that provision.” You talk about this side of the House not having a view of the real world; well actually we do. 
The other thing that I would like to say is that Government members believe that you are talking about a more— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have explained before that you cannot bring the Chair into the debate so do not use the word “you”. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I am sorry about that Chair. 
Hon Member 
: Chair? 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: He is the Chair actually I believe. 
The Government members talk about a more productive economy. Well one thing that I can say to the other side of the House is that more productive work places will not be obtained where workers’ rights are stripped away. More productivity will be obtained in workplaces where there are decent rights where workers feel free to have a say and where they are respected and valued and their opinions are respected and valued. The Employment Relations Amendment Bill does not create that sort of workplace. 
Finally I say that this bill is addressing a perception rather than a real problem. As an adviser to the Small Business Advisory Group I can assure members that I have discussed it extensively with small businesses. [ 
Interruption 
] I have discussed it with the Small Business Advisory Group; do those members think it does not represent small business? If members had read its report they would have seen that the recommendation in it argued for—