Fenton Darien: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:389] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 That was an interesting contribution from the member for Maungakiekie. May I tell him that I know many of the union members who work in Maungakiekie. In fact I have represented them for many many years; I can name them. There are the workers at Sanitarium who were prevented from joining the union for years and years and years; the workers from Coca-Cola who would not have a bar of this bill; and the workers from Pernod Ricard in his electorate. There are rest home workers cleaners and school cleaners and caretakers. Come on—this bill is another kick in the guts for workers. That is what it is; it is another Christmas present from the National - ACT - Maori Party Government to the workers of New Zealand—happy Christmas! First it was tax increases for low-paid workers. Then it was cuts to KiwiSaver. Now the recycled hand-me-down Wayne Mapp bill has been dredged up from the dark ages of Don Brash and his cohorts as some kind of economic silver bullet. Is the answer to New Zealand’s economic problems the ability to sack workers more easily? Hey come on! Is that what being ambitious for New Zealand means? Is that what John Key meant?  
The new Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson is not ambitious. Now that she has got the ministerial warrant the BMW the big house and the huge pay increase she is showing how unambitious she is for New Zealand workers. The first thing she is doing in her job is cut workers’ rights and she is doing it under urgency. That is a disgrace. In the last Parliament Kate Wilkinson railed against urgency when Labour closed the KiwiSaver loophole—through a Supplementary Order Paper—which of course this bill opens up again. She said then very sanctimoniously that the amendment had not been subject to proper scrutiny. It had not been subject to consultation. It had not been subject to scrutiny by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The public had not been permitted to submit on it and to give their views. She said: “It is a sad sad day for democracy in New Zealand.” and “This is a disgrace. It is a total abuse of process.” Well hello—it seems that it is a disgrace and an abuse of process when Labour tries to improve the rights of workers but when National ACT and the Maori Party want to take away the rights of workers it is not an abuse of process; it is just getting on with fixing the economic problems of the country. 
The Government is right about one thing. These issues were debated in the last Parliament via Wayne Mapp’s members bill but let us not forget that that bill was defeated. It was defeated when submitter after submitter—527 of them—came along and said no they did not want that in New Zealand. Workers marched and rallied in opposition to that bill. Perhaps that is why this bill is being rushed through under urgency. Perhaps it is because the National - ACT - Maori Party Government does not want to see workers rallying before Christmas. That would be embarrassing; it would remind New Zealanders of the real agenda of the Government they have elected. 
The Maori Party was forced to abandon its support for Wayne Mapp’s bill after it saw the opposition to it. It is good that the Maori Party is not supporting this bill but I say to the Maori Party that that is actually a pretty meaningless gesture because that party had a chance in its confidence and supply agreement with the National Party to make gains for workers. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Oh come on. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes it did. It could have ensured that this bill never again saw the light of day. So I am not that impressed with the Maori Party’s opposition especially after yesterday when it voted for tax increases for low-paid workers and KiwiSaver cuts for the same workers. 
What is so offensive are the excuses for this bill—that the young the brown the women the imprisoned and the migrants will be better off because they are so hopeless they do not deserve the same rights as other workers and because it will be even easier to sack those people employers will very kindly take a risk on giving them a job. The workers I have talked to are very offended by that. For example the Filipino workers’ group says that this bill will open the door to further exploitation of vulnerable migrant workers and that it has nothing to do with improving their job opportunities. Vulnerable workers often have a limited knowledge of workplace rights and work in workplaces like restaurants rest homes shops and cleaning services. Many of the jobs done by the Pacific people the member opposite was referring to are in the myriad of other small firms throughout New Zealand and those people are not in a position to agree or disagree on a trial period without rights. Have the members opposite not heard of “Take it or leave it!”? Workers are told: “Here you go; if you want the job you sign up to it or you do not have the job.” That is how it works; that is what members will see. 
I thought a fundamental human right was equality before the law. I thought that that was what we stood up for in this country. Yesterday was the 60th anniversary of human rights and equality is a fundamental human right. But this bill creates an underclass of workers in an area where rights are probably much more vital. Small workplaces often have very inexperienced managers and supervisors they have high turnover the workers are low paid and the jobs can be high stress. In such a situation instead of trying to sort things out with probationary employees and instead of trying to give workers a genuine go managers who are busy will say: “Off you go down the road. It is too hard.” Under this bill all those managers will have to do is call it unjustified dismissal. 
I know there is provision for mediation but it is meaningless. It means nothing. It is a talkfest; it goes nowhere. The worker has no rights with that. The other excuse that we have heard for this bill is that every other OECD country has probationary provisions. Yes they do but so does New Zealand. The members opposite should look at those other countries because workers in those countries have many other rights that New Zealanders do not have. For example they still get penal rates weekend rates redundancy pay and overtime pay. I am looking forward to members opposite proposing that we should have minimum redundancy as indeed Labour was proposing in its policy.  
I am still waiting—and we all are—to hear more about the Government’s Restart relief package to help those workers hit by redundancy. In his speech Mr Key said that this package will be carefully targeted and designed to help people who have worked hard and have big aspirations for the future but who will through no fault of their own be coping with a big financial blow. If a worker has been through a 90-day process and has been sacked would that worker qualify as having worked hard? If the worker is sacked is it through any fault of his or her own? I say to the Minister that I would genuinely like to know the answer to that question. Do these workers qualify as having big aspirations for the future? Will they get relief or will they be consigned to looking for another job on a 90-day cycle and on a hopeless spiral to the bottom? 
We on this side of the House are very opposed to the bill and we have outlined that. It is taking away workers’ economic livelihood which should never be done lightly or unfairly. Being sacked unfairly impacts on workers. It impacts on their families their confidence and their future employment prospects. What does a worker in this situation say to their next employer at an interview? “Oh sorry I got sacked but it is only because of the 90-day probation bill so it wasn’t really being sacked; it wasn’t really unfair.” Or do they have to sign up for yet another 90-day cycle for the next period for the next after that—and on it goes. 
Sue Bradford raised some important questions. She referred to page 9 of the explanatory note and the real agenda of the National Party which is to extend this provision to all other workers after review. That is in the fine print but there is also more to come. We know what the National Party’s agenda is. It wants to have non-union collective agreements restrict unions’ access to rights cash up the 4 weeks’ leave review the Holidays Act and privatise accident compensation. Let no one have any doubt that this is the first shot in an ongoing attack on New Zealand workers. To the Minister I say “nice one!”.