Mackey Moana: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:412] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on Part 1. I have some questions for the Minister in the chair Kate Wilkinson. First I want to know which one of the two stories she has been telling on this bill is the correct one. She said the public do not need to be worried about this bill because it is not the Wayne Mapp bill. Then she said that it does not need to go to a select committee because it is the Wayne Mapp bill that has come before this Parliament. So the simple question is which one of those two stories is true and by proxy which one was misleading.  
The second question I have for the Minister in the chair is whether she understands the difference between a member’s bill and a Government bill. Does she understand the difference between member’s bill that did not have the numbers to pass and that the public never expected to become law and a Government bill that the public knows will be passed but did not expect to be rammed through under urgency—a bill that will nevertheless be on the statute book and that the public would like to have a say on? I want to know whether the Minister in the chair understands that difference.  
Let us look at clause 4. It states that the purpose of the legislation is to provide for a trial period of no longer than 90 days. That is fine; that is what is in the current law. In fact the current law is more flexible. Workers can negotiate a trial period that is shorter than that or longer than that. But the clause goes on to state—and this is the crux of it—that an employer can dismiss an employee without the employee being able to bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal. I want to know how on earth the Minister thinks that that is not a removal of rights. I want to know in what parallel universe she thinks that that is not a removal of rights given that employees now can bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of a dismissal. It is a simple question and I think the workers of New Zealand deserve an answer.  
Then the clause states: “subject to certain exceptions;” and the Minister has made a big deal of this. She said she has made sure that the human rights of every worker will be upheld. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sure Tau Henare did not really mean that you are a grievance but he should not bring you into the debate in that way at all. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has apologised. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: As I was saying the Minister in the chair has made a big deal of the fact that she is protecting the human rights of every worker. So my question to her is how she will police this provision. How will she get into the minds of every employer who lets someone go within that 90-day period? How will she know why that person was let go? How will she know that someone who fired a worker because he or she did not like the colour of the skin of that person’s wife or husband fired the worker for that very reason when that employer just says: “I’m sorry; you just don’t fit in this job.”? How will the Minister know?  
Also how can she possibly know this when the bill states that it is not required that a reason be given as to why that person has been let go? One does not even have to give written reason. So how will we know the reasons why someone has been let go so that we can police it and know that the reason is fair?  
I also ask the Minister in the chair whether she appreciates the fact that although everyone appreciates that employing people with their terms and conditions and their wages is a cost to a business that same money also puts food on the tables of working families? Does she appreciate that it puts a roof over the heads of them and their families and feeds and clothes their children? I have not heard one word from her. I have not heard one word from any member in the National-ACT Government who has talked about the livelihoods of workers and the fact that the money they are complaining about is the very money that feeds and clothes those children. Those members will stand up and complain about law and order and never make a connection to low pay and to people being dismissed unfairly and not having a job.  
My last question to the Minister is this: does she not think it is offensive to tell workers who have been let go from their job unfairly that they should feel grateful that she has allowed them to go back on a benefit right away? Does she not believe that that is offensive to working people or does she genuinely believe she is being generous?