Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): I'm absolutely delighted to take this call on the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill. I don't really know where to start. I know I have only five minutes but there's been so much rubbish coming from the other side of the House that it's really going to leave me short of breath if I want to get everything covered. The previous speakers on our side of the House have already eloquently covered quite a few of the aspects I wanted to talk about but we might have to repeat them a few times because they don't seem to be able to get through their heads as to what is really important in those arguments. Andrew Bayly the previous speaker mentioned all of the provisions that you can still challenge a dismissal on. Well they are only human rights and just because you narrow a bill to only not be able to challenge an unfair dismissal doesn't make it a good bill. This bill in practice still lets people in the position of a redundancy a medical incapacity or an alleged misconduct when it results in a dismissal be not allowed to challenge that dismissal. Somehow the argument seems to be that you can consider earning $150000 a proxy but for what? The member for Helensville mentioned the proxy. He didn't actually really explain what that proxy does. Well I can explain what it doesn't do. The proxy doesn't actually take away the complete imbalance of power in the employment relationship. Section 3 of the Employment Relations Act specifically states that there is an inherent inequality of power and just taking that away with this bill is completely unacceptable. You can't just say someone has a choice and that it's voluntary whether or not you're going to take up the option of waiving your rights to fair justice and access to justice. You know I live in the real world. I've worked in the real world. I've seen hundreds of instances where people were dealing with that inequality of the power relationship and they were at the receiving end of it. I can only imagine that had they waived their rights at the beginning of the relationship when they hadn't put their mind to the fact that they might get into a situation where they lose their job they would have been in really really dire straits. So saying that people have an option just because they start a new job and can then say Oh look you know maybe I'll never get in trouble whether it's my fault or someone else's fault and maybe I'll never need this provision." is totally unfair to a brand new employee. Firstly they probably don't put their minds to that fact. Most people that start a new job are starting it very optimistically—like we are here—and very passionately. They never ever think they're going to get in trouble whether it's their own fault or someone else's and so that is totally unfair to that person. Secondly the person that has offered to waive their rights to fair justice or access to justice is in a very pressured environment where there may be other interviewees for that same job that are prepared to waive their rights. So that again puts undue pressure on them. What this bill does and someone asked—actually I think it was the member for Helensville who asked "How is this bill undermining?" If you've worked and lived in the real world you've seen those instances of how this bill would be undermining. [Interruption] And if you give me a second I will explain it to you. But I guess you don't want to hear it because it has already been told to you but you still don't get it. So basically what it means is that employees will be silenced at work regarding concerns they may have whether that is bullying—and we just heard from the member from the Green Party that that is a massive concern in New Zealand. Whether it is bullying harassment equal pay issues or health and safety concerns anything that could be considered criticism—even constructive criticism—will go underground. It will stifle workplace engagement and undermine the open transparent communicative and engaged workplace culture that we on this side of the House promote. Your bill has been called "a dog of a bill"—I read it in the Hansard of the first reading. That's exactly what it is and that's why we oppose it. It's a clear sign of how much the previous Government disregarded working people's rights and of how much they were an anti-worker Government. Thank you to all New Zealanders who voted for a change of Government so that this Government can get to work reverse the undermining effects made to working people's conditions we've seen over the last nine years and get some good stuff going on improving things."