Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:403] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to take the call. I was waiting to take the call until I had my list of questions but that is OK I have four so far.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: I asked the Minister at least six actually. She must be hard of hearing.  
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Pardon? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I had six but that’s OK.  
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As we have said the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is a very moderate bill. It was carefully drafted to give new employees the opportunities to get their feet in the employment door. It is not about taking away existing rights.  
Hon Member 
: Yes it is.  
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: If the members on the other side of the House would like to read the bill they would see that it does not apply to existing employees. It applies only to prospective employees and it is only by agreement. I refer firstly to the labour issues spokesperson Mr Mallard who commented about mediation.  
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard.  
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The Hon Mr Mallard said that once sacked mediation would not apply. That shows an alarming ignorance of employment law by the previous Minister of Labour because if that was correct under the Employment Relations Act at the moment no sacked employee whatsoever would have access to any mediation services. Perhaps Mr Mallard might like to refer to sections of the Act such as section 146 which refers to “persons” rather than “employees” in respect of where mediation is covered.  
I refer to the Hon Mr Goff’s questions. He asked why the bill cannot be referred to a select committee.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: No you have missed out the first question entirely.  
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The choice of when I answer questions is mine thank you I say to Mr Goff. The Hon Mr Goff asked a question about why the bill was not referred to a select committee. A very similar bill was referred to a select committee in 2006. The recommendation stated that the vote was tied and therefore lost. There were 619 submissions on that bill and we addressed much of the opposition to the bill. As I said in my second reading speech one of the objections was that employees would be reluctant to change jobs if they were subject to a probation period. That is why we have made it by agreement. We are not forcing a trial period on employees. We are saying to employees to go to an employer and say “Give me a chance give me a try and I will prove myself in that 3-month period.”  
There were concerns during that original select committee hearing about human rights and discrimination. We have specifically protected rights against sexual and racial discrimination. Those protections of human rights and health and safety still remain. They are still protected. One of the other objections made at the original select committee hearing was that it would allow employers to engage employees on a series of probationary periods—in other words the 89-day rollover. Again we have provided for that because the employer of somebody who has been previously employed by that employer cannot use that same probationary period. We have added in those safety mechanisms because we appreciate that there are some unscrupulous employers.  
What we have done is to balance the interests of the employer and the employee and we have come up with a bill that is a win-win situation. It has safety mechanisms in it. It has a trial period for which small businesses have been asking for many many years. In fact the Small Business Advisory Group report in 2003-04 which was referred to had as its first and foremost recommendation a trial period for small businesses.  
The member Darien Fenton asked why this provision applies to businesses with fewer than 20 employees. Well 20 is the recognised number for small to medium sized business enterprises. Those are also businesses that are less likely to have the human resources capabilities to make perhaps those right recruitment decisions. We have again added that extra protection to give small businesses the confidence to employ workers who are perhaps on the margins and perhaps have not been in the workforce before and to give those prospective employees an opportunity.  
The other protection that we have specifically stated is that those on a benefit who enter into a trial period that does not work out for some reason other than their own fault will not have to face the stand-down period on their benefit. We want to encourage workers to go off the benefit with the confidence that they can go back on to it if their trial period does not work so they can get some confidence and have the opportunity to enter into the workforce.