Fenton Darien: Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:13038] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 First of all I congratulate my colleague Carmel Sepuloni on having the Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill drawn in the ballot. I think it is very timely given the Prime Minister’s announcement at the National Party conference that the Government will be extending the 90-day trial period to all workers throughout New Zealand. It is interesting to look at the justification he used for that at the National Party conference. The deliberately delayed Department of Labour research report on the current 90-day trial provision was used by the Prime Minister to justify the move to extend it to all wage and salary earners. 
First of all what I will say about that report is that it was extremely unbalanced. As part of that report 3532 employers were contacted but only 13 employees were contacted. How unfair is that? That kind of methodology will not uncover the real impact of the 90-day trial law. But even with that imbalance the report provided some really interesting evidence—well a lack of evidence actually—to back up the Prime Minister’s claim that this provision should be extended to all workplaces. I will address a couple of issues. 
My colleague Carmel Sepuloni has addressed the issue of the claim that the provision will provide jobs for disadvantaged people. Well we know from the report that 72 percent of the people who got jobs under the 90-day trial period were Pakeha. The number who were Maori and Pasifika was very very small and employers said that very few of them used the provisions to hire workers whom they may not have hired otherwise. Employers were more focused on hiring the most suitable candidate. The Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister keep saying that the 90-day trial period can be entered into only by written agreement. 
I spoke to someone today and her name is Tyla Howard. She is 24. She got a job in an Auckland laundromat. After some months she was laid off then she was re-employed a few months later. As is the situation with so many other workers there was no written agreement—and the report shows that even though the law requires a written agreement so few employers bother with that—and nothing was said about the 90-day period. In fact in her case she should not have been on a 90-day period because she was re-employed. The law states that the employer cannot do that but she was re-employed under National’s fire-at-will Act. Anyway she turned up to work one day and was told that she was being let go—do not come Monday. She was being let go and it was because of the 90-day trial period. Tyla did not even know she was on a trial. She had not heard anything about it. She should not have been on a trial because the law states that she should not have been but this law has given employers the impression that they can use the 90-day trial period with impunity—with impunity. 
Another worker I heard from in the last 2 days is a woman called Lauretta. She said in her email: “I am one of the people that was on the 90-day trial period. The 90 days came up and I got a phone call from someone ringing up about my job advertised in the paper.” It was advertised in the paper! She said: “I went to my boss and asked him what was going on as I didn’t even know my job was coming to an end. He told me I didn’t have enough experience which he knew when he employed me. Now I am unemployed desperately looking for work.” The Government’s own report which it delayed quite deliberately until the National Party conference as a means to try to justify extending this provision to all workplaces shows categorically— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell us the company’s name. Did you make it up? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I am happy to provide the evidence. I ask whether the member is saying that my word is not what I am saying in this House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I’m saying you should name the company. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I am happy to name the company and I will name the company. I am happy to provide that evidence and I have many many more examples which I am happy to use in the next couple of days. 
In summary National’s own report exposed by the Department of Labour shows that employers have been using this law as a means of employing people and avoiding their responsibilities rather than as a means of creating jobs. The law has not created jobs for disadvantaged workers and certainly there are many many instances in that report if members care to read it of employers not even following the very very lightweight requirements that are already in the law—for example the requirement to have something written down in an agreement.