Garrett David: Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Garrett David: Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:13036] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party has a particular interest in the Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill as indeed I have personally. Not only was the Employment Relations Amendment Bill 2008 one of the first things we considered when I came into the House but we managed to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to enact the legislation a month early. So I followed the issue with great interest. 
Back in December 2008 it was very interesting to hear the hyperbole that I have now learnt is typical of the Greens: the sky is always falling in the world is going to end tomorrow and global warming is going to get out of hand uncontrollably by next Thursday. But on this occasion we heard the hyperbole from Labour. We heard about the roll of shame. I will allow a little pause because when Carmel Sepuloni began her impassioned speech I interjected on her a couple of times and asked her to read out the roll of shame. I very much doubt that she did not hear me. Is she not familiar with the roll of shame? Members will recall that when the matter was being discussed back in December we heard about a roll of shame. It was going to be a regularly updated list of bad employers who employed people sacked them after a week hired others and then sacked them. I listened with great interest because I could not actually believe that the roll of shame would ever contain any names. 
So in the last year or so when the matter of employment law has come up in the House in a number of contexts I have interjected across the House and asked for the roll of shame to be read. When I have done that Labour members have always managed to find their papers very interesting. So the roll of shame I tell Ms Sepuloni is the list of bad employers who constantly sack people. I ask whether she would now like to read out that roll of shame. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: I started it: David Garrett— 
DAVID GARRETT 
: That is it is it? 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: —John Key. I can keep going; I have about 60 of them— 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Neither of us are employers so that is interesting. The roll of shame as I thought is empty. There are no names on it because in the real world employers have better things to do. They have better things to do than go through a lengthy process of hiring training and getting people acculturated into their workforce. They do not want to be sacking people all the time. 
It is very interesting that we heard from members on that side of the Chamber that this bill was designed to “support National’s mates”—I think they said “rich mates” as well—which completely overlooks the fact that the majority of employees in this country are employed by small and medium sized businesses. Eighty percent of them are employed by small and medium sized businesses. So it is a very interesting but sad admission that those employers those small and medium sized tradesmen and tradeswomen are all considered to be National’s mates. 
The reality is that the roll of shame has no names on it. Labour managed to find a few bedraggled employees—sorry I mean workers in Labour “union speak”—but I noticed that the chaps and “chap-esses” down at my local who are actually mostly Labour voters said that they would not employ those employees either. Out in the real world many people do not even have written employment contracts; they just get on with it. We heard Ms Sepuloni and others say that there are many examples of employment trial periods being misused. Well in this House the Hon Ruth Dyson regularly comes in and reads out quite heart-rending and upsetting examples—who knows whether they are real—of people who have allegedly suffered from having their home help taken off them etc. So I would have thought that if a large number or even a small number of workers have truly been treated badly by employers who should be on the roll of shame then we would hear about it. But we have not. That is because out in the real world people have better things to do. 
I close by saying that I was disappointed when Mrs Turia told me just a moment ago that she was unable to support the bill because one of the selling points was that it was intended to get more Maori and Pacific Island people into the workforce and apparently that has not happened. That is very unfortunate. 
Again it was surprising to learn that 90 days is actually a very short trial period and that the UK Labour Government for 15 years or more has had probationary periods of 12 months. Thank you.