Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:342] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the second reading has to be called does it not? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: What is your point of order Mr Mallard? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I do not think the Clerk called the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The Clerk advises me that she called it. Secondly I said that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is set down for second reading forthwith. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: This bill addresses the Government’s response to the need to assist employees and employers in small and medium-sized businesses in creating employment opportunities. This bill has been carefully and moderately drafted. It is not about taking away rights; it is about giving opportunities. Importantly the bill maintains employees’ rights. We have said in first reading speeches that employees can still raise a personal grievance under the discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act. Sexual or racial discrimination is not acceptable.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How will you police that? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The bill maintains the right for personal grievances to be resolved using either the authority or the court in those situations I say to Mr Cosgrove. 
The bill specifically provides that the employer and employee may agree to a trial period only once. This bill is about helping employers to provide genuine opportunities for new employees. We have heard in first reading speeches talk of productivity and I will read a quote from the Tauranga Chamber of Commerce from yesterday: “This is very positive news”—it is talking about the bill—“for both employers and employees particularly smaller businesses. The key issue for our economy is productivity and this bill goes a long way to ensuring the right people are in the right jobs. This bill is good for both parties and will result in much firmer employment relationships. The Tauranga Chamber of Commerce supported the bill because the 90-day period gives both parties time to gauge the fit of both employer and employee. Particularly important are the benefits to employees with no formal qualifications who will have a better chance at obtaining skilled positions because they have a trial period to prove their capabilities. Employers who are considering taking on an extra staff member will be in a better position to trial the role and the impact on the business before confirming the position.” 
This bill is a moderate bill. It has been prepared to protect the rights of employees. It has been prepared and drafted to give new employees the opportunity to say “Give me a go; I will prove myself.” and to get their foot in the employment door. We have added the protection that the trial period is to be established by agreement between the employer and employee. I would like to— 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have sat here for an hour and listened to various contributions from members opposite. I think that you should take the opportunity to allow members opposite to listen to a speech from this side of the House without their constant interruption and barracking. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No I do not need any assistance. The member is responding to some of the points that were made in the first reading debate and I think members could contain themselves a little more. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In fairness I think you were not at the last debate where Nick Smith sat opposite— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That point of order is out of order. I have already ruled on this matter. If the member has a new point of order he should raise it— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet. The member will sit down please. I have ruled on the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask whether your ruling means that Ministers with weak voices get special treatment because that appears to be the case. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not what I intended nor said. All I have done is ask members to contain themselves a little more. That is not an unreasonable expectation from the Chair. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I would like to address some of the myths that have been enunciated both before and during this debate. One of those myths has been spread by one of the Labour affiliates and it basically says that if the bill becomes law workers employed at enterprises with fewer than 20 staff will lose the right to challenge an unfair dismissal during the first 90 days. This bill applies only to new employees. It will not affect existing employees and the trial period is established only by agreement. So it is up to the new employee to say “Give me a trial period.” The bill will not affect the rights of existing employees. 
Throughout the debate the member from the Green Party Sue Bradford has mentioned what happens to those on benefits. I mentioned in my first reading speech that beneficiaries who leave the benefit to go on a trial period will not face a stand-down if they go back on the benefit. I want to enunciate and reiterate that point which is actually contained in the question and answer sheet we have put out. That document specifically states: “Employees on a trial period if they were previously on a benefit or if they receive assistance post-redundancy in a new package to be announced before Christmas by the Minister of Social Development will not face a stand-down if they go back on a benefit or onto the post-redundancy assistance unless they have been dismissed for misconduct or have chosen to end the trial themselves without good reason”. 
We see this bill as giving opportunities. It is not only giving businesses the confidence to take on new employees; it is also giving prospective employees the opportunity to say “I want to get off the benefit. I haven’t got experience. Please give me a try.” We think that that is a good thing. 
I will also address the issue of why it is important that this legislation is passed as a matter of priority. I refer to the Christchurch  
Press 
 editorial of today which states: “the Government is also well aware that the global economic crisis means the country will no longer be able to coast along on a wave of externally generated prosperity while economic fundamentals at home particularly growth in productivity slump precipitously. … It is in any event a good bill to get passed into law as soon as possible. The vast bulk of business in New Zealand is conducted by small and medium-sized enterprises. As they are at the moment the laws governing employment are a powerful disincentive to anyone thinking of hiring a new worker but uncertain as to his or her capacity for the job. At present if an employee turns out to be unsuitable an employer who wishes to dismiss him or her risks having to deal with the whole time-consuming complex and expensive apparatus of the law governing dismissals. The risk of distraction from the core job of running a business and incurring large costs may make an employer hesitate. This can be particularly the case with employees who may be worth taking a chance on but whose backgrounds indicate potential difficulties.” 
The editorial further goes on to reiterate the safeguards we have put in place: “But National proposes safeguards to prevent abuses and the time and effort employers must spend to advertise for and hire employees make it highly unlikely that they will misuse the system. It should also be remembered that trial periods were once commonplace without causing any great difficulties. The benefits to be gained will far outweigh any possible disadvantages.” 
I will also refer to the previous consultation. The legislation has been consulted on; it has gone to a select committee. There were 619 submissions. At the end of the day the vote at the select committee was tied and therefore lost. This bill has been extensively consulted on and if one looks at the submissions opposing the bill one will see that they talk about benefit entitlements. National has addressed that issue. Those submissions talk of employees being reluctant to change jobs if they were subject to a probation period which particularly applied to jobs that require relocation. That is why we have the provision that establishes trial periods by agreement. We recognise that this will not be suitable for all new employees and we recognise that it will not be suitable for all employees wishing to relocate. That is why the trial period is to be established by agreement between the employer and the employee. 
Another concern raised at the time was in relation to discrimination grounds. We have specifically retained the grounds and the protections under discrimination provisions. At that time the Opposition said that the bill would also allow employers to engage employees on a series of probationary periods. Even if one could fathom why an employer would do that and have an 89-day rollover period one would know that that would be expensive and not a practical or sensible solution. We have specifically provided in our bill that an employee is one who has not been previously employed by that employer. So an employer cannot use it as an 89-day rollover.