Goff Phil: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Goff Phil: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:404] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Frankly that was pathetic. I said before that this Committee has one opportunity only to get accountability from the Minister of Labour the Hon Kate Wilkinson and the Minister ignored all of the questions that were asked of her. She ignored all of the questions. Let me put them again Minister so you can take a note this time and answer the questions that are being asked of you.  
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think we have a pretty unique situation here where the member has had according to my count probably half a dozen rulings from presiding officers over the last few days about what is now a relentless abuse of a strong parliamentary convention which is that members do not address members by the term “you”. By convention for the benefit of members who do not know this I say use of that term can only refer to the Chair and it is wrong to bring the Chair into debate. That is against the Standing Orders. I think the Leader of the Opposition can be forgiven for doing that three or four times in his excitement. But you have given a ruling earlier tonight which I heard and the member is continuing to do it. He is continuing to do it because he is trying to pressure the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson in a highly personal way. That is not how Parliament does business. Members can yell at Ministers in the chair and they can ask hard questions but they cannot use that term. The member is getting into the position where he is flouting consistent rulings from the Chair. Either the Chair asserts its authority or the rest of the Committee will have to assert its right to have the Standing Orders obeyed not flouted consistently by a senior member.  
Hon Member 
: How pathetic.  
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Points of order are to be heard in silence and if the member does not think that is a serious matter I say it is. To have a Leader of the Opposition consistently flouting rulings from the Chair is something that the Parliament takes seriously. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I do not need any help on this matter. I will just comment on the Hon Bill English’s point of order. I made it very clear at the beginning of this debate that members were not to use the word “you”. That does bring the Chair into the debate and we are not to have that any longer. It has happened over the last couple of days. Other presiding officers have commented on that and we want it to stop because it is an abuse of the process. Members cannot use the word “you” and it will not be accepted. We now move on.  
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think the Committee can reasonably expect accountability from the Minister given that this matter is not being referred to a select committee. Therefore I ask of you Mr Chair that when questions are asked of the Minister you ensure that an honest attempt is made to answer them. No honest attempt was made. The questions were universally ignored.  
I will put those questions again and I would like Mr Chairperson to have some quiet from the Opposition because I fear that the Minister is not hearing the questions over barracking such as that we are hearing right now. I want her to understand what the questions are.  
My first question to the Minister is: since she asserted in her initial speech in the first reading that no rights were being denied to employees why does the clause we are debating say employees will be denied the right to bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of a dismissal? And why can it be considered fair that if a person is dismissed for bad reason without legitimate reason being given such a person should properly be denied access to due process to challenge that dismissal? Those are questions one and two.  
Question three is: as this bill is not coming into effect until 1 April why is it not being referred to a select committee where public submissions could be considered and proper scrutiny of the bill by members of the House could be allowed instead of it being rammed through under urgency tonight? The Minister partially attempted to answer that question by saying it had gone to a select committee before which patently it has not; it was a member’s bill that went to a select committee. The member’s bill had some similarity to this one and it was rejected by 527 submissions out of 619. Is it therefore simply the result of the sheer arrogance of this Government that because a similar bill went to a select committee and was roundly rejected it will not take the chance of subjecting this legislation to similar scrutiny?  
I want to know from the Minister—this is question No. 5 I think—when a law was last passed through this Parliament that took away fundamental rights such as the right to due process if one is unfairly dismissed without that law being referred to a select committee. That is a very clear question and I expect the Minister to be accountable and answer it.  
The sixth question is: given that stakeholders— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During that exchange—and this is not directed at the leader of the Labour Party—the gentleman sitting next to the Hon Phil Goff threatened the Minister in the chair. The leader of the Labour Party may not have heard it because he was in full flight but the Hon Darren Hughes used the words “I’m watching you.” and he was pointing in a threatening manner. That sort of behaviour is for the older members of the Labour caucus certainly not for the jumped-up little person in that seat. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I think that of all the things I am known for being threatening is not one of them. I was telling the Minister that she was busy chatting away to the Government whips or to her colleagues over there and she was not listening to the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. He was having to use one of his calls in order to put his questions again because they were not answered the first time. I said to her that she was not even listening to them or writing them down. She then showed me a pad of paper and I said: “I’m watching you; you weren’t writing it down.” Mr Henare who thinks only in terms of aggression which is interesting then decided that was some sort of terrible abuse. I would be amazed if the Minister felt that because we were in a dialogue with each other and Mr Henare is not the referee of interjections between members. So I am perplexed to know what he is talking about. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the Hon Darren Hughes. I just caution members about the language they use. I did not hear the comment. We will move on. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Question No. 7 to the Minister is and was: was she aware of the criticism of this measure by stakeholders the Council of Trade Unions the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union FinSec the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists and most important the Human Rights Commission all of whom have been critical of the fact that they have been denied the right to have their voice heard? And is she going to arrogantly override that concern by continuing to deny those interested stakeholders the chance to have their voices heard in the normal democratic way that applies to almost every piece of legislation that is passed by the country?  
The final question—we shall call it question No. 8—was whether she accepts the criticism by the Human Rights Commissioner that rushed legislation is potentially risky legislation. Was this legislation rushed? If not why was it not available to members until a quarter to midnight last night? Was that because the legislation was in fact rushed—the Government had just finished drafting it—or was it because Gerry Brownlee was so absolutely arrogant that he did not want any member of this Parliament to see it so it could be subjected to scrutiny? If that is the case is the Minister satisfied that not sending the bill to a select committee so that the select committee can scrutinise it not allowing public submissions so that the public can have a say and not even allowing members of Parliament to see the bill until midnight—