Logie Jan; Williams PotoJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I also felt like applauding that last speech. The Green Party too is very pleased to continue to oppose this piece of legislation rather prosaically named Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill. I've got to say that the lack of elegance in the title is reflected in a lack of elegance in the intent and substance of this bill unfortunately.The bill which is in the name of the National Party member Brett Hudson—normally I would acknowledge the member for their initiative and luck at getting a bill drawn but unfortunately the member whose name this is in was neither the author of the bill nor the one whose name it was in when it was pulled so I can't do that. Actually I do feel a little sorry for him being stuck with this rather unfortunate bill that is about to thankfully go in the rubbish tin this evening.This bill has been through the select committee process and in part the bill was improved at the committee. The bill that was first sent to that select committee enabled the employers of people earning over $150000 not to ever be at risk of having a personal grievance taken against them even in cases of sexual or racial harassment. Anyone that has been following the world news around Harvey Weinstein and the many many many other cases of sexual harassment would recognise the significant risk that was in the bill as it was initially pulled. I do commend the select committee for ruling out removing that right of legal protection for victims of sexual harassment but it does tell us something about the ideology behind this.If we acknowledge the extent of the problem of sexual harassment in our workplaces and how it affects people—primarily women—in all strata of the income spectrum then we actually have to fundamentally recognise that imbalance of power between an employer and a worker that is at the heart of what is so wrong with this piece of legislation. If we need to protect people and give them a right of redress for sexual harassment then we need to actually acknowledge that they may well be at risk of other malpractice—and I use mal" broadly—in the workplace.It's important too to recognise that New Zealand has the second-worst level of bullying in workplaces in the developed world. A survey that was done—I think last year—found that one in five New Zealand workers had been subjected to bullying. There was a recent survey done this year of senior medical practitioners that also found exceptionally high levels of bullying in their workplaces. So if we are to get on top of that culture and ensure safety for everyone in the workplaces in New Zealand we need ensure that people have clear avenues for raising those issues and being protected and being able to have redress when things go wrong and this legislation erodes those protections and those incentives to build positive work environments. I wouldn't have thought anyone in this House would want that.I would also like to speak to some of the provisions that were mentioned by the previous speaker on the downside of what happened in select committee. My understanding is that the select committee made some changes that decided to exempt the employer from any obligation to provide the employee with any information about a decision to dismiss them. So now if this law was to pass an employer could dismiss somebody earning over $150000 a year without even giving a reason for it. And the person they were dismissing would not even have the opportunity—which was another change that was made—to be able to comment before that decision was made. It's just if you think about that power relationship that we acknowledge—I think you have to acknowledge—exists that imbalance and then to remove the right to even get a reason for a dismissal or to be able to comment on that decision to dismiss it's pretty clear that this legislation is tipping the scales too far in favour of employers.I think it was mentioned by a member of the Government side that this would apply only when people were on individual contracts but my understanding is that in the select committee process there was the decision to enable employees to opt out even when otherwise part of a collective contract. So again the protections and efforts to establish a standard and good employment culture and practice in a workplace which is often done through a collective agreement can be undermined by this piece of legislation.The assumption that we've heard is that if somebody's earning over $150000 a year then they'll automatically have sufficient bargaining power and the necessary skills to negotiate in their own interests even when we have a culture of severe workplace bullying even when we've had so many cases come to public attention of sexual harassment in the workplace that are experienced by high-income earners. We've had those cases and yet if somebody is—they may have the right to take a sexual harassment claim but on average the Human Rights Commission gets only 50 complaints of sexual harassment a year in this country and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment doesn't record that data. So when we know we've got one of the highest rates of gender-based violence in the world we could expect that we have a much higher rate of sexual harassment and we are not monitoring it and we do not have the systems in place to gather it and here we are looking—if that member had had his way—at changing the culture even more to make it more difficult for somebody to take a claim and to be able to be safe in their workplace. So I am very very pleased indeed to be seeing this going into the rubbish bin.I would just say finally that it is very pleasing to see and hear from members on the Government side who are acknowledging that imbalance of power and our duty in this place to support positive workplace cultures and employment practices. That means setting some decent standards like we had when the personal grievance legislation was introduced and protecting those standards so that we can actually make our workplaces that productive enjoyable place where we all find meaning and get to contribute. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Andrew Bayly—five minutes."