Bradford Sue: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:428] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 As mentioned earlier in the debate today I have tabled an amendment tonight to Part 2 introducing two new clauses—clauses 7A and 7B. These clauses are aimed at ensuring that people who are fired from their job under the provisions of this legislation cannot be subjected to the 13-week stand-down period that is provided for under section 60H of the Social Security Act 1964. The Minister has continued to assure me in the House that it is not in fact the Government’s intention to have this double jeopardy happening to people who are dismissed under the 90-day rule but I am not convinced completely by what she has said so far.  
I will summarise again the reasons why the Greens believe that the amendment we have on the Table tonight is necessary. At the moment Work and Income has the power to impose a 13-week stand-down on anyone who has been fired from his or her job for misconduct. However there is some protection for sacked workers at the moment because if a person takes a case to the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court a benefit can be paid until or unless the authority or the court finds against the worker in terms of stating that the misconduct allegations are proved. 
If the misconduct allegations are not proved the worker keeps the benefit; if they are proved the benefit has to be paid back and that is fair enough. Once the Employment Relations Amendment Bill comes into effect this back-up protection will no longer exist as sacked workers in enterprises with under 20 employees will have no recourse to the authority or the court during their first 90 days on the job. Therefore if workers are let go for misconduct how are they to find any justice when they report to Work and Income? Will the case manager as part of his or job then have to investigate and judge the facts of that particular employment case or grievance—whatever we call it—in the way the Employment Relations Authority would have done up until now? I do not think case officers working for the Ministry of Social Development are likely to have the training time or competence to carry out the sorts of functions that the Employment Relations Authority currently does. I believe that in fact they are far more likely to simply take the word of the employer accept the allegation of misconduct and deprive the applicant of any right to an unemployment benefit for the next 13 weeks.  
This adds a double jeopardy to this bill making it even more ill-considered and unjust for some workers than I believe the Minister of Labour originally intended. On top of this as far as I can ascertain the existing clauses of the bill we are considering tonight do not give an employee any right to be told why he or she is being dismissed. This will increase the problem for people applying for the unemployment benefit in these circumstances some of whom may well end up with no clear information whatsoever to give Work and Income when they are asked why they have lost their job. In the absence of any clarity or proof I feel that Work and Income case officers may at least sometimes apply stand-downs based on confused or no information. This is because case officers at times—not universally but at times—act in quite a prejudiced way towards beneficiaries.  
Welfare law is itself a nightmare of confusion. The consequence of this bill becoming law in its current form will be to add yet another layer to that confusion that the poor Work and Income staff have to deal with. Experience tells me that it is usually the beneficiary who misses out if there is any doubt at all in the granting or declining of benefits. This amendment from the Green Party is an attempt to address one part of the imbalance that is being created by a bill that strips new workers of their rights to contest unfair dismissal. I invite all parties in this House who believe that all workers deserve the right not to suffer twice over as a result of the implementation of this legislation to vote for the Green Party amendment.