McAnulty KieranEMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (TRIANGULAR EMPLOYMENT) AMENDMENT BILL In Committee Part 1 Amendments relating to triangular employment KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Well it's marvellous to be here at this point. It's been quite the journey to get to here. Here we are tonight in the committee stage of the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill a bill that was not drafted by myself but a bill that I was happy to take on. I acknowledge Darian Fenton the former Labour MP and stalwart of the union movement who originally drafted this bill. Simeon Brown: The bill doesn't look anything like it. KIERAN McANULTY: But the interjections from my left are correct. This bill has gone from one which sought to include those employees within a triangular employment arrangement into a collective arrangement within the particular workplace that they found themselves in. What we found in the select committee process was that those submitters that turned up to select committee had an issue with this particular part of this bill and not necessarily the personal grievance part of the bill and we took that on board. We said Okey-dokes. We hear what you have to say. We will amend the bill accordingly." and this is what has been presented to the committee for discussion tonight. This bill seeks one very simple goal: the extension of the right of a personal grievance to those workers that are employed within a triangular employment arrangement. It is my hope that members to my left the National Opposition do speak in favour of this bill. It is my hope that after a period of reflection they have seen that this is such a simple objective. The basic provision of a personal grievance should be applied to everyone in this country that is employed. It is a right that most employees enjoy except of course for those that find themselves in a triangular employment arrangement. That arrangement is when an employee is employed by a labour hire company or a recruitment company as their employee but is then placed on assignment under the direct control of a controlling third party—what was originally drafted in this bill as a "secondary employer". But again we took on board the feedback from those who submitted to the committee and we changed that definition. I will point out that this bill does not take into account employees that work for a contractor—say for example a shearing contractor or a horticultural contractor. I say this because the National Opposition have mentioned this in the past. They seemed somewhat confused so I thought I'd cut it off at the pass. I say to the members to my left that there is a very clear difference between those employees who work for a contractor and those employees who work under a triangular employment arrangement. When I worked for the shearing gangs in Wairarapa I was under the direct control of the foreman and no different to someone who worked for a building contractor under the direct control of their foreman. It is no different under a horticultural contracting arrangement because they are directly employed by the people that have direct control over them. Where it is different under this circumstance is that whilst these employees are on placement at this controlling third party under the direct control of these companies and employers they have no right to a personal grievance. They could be treated poorly with no redress and we say that's wrong. My challenge to the National Party tonight is to explain to New Zealand why you think that not all workers should enjoy the protection that you enjoyed before you came into this House. Everybody that works for a living should have the right to redress. If we as employees are treated poorly we should have the right to be able to take that to the court and explain why. That is why I am very proud to present this bill. I look forward to the discussion and I look forward to hearing what the National Party have to say: an explanation to New Zealand as to why they think the simple principle of taking a personal grievance should not apply to these workers who—just like us—work hard but don't have the protections that the rest of us enjoy."