Dyson Ruth: Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1848] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Labour will oppose the progress of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill. It is unfair it is unnecessary it is bad for employers and it is bad for employees. The bill treats new staff members as tradable commodities and it is a disgrace in terms of respect in our workplace relations. 
Labour believes in positive workplace relationships and that has been the basis of our legislation over the last 6 years. We have worked hard to achieve positive workplace relationships and in my view we should continue on that path. This bill from the National member gives employers the power to sack people within the first 3 months for no reason. That is the purpose of the bill. It is certainly not conducive to a climate of positive workplace relations and it takes us back to the divisive confrontational times of the 1990s. The bill will further constrain the movement of skilled workers in an already very tight labour market and it will reduce movement and flexibility within the labour market. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. New Zealand needs to attract labour not to scare it away. 
It is really clear from Dr Mapp’s speech—and he shared this with his current leader—that he has no idea that the Employment Relations Act already allows probationary periods. That opportunity is already given within the existing Act. Dr Mapp also said that it would not matter if we took away employment relations rights with his bill because people could go to the Human Rights Commission. He clearly forgot that the PC eradicator has said we should also abolish the Human Rights Commission because it was PC gone mad. So Dr Mapp believes not only that we should have no employment relations rights under the existing Act but that we should get rid of the Human Rights Commission and that legislation as well. 
A World Bank report states that New Zealand is the best country in the world for doing business in. The National Party can say that the World Bank is wrong. I ask Dr Brash whether the World Bank is wrong. It obviously has not listened to his advice; it was right when it sacked him—that was probably the best move it made. But the World Bank says we are the best country in the world to do business in and I prefer to listen to its advice than that of Dr Brash or Dr Mapp. 
Hundreds of thousands of new employees every year under Dr Mapp’s legislation would have no employment rights for 3 months. It would affect the people who are at the most vulnerable point in their employment relationship. From day one what they should be getting is support and encouragement to ensure that they are good employees and that their employer is a good employer. Most workers in New Zealand have on average six jobs in their lifetime. So that is six times in the life of an average New Zealander when for 3 months he or she would have no employment rights at all. 
The key issue for New Zealand in relation to the labour market should be how to attract workers with skills not how to sack them and how to take away their employment rights. We are competing hard in a global economy. Why would any worker want to take on the challenge of a new job when he or she would have no employment rights for the first 3 months? 
Hon Members 
: Read the bill! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have read the bill I know what the bill states and that is exactly the point the purpose and the detail of the bill. I know what is in the bill. For the first 90 days—the first 3 months—there would be no employment rights at all. 
So to set up a probationary period is not only unnecessary—such a period is already an option under the Act—but would literally take away all employment rights. Every year 200000 New Zealanders would have none of those existing rights. This legislation would remove their right of appeal for unjustified dismissal in the first 3 months in addition to removing their rights in terms of any unfair discrimination. So they could be discriminated against because they were too old—as the leader of the National Party may be assumed to be by some unfair employer—or because they were too brown too white too male or too female. If there was any discrimination at all—someone may be considered to be too young as the leader of the National Party may be considered to be by another employer—the employee would have no right of redress under Dr Mapp’s bill. 
Protection from any unfair discrimination would go under this legislation and any people who were sacked because they were Maori Pacific Island or women would have no legal redress at all under the Act. Why would we want to do that? Why would we as a Parliament want to say that someone should have no employment rights or legislative cover to take an unfair dismissal case? If we wanted to see the Human Rights Commission with a big long queue of people outside it that would be fine but the way of the Employment Relations Service is a sensible way of resolving those disputes without going through the employment relations disputes procedure. 
In my view this bill attempts to fix a problem that does not exist. It offers the solution of a probationary period that is already available under the law and takes away rights that are quite fundamental to a new employee. The basic employment rights of New Zealanders should be protected from day one. [ 
Interruption 
] Read the bill and you will find out you are wrong—I cannot remember the member’s name. I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker I did not mean you but I could not recall that member’s name. That is the first contribution I have heard the member make to the House. Under section 67 of the Act there is provision for a probationary period so all the concerns that Dr Mapp and Dr Brash raised already have that opportunity to be addressed under the existing legislation. But the Act does not take away people’s right to go for mediation or arbitration if they consider they have been unfairly dismissed or if they want the right to fairly negotiate their wage. 
In my view what Dr Mapp’s bill would do would be totally ignored by the overwhelming majority of good employers in New Zealand because they will continue to go through a fair process with their employees but it would give the bad employers a legal out to treat their workers badly. It would incentivise sloppy management. It would give bad employers a legal protection against the unfair dismissal of their staff. The lawmakers need to recognise that supporting employers and employees by creating a legislative environment where there are healthy and productive workplace environments and where all employees and employers can treat each other with respect and fairness is the best contribution to productivity that New Zealand can make. Why would New Zealand want to go back to the division of the 1990s when our most vulnerable employees—people who are Maori or Pacific or young or old—while they are in the first 3 months of their job and are trying to do a good job can be sacked for no reason and have no legal protections? 
This bill is one of the biggest steps back that New Zealand could make in terms of looking at the challenges that the global market poses to New Zealand. We need to attract skilled workers and we need to offer them security of employment. As a very fundamental basis of that we need to offer them fair employment rights and fair employment conditions. This bill in both its title and its specificity takes away the employment rights of the most vulnerable New Zealanders. I urge all members of the House to consider that there is an existing probationary period within the legislation. All that this bill does is to take away for 3 months additional employment rights that New Zealand workers have for no added benefit. 
I am very proud to oppose this bill.