Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12434] 
4. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements as Prime Minister on industrial relations? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did he say yesterday at his post-Cabinet press conference that under the 90-day scheme employers have to give a reason for dismissal when the 90-day law that he has already put in place explicitly takes away from the employer the requirement to give a reason and to allow the employee being dismissed to comment on that reason? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because I believe the statement I made yesterday to be correct. That is because the 90-day period—[ 
Interruption 
]—the 90-day— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Aw it’s not fair! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Nice haircut! Let us get back to the 90-day probationary—do not blush “Dazza”! 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It’s a pretty tough job being Prime Minister! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It used to be so easy! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question that the Prime Minister appeared to be prepared to answer. I think the interjections are not assisting the answer. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I will start at the beginning again. Yes because I believe it to be correct. The reason for that is that within the 90-day period the provisions of good faith still apply. The concept of good faith— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The job has got so hard! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Mr Hughes can hear the answer if he wants to and not if he does not—I will not bother. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table two documents: one is a statement made by the Prime Minister that the employer has to give a good reason; the second is the Act itself annotated to show that the employer is explicitly exempted from the requirement to give a good reason. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Both of these documents are readily available to members. One is a piece of statute which is available to all members. The other is a statement that the Prime Minister made yesterday which again is a press statement. So I am not about to seek that leave of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why are employees according to the Employment Relations Act as set out in the statutes of this House denied natural justice in that they are able to be dismissed without good reason and without being able to challenge the decision? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I will have another go at giving the answer. The 90-day period is covered by good-faith provisions. The concept of good faith requires an employer to be communicative. It is reasonable to expect that that includes giving a basic reason. However there is no requirement for a formal written reason. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What protection is there under the 90-day law to stop bad employers from sacking employees without good reason thereby depriving them of their livelihood and leaving them with a blemish on their employment record? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because one has to honour the provisions of good faith and an employee could take a good-faith case. 
Chris Tremain 
: What reports has the Prime Minister received on support for the 90-day policy from those who are marginalised in the job market? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have seen a report of the case of Sanjay from Pizza Hut who has been delivering pizzas as it turns out to my house for about a year. He has a master’s degree in zoology and in India he worked in television education and health. He supports the policy and is just the sort of person the policy is designed to help. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister claim that the 90-day law creates extra jobs for disadvantaged job seekers when the Department of Labour report that he released on Saturday states that that cannot be demonstrated and states to the contrary that “very few” employers used the trial period for the purpose of giving a job to disadvantaged job seekers? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because the same report quite clearly states that “40% of employers stated they would not have or were not likely to have hired that person without the trial period.” 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: What does it say about the broad acceptance of this Government’s employment law changes when the position of Phil Goff in Opposition is supported by former Alliance party strategist Matt McCarten former Green MP Sue Bradford and professional protester John Minto especially when those veteran protesters from the 1970s could not even find the right building in which to finally start their long-hoped-for class war? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I suspect it says that if they are not good at navigation they should not give up their jobs as serial protesters and become taxi drivers because they will not last the 90 days.