Dalziel Lianne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:419] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 There are some follow-up points that I want to make because I really think that the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson has not addressed the fundamental issue which is about process. The process in relation to this bill has been nothing short of appalling; it is so bad that even Business New Zealand does not want this bill to go through all stages under urgency without the opportunity to scrutinise it in a public setting at a select committee.  
I have heard various members of the National Government make the point that this bill had to be rushed through under urgency because of the need to get the legislation in place. It was kind of like saying they wanted to have people employed by Christmas and gone by Easter; that was the methodology that they really were talking about. But actually this bill does not come into effect until 1 April—after Easter. So why is this an April Fool’s Day bill? Why is it being dealt with under urgency and passed through all of its stages without the degree of scrutiny that one would expect from a good-quality regulatory process? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It has been brought to my attention that pressure has been applied to the Minister in the chair from the Leader of the House not to take further calls. He has indicated to her that she is not— 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Members may well laugh but one of the absolute privileges that members of the House have is to speak in the Chamber and it is very very clear going back hundreds of years in the Westminster system that it is a breach of privilege to pressure a member not to speak in the Chamber. It is a matter that we have to have clarification on. I want an assurance from the Leader of the House that he made no such comment—although it would be a breach of privilege I think if he gave that assurance. I want an assurance that no further pressure will be put on the Minister not to take a call. As you are aware this concerns the very thing that only yesterday in parliamentary terms—or 3 days ago in terms of the outside world—the Speaker went to the Governor-General and sought assurances on: that members’ privileges to speak would not be hampered in the House. Yet now a Minister is doing exactly that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Thank you for that. The allegation the member is making is very serious. The matter cannot be dealt with on a point of order; there are other processes to deal with it. It seemed to me that the Minister in the chair having spoken on several occasions in the debate did not appear to be particularly constrained. But if the member has evidence to that effect he should write to the Speaker taking that up with him as a breach of the privilege of the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The purpose clause in Part 1 states: “The purpose of this Act is … to provide when an employment agreement may specify a trial period of 90 days or less during which an employee can be dismissed and cannot bring a personal grievance or other legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal subject to certain exceptions;”. We will deal with the exceptions in much more detail when we get to the next part. But the point I want to make is this. The Government has made the point that it wants this legislation to protect vulnerable workers in terms of their ability to get jobs yet this measure gives no protection to the most vulnerable workers.  
I know that I used an example of an extreme case in my first reading address on this bill but I think it is a very important example which the Minister should think about very carefully. When young people are going into their first job they need considerable support. If their employer does not have to tell them what the expectations are and can just let them go at any old time in the first 90 days of employment how is that employee going to be any good in terms of his or her future career prospects having been treated in such a frivolous offhand way? The consequences in the case that I mentioned were extreme. They were the worst circumstances but they were real. That is actually what happened and the reason the mother came to the select committee was that she felt that young people should not be able to be disciplined by their employer without an adult being with them to support them in those circumstances. She pleaded with the committee regarding the Employment Contracts Bill. I know that Gerry Brownlee thinks there were no hearings on the Employment Contracts Bill but there were many— 
Hon Member 
: He wasn’t here then. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: He was not here then. The point is that that woman came to Parliament because she seriously wanted us to think about the consequences of exposing young people to the sorts of individuals who may not have their best interests at heart.  
I am not someone who thinks that every employer is a bad employer. I worked in the trade union movement for a number of years and I dealt with very very good employers. In most instances employers were good to deal with. But because we represented our union members we represented the people who had not been sacked as well as the people who had been sacked and often we had to take that into account as well. We provided I think a good service to the industry as a whole. We took the industry’s needs into account and we certainly would not let young people be sacked like that without any sort of support surrounding them.  
This bill takes away the most fundamental rights of workers who need the most support from the State. Those people cannot negotiate away their conditions of employment around a 90-day probationary period. It is a joke to say that that is done by agreement. We know that the agreement they are offered is a “take it or leave it” one. The only choice that a lot of the most vulnerable workers will ever get is to “take it or leave it”. That is the choice they are offered—nothing more nothing less—and this measure is not good enough for the people that the Minister says she wants to protect under this legislation. It takes away rights.  
Yesterday was international Human Rights Day.