Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:347] 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I have to say that the last speaker the Hon Trevor Mallard is living in some kind of alternative reality based on the hogwash he was saying and on the extraordinary cloth-cap socialist dogma he was trotting out—something from at least 80 years ago. Frankly that kind of speech should be treated with the ridicule it deserves.  
I ask whether the member on the other side of the House is completely unaware that only two countries in the entire OECD do not have trial periods of the sort being put forward in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Members on the other side of the House always talk about Scandinavia—that it is the miracle place and that it has the most advanced social legislation the most progressive workers’ rights and so forth. Well I have news for members on the other side: those countries all have probation periods. In fact this bill is in large measure modelled on some of those probation periods. They have chosen a period of 90 days. Other countries actually have a probation period of 6 months. Some have 1 year. Britain used to have 2 years then it reduced it to 1 year. Australia has 6 months.  
I drafted a bill not dissimilar to this one some 2½ years ago. I deliberately chose 90 days because it was at the most moderate end of appropriate trial periods. My intent was to reach out to New Zealanders whether they were employers or employees and say that this was a fair approach to the issue. It was not 1 year or 6 months but 90 days and it was voluntary at that.  
We just heard the previous speaker say that under this legislation no one would want to go from a job—and he actually used this example—paying $100000 to one paying $105000. I guess all his friends have jobs like that. I ask whether he really thinks that none of those people have the ability to negotiate and say that they have 20 years’ experience in a particular field and have a lot of references. Those people can tell the employer that they do not need the 90-day trial period in this particular case and that if he or she puts it in then they will not take the job. That is the nature of the negotiations that we expect. I would be surprised indeed if there was any 90-day period in the educational sector involving the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers Association. The truth is that negotiations will happen in appropriate circumstances but not in other circumstances.  
One of the extraordinary things that members opposite are arguing is that because of this legislation people will not come to New Zealand. They say that the people of let us say South-east Asia India or the People’s Republic of China will think that if there is a 90-day probationary period in New Zealand they will be going to some sort of hellhole where workers have absolutely no rights at all and can be treated in a completely cavalier way. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Ha ha! Do people know what those members said? They said “That’s right.” Alternative reality here we come! It is visited on the Labour Party—that kind of statement certainly demonstrates that.  
The people who want this most are in fact new immigrants. The most important thing for them is to get their foot in the door. They want to say to employers to take a chance on them and if it does not work out in 90 days then there is not too much risk. There is the possibility of mediation but employers will not be paying thousands of dollars in legal costs to go to the Employment Court the Employment Relations Authority and so forth. New immigrants want employers to take a chance. That is what they want. Because I represent North Shore I talk to huge numbers of immigrants; that is the nature of North Shore. Consistently they ask employers—particularly if their English language skills are not quite all there yet or if they have qualifications that New Zealand employers do not fully recognise or more accurately do not understand—to just give them that chance and they will satisfy all of their concerns because of their work ethic and the skills that they will demonstrate in practice. Then the employer will say that it was worth hiring them.  
The 90-day period will help that group more than any other group in society. So why on earth would Labour seriously suggest—as the junior whip Steve Chadwick apparently believes—that this provision will turn immigrants off? Actually they are probably the group that is most forthright in arguing for this provision. The other groups that will particularly benefit I think are people starting their first job. They are the ones who again say that they have a lot of skills and are really keen and enthusiastic and want employers to just give them a go. They want to prove themselves to employers through the way they work. Some employers particularly smaller employers find it difficult to make the decision to hire someone.  
We have deliberately shifted this bill away from the one I introduced 2½ years ago. In fact the consideration by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee of the hundreds of submissions led to quite significant changes. One of those changes was to ensure that there would be written warnings. Another way was to ensure that there would be mediation. Another way was to ensure that human rights discrimination which I had originally said would be dealt with through the Human Rights Review Tribunal would stay with the Employment Court and the Employment Relations Authority. There was never any suggestion that fundamental human rights would not be covered by a process of litigation but the view was taken to keep the process within the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court rather than put it with the Human Rights Review Tribunal. I thought that was a fairly logical approach. Those adjustments were made and they are entirely reflected in this bill. 
A further adjustment is very important as well: the probation period is available to employers who employ 20 people or fewer. That is very deliberate. We know—and a lot of evidence on this issue was presented at the select committee as well—that larger employers get a lot of advice on the way that they employ people. They have human resources consultants and all that sort of thing. In addition when they take on a new person it might be one person in 25—4 percent of the workforce. If things do not work out it does not have a huge impact really in terms of the business as a whole. But if a small employer with five employees takes on one person then that person is 20 percent of the business and that is very significant. It is very significant if that person does not work out—if the person is overly disruptive does not fit into the team or does not have the appropriate skills. It does not affect just that one person; it affects everyone else in that organisation. That is why we have proposed the limitation of this measure to smaller employers. Not only is there the issue of having human resources consultants and all those sorts of things but also there is the issue of scale—the impact on a very small business of a person whose placement does not quite work out.  
I have to ask myself why on earth Labour is spending so much energy on opposing this bill. Does it not just make those members look a bit ridiculous? Does it not just confirm to the New Zealand public why they are in Opposition and why on the basis of their performance to date they are likely to stay in Opposition for some considerable time? This is a reasonable measure. It has been pitched at the lowest end of the OECD scale—at 90 days. We have ensured that there are mediation and human rights processes in the bill. People will not lose a job—and should not lose a job—because they are pregnant or something of that nature. That would be fundamentally wrong and— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: “Should not.” 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: People will not in fact because people will immediately have rights through the Employment Relations Authority to deal with that. They will have rights through the authority just as they do now. That will not change.  
I tell members opposite to look at the practice of the other modern democracies that we always compare ourselves with. If it is good enough for them with all of them doing far better than New Zealand in terms of growth and prosperity then surely we need to match it. This is a sensible reasonable and appropriate proposition to help New Zealand get going. That is why this Government was voted into office: to help New Zealand get going. That means all New Zealanders.