Pillay Lynne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:473] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 This is a week of shame for this new Government—a week of shame by turbocharge—and today caps it all. What a great way to acknowledge human rights anniversaries! This is the 60th anniversary of the adoption in New Zealand of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When other countries are enhancing human rights and working hard to make life better for people in their countries and their communities and for their workers this country is taking a major step backwards—a major step backwards. 
National members say they are from the National Party and they are here to help. They are here to help vulnerable people young people older people and ethnic people. They are here to help them by helping them to get sacked in their first 3 months of employment. They are somehow helping their employment rights! Members should look at Kate Wilkinson: Kate Wilkinson who did not have the guts to stand up and defend this disgusting legislation; Kate Wilkinson who said: “National is not the party of compulsion.” That is the “Kate Wilkinson-ism”: “National is not the party of compulsion.” Well let us look at it. If someone goes to a job and is told to take it or leave it is that not compulsion? Job or no job—is that not compulsion? If someone does take the job within 3 months he or she may be gone—no reason given no discussion; that person has just gone. Is that not compulsion? I think it is a great way to indicate the National Party’s understanding of workers in New Zealand and where their needs their rights and their entitlements are. To me it smacks of the 1990s. 
The world is coming into difficult and challenging times—very difficult times. We in New Zealand now—workers and all New Zealanders—are coming to the ghastly realisation after 1 week of debate in this House that we have a totally inept and incompetent Government. 
Darien Fenton 
: And an unjust Government. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: And an unjust Government as my friend and colleague Darien Fenton said. It is an absolutely unjust Government. Wayne Mapp’s bill went to select committee. It was rejected big time by New Zealanders it was rejected by that select committee and it was rejected by the Parliament. So what did National do? There was no warning whatsoever to New Zealanders. Where was the media coverage on this? Where was this mentioned in the incoming Prime Minister’s statement? Where was it when National did its deal with the poor old Maori Party? Where was it when National said: “Oh by the way come in with us; we want your support.”? Aside from slashing taxes—and I do not think the Maori Party looked closely at that—where was the warning to them about what National was going to do to workers in New Zealand? 
With no warning whatsoever National has belted this bill through in urgency and the Minister does not even have the honour and the integrity to take a call and defend that Government’s position— 
Hon Member 
: Or answer the questions. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —or answer the questions—or in fact give a response to the matter regarding Anne Tolley and what the true position is. It is not too late now; the Minister can stand take a call and explain what the true situation is. 
The most insulting thing to me—and I am sure to my colleagues—is National telling this House and all New Zealanders that this bill is about opportunity! It is about opportunity and it is also a bill of compassion! It allows compassionate employers to be so visionary that they can see how unhappy their employees are before their employees can actually see it! They can say to them—compassionately and in a caring way: “You are just not happy in this job and we are going to let you go.” How often have we heard that statement: “We are going to let you go.”? The compassionate employers in New Zealand will let you go. 
Hon Simon Power 
: They will not let the Chairperson go. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: They are going to let these workers go. I thank Mr Power very much. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Here to help! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: This Government is here to help! Who will this bill affect? National opposed Sue Bradford’s bill. I acknowledge Sue Bradford and her youth workers bill. What happens to young people when they get a job? It might be in the hospitality industry it might be office work it might be in a service station—there are all sorts of different jobs. As we know that first experience in the workplace is very very important. What happens to those young workers? They will start perhaps on a lower rate of pay but they know that once they fulfil their 200 hours they will go on to $12 an hour. They will get this pay rise courtesy of Sue Bradford—let us acknowledge the Green Party and Sue Bradford and the Labour-led Government; they get that right. 
But what happens when they build up to their 200 hours? Let us acknowledge firstly that there are many good employers in this country but this bill is not about giving rights to good employers; it is about giving rights to bad employers. What happens when employees build up to their 200 hours? It might be a full-time job and they will be there in a few weeks or if it is part-time work it might take nearer to 3 months. What happens just as they get there—just as they are on that promise of getting $12 an hour which is not a high wage but it is one that will make quite a difference to their incomes? Suddenly that worker will be let go. That compassionate employer will see that the worker is not happy and that he or she can be let go. 
It could also be parents who have to take time out from their job. They might get into a job and then one of their kids might be sick. The previous Government supported flexible working hours. Did the National Party do so? No it did not. So mums or dads go into work and their child gets sick and they say they need to take some time off—it would be unpaid—to take care of their child perhaps for only a day or two. That might indicate to the employer that that worker is not really very happy in the job and he or she just might have to be let go. It might be just taking breast-feeding breaks. The employer might realise that that is actually quite inconvenient and he or she might be sure that that the mother is not really very happy taking those breastfeeding breaks. 
Hon Member 
: She might have got pregnant. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right; she might have got pregnant. This bill is the dream of an employer with prejudice. The employer does not have to justify in any way why he or she is sacking a worker. It could be because English is not the worker’s first language. It could be as I said before that someone is pregnant breastfeeding too young or too old. It could be that the worker has too many family commitments. Or and how often have we heard this it could be that the worker is just not a company person. A worker might say: “I’m sorry I can’t stay tonight; I have to go home and look after the kids.” That worker may then be told: “You’re just not into the work culture.” You just don’t fit. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member should restrain herself from using the word “you”. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I also want to acknowledge the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust which has produced a pamphlet with a great picture of a worker. The caption states that the worker has gone from inmate to workmate. The worker said: “If I had come out of prison and had no job I would have gone back to the old crowd and done crime to make money.” Well what about this worker who gets a job who has hope and aspirations again and who is sacked a couple of months into the job? What does that do to that worker’s self esteem job prospects etc?