Pillay Lynne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Pillay Lynne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:668;Page:15375] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand with my colleagues and continue my speech in very strong opposition to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I think that when I was interrupted for no other reason than the House rising last time I was talking about the effect on young people of the 90-day “sack at will” legislation being extended to every employer in the country. I remember what happened a very short time ago when the Minister ploughed the 90-day trial through the House under urgency. Of course the Government said then that the legislation would affect only employers with fewer than 20 employees. Under this bill that practice will now extend to every workplace in New Zealand. So this is a very very sad day for workers’ rights and indeed for job creation. 
It is ironical that the Government says it is intent on creating jobs growing the economy and getting us on to a level with Australia in terms of wages and conditions. That is just a joke when every step that the Government takes undermines the ability of workers to get a fair deal. Our concern is all about workers in New Zealand having the ability to get a fair deal without fear of retribution or fear of being undermined. It is all about equalising the employment relationship because if people think that new employees who go into a workplace now fearful of being sacked within their first 90 days of employment have an equal relationship with the employer they are dreaming. 
I acknowledge that there are many many good employers in this country but there are a tremendous number of good employees as well. My concern and the concern of members on this side of the Chamber is about the way that all those good employees are to be treated unfairly— 
David Bennett 
: It only works one way. That’s true for Labour isn’t it? It’s only for one side. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is all right thank you Mr Bennett. We are concerned about the way that employees are treated when they enter the workplace and start the first 90 days of their work. The Department of Labour’s survey revealed that the workers it interviewed felt vulnerable and were concerned about job security and that nearly a quarter of workers were sacked within that 90-day period. If anyone in New Zealand thinks that a quarter of the people in the workplace are not worthy of retaining their job I think that is an appalling indictment. That is what the National Government obviously thinks because it has given employers free rein to sack people—and often they are young people—without any reason whatsoever. Maybe an employer does not like the employee’s hairstyle or the employee wears an earring. Employers do not have to give people a reason for sacking them. 
Darien Fenton 
: Could be too much sauce. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right; they could put too much sauce on the food. That is absolutely appalling. 
If my memory serves me correctly I am pretty sure that someone from the Government benches said the survey findings meant that 75 percent of employees kept their jobs. Well whoop-de-doo! If we think that a 75 percent retention rate after 90 days for new employees is acceptable that is a real indictment on this Government’s thinking—if it is thinking. 
Also while I am on the subject of employment rights I point out that if workers do manage to get through the first 90 days and then subsequently take a personal grievance for wrongful dismissal reinstatement is the primary remedy under the current Act if it is found that they were wrongfully dismissed. I think that is a very good thing; so does my colleague Darien Fenton. Why? Because it states that retention of employment particularly in this environment is the most important thing so if an employer has unjustifiably dismissed a worker then reinstatement should be the primary remedy. We all know that if the employer is an absolute bully or if there are irreconcilable differences between the employer and employee then of course the employment will not continue but that should be the primary remedy. This bill removes reinstatement as the primary remedy so even if a worker is dismissed unjustifiably—that is it is deemed by the Employment Court or by the whole proceedings that the worker is not at fault—the person still does not get the job back. That person will join the thousands and thousands of people in the unemployment queue because this Government is not creating jobs. Apart from the fact that this is grossly unfair it is offensive and is just plain dumb. 
This legislation is not about creating jobs and it is not about retaining people in work. It is just about tripping back to the 1990s under a Government that simply cannot get out of that mode. Although under the previous Labour Government we had finally put ourselves in a position where New Zealanders could hold our heads high internationally because we had labour relations that stacked up this back-to-the-future lot is taking us back to the 1990s. We are being taken back to a time of shame back to a time of people being fearful of losing their jobs back to a time when workers’ conditions were slashed— 
David Bennett 
: Oh come on! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: “Oh come on!” says Mr Bennett the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. This Government is bad enough but the chair and the Government members on that committee did not listen to the vast majority of the submitters who opposed this bill. That chair made a mockery of the select committee process. I congratulate the Labour and Green members on their minority report because what the chair and the Government members did on the committee was absolutely shocking. 
I thank Mr Assistant Speaker Roy for letting me know that it is time for me to close this speech. I look forward to the Committee stage on this bill. Thank you.