Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6726] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. Today Parliament has an opportunity and that opportunity is to help people get a job. That is the whole reason why I moved the bill in the first place. I say to the House that it is why certain parties in Parliament—United Future New Zealand First the Maori Party and ACT—actually voted for the bill at the first reading. If we go back and read the speeches of those parties’ members we see that there was a common theme: how to boost employment particularly for those struggling to get that first job. A common theme through this Parliament is that this bill is to help get people a job. 
Without exception during the select committee process employers and indeed many others said that the bill would make it easier to make that job offer especially for small to medium sized business enterprises. For them an additional person is a big decision. If they get that decision wrong then it can be disruptive not so much in terms of money but in terms of management disruption employment relations and so forth. That is exactly what small employers said to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. In this country 95 percent of all employers are small to medium sized enterprises. This bill is designed to help them. That is why the Government’s own advisory group has said to this Government time and time again that the most important thing the Government can do for those employers is to give a probation period in our employment relations law. 
 What does the Government say? It just casually ignores that. Members on the other side talk about transforming the New Zealand economy. Well why do they not do something that would make a difference? Why do they not listen to the people who actually do the employing? Why do they not take advice from those people? 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard from a wide variety of people: employers employees business groups trade unions young people and immigrants. In all cases there was consensus that this country needs to do something to boost employment especially for people who find it hard to get that first job. Naturally there was some disagreement about how that might best be done. The employers certainly said that this bill would make a difference—and bear in mind that these are the people who make the initial employment decision. Some passionate submissions from employers came on that very point. They said that this bill will make a difference. I refer parties in this House to this particular fact. 
I have spent a lot of time on the radio and elsewhere saying that this bill is aimed at youth employment. Youth employment is substantially worse than general unemployment. It would not matter quite so much if the gap was narrow but it is actually getting worse. Young people are finding it harder than older employees to get that first job. So the gap is widening. 
I remind the House of this one stark statistic: Maori youth unemployment in the 15 to 19-year-old age group is over 25 percent. One in four young Maori who would like to get a job cannot get one. Why? The reason is that no one will offer them one. One would think that in our environment of relatively low unemployment people could get a job if they wanted to yet 25 percent of young Maori cannot get that first job. They find there is a resistance for whatever reason. It could be due to skills presentation background or whatever but they just do not get that initial job offer. The gap is growing and is getting worse year by year. I have heard the Minister of Maori Affairs say in this House that the gap is closing. He is wrong. The gap is actually widening and this country has a very serious problem ahead of it. 
Having listened to the speech made by Dr Pita Sharples I understand that that was precisely the reason for the Maori Party actually voting for the bill at its first reading. Its members said they wanted to hear the arguments in the select committee. They also said they wanted changes made to the bill and in a debate with Mr Hone Harawira I said I would make changes to it. They know that. They have had those changes for nearly a month. The changes reflect the concerns of the submitters. The Maori Party the New Zealand First Party and the United Future party have been listened to. I took their points on board have made amendments and will seek to table my amendments later today. 
In the report back to the House I set out the reasons for those changes because it was recognised that the bill was not quite right. I point out that the concerns came not just from employees which was predictable but also from Business New Zealand and the Employers and Manufacturers Association. They were concerned that there was not a fair process in the bill initially and they wanted a proper system of warning—some sort of notification—as to whether the probation period was working out. They wanted a mediation process that was prompt efficient fair and reasonable and that is exactly what many of the submitters who opposed the bill also wanted. I carefully listened to those submissions and have indicated in the numerous interviews I have had with Mr Hone Harawira and Mr Andrew Little—including on radio and television—that I would take their concerns on board. I have done so and I will be tabling my amendments. 
The Maori Party knows full well that its principal concerns are being taken into account so I was a little disappointed earlier this week to receive a letter from the co-leader saying that the Maori Party was likely to oppose the bill. I make this observation: if the party said in August: “Oh no we don’t need to hear any more of the submissions. We’re going to change because of some constituency pressure.” then it does become difficult to change again. I understand that but I say to the Maori Party to at least for the future allow the process to take place and judge the report by what has come out of the select committee. That is what the Parliament has it for. 
I say to New Zealand First members—whose deputy leader Mr Peter Brown voted for the amendments that I have proposed—that they know full well that what we are really debating in the House today is the bill as it would be if it included the amendments I am putting forward today. That is how this bill would be put into the law. I say to them that if it is good enough to vote for the amendments in the select committee then surely it is good enough to vote for them in this House today at the second reading. 
I turn very briefly to those amendments. The first change is to confirm so there is no doubt whatsoever that probation periods would be a voluntary agreement—not mandatory but voluntary. If they did not suit particular employment situations then they did not have to occur. The second point is that the period would be 90 days for long-term contracts and 30 days for short-term contracts casual work seasonal work and the like. That was an issue of major concern for many people. The third point is that the period of notice would actually go to the pay period so people would not lose their job literally the next day. They would get a proper week’s pay or 2 weeks’ pay to ease the adjustment. I think that is only fair. The next point is a proper process of dispute resolution—a warning mediation and I might add all discrimination issues going through human rights procedures. 
The amendments I have put forward are fair and balanced. I have listened to and the amendments reflect the submissions. I ask those parties that have questions to vote for the next stage in this process—for the bill to proceed to the Committee of the whole House. I will be tabling the amendments I have drafted. They fully reflect the amendments set out in the report back to the House.