Worth Richard: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16160] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to speak on behalf of National in connection with Part 4 of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill. This is of course legislation that National bitterly opposes and for good reason. Because in this legislation and in particular in Part 4 we see a real exemplar. That exemplar is that politics has completely dominated over principle. If we wanted to see politics in action we saw it the other night where in the precincts of this Chamber the president of the major trade union organisation in New Zealand was closeted with members of Parliament from the Labour Government seeking to subvert their views. That is why I say in connection with Part 4 that politics has dominated over principle. 
Part 4 is we might say a simple enough part. Indeed it has only four sections but what significant sections they are. What Part 4 is about—similarly to Part 3—is consequential amendments to other primary pieces of the legislation. Whereas Part 3 was concerned with the Health and Safety in Employment Act Part 4 as the member opposite wisely notes is concerned with the Human Rights Act. 
 I want to look quickly at some aspects of Part 4 that I think are worthy of particular comment. As others have commented one of the things Part 4 does is repeal section 64 of the Human Rights Act. When one looks at what replaces it one sees that the changes on one view of it may not be all that significant because new section 79A “Choice of procedures” is inserted. That leads me to the second point I wish to make in this call with the intent of taking further calls on other aspects of the part if there is the opportunity. What this Government inappropriately does is draft legislation with a very very high degree of prescription. Because it has taken that prescriptive approach the reality is that gaps occur. 
It is simply not possible to foresee the implications of such highly prescriptive legislation. Let me give an illustration of that. What will the situation be if an employee starts down let us say the human rights pathway in section 79A and sees perhaps for good reason that that outcome will not best advantage his or her cause? One might think that the issue would be governed by subsection (3) but it may well not be. It would be possible to discontinue those proceedings and start down the other line if some greater degree of advantage were to be seen there. 
So I have spoken about how politics has dominated principle and I have spoken about the prescriptive nature of the legislation and given an example. But there are other examples. Why is it necessary to state in section 92BA inserted by clause 101: “Proceedings before the Tribunal are to be commenced by the lodging of an application in the prescribed form.”? That is utterly superfluous. We then have to move to a position whereby there are regulations or rules prescribing forms. That is what I am saying when I assert that the prescriptive nature of the legislation is completely unnecessary. 
I now pick up a point that other members of the National Party have similarly identified which relates to the burdens of process. One would think as a matter of principle that an employment law issue might be dealt with under this legislation—that another Human Rights Act option would not be given.