Bradford Sue: Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1851] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party opposes the introduction of this bill. This mean-spirited anti-worker legislation has no place in a modern and innovative economy. It has no place in a country whose people take pride in supporting human rights. It has no place in a country that wants to protect those who are the most vulnerable in society—a country whose people believe in the great Kiwi concept of giving everyone a fair go. I think it is a disgrace to hear people like the member of New Zealand First Peter Brown who has stood up for casual workers supporting this bill. I have heard him for the last 6 years in this Parliament— 
Peter Brown 
: Nine. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: —it is 6 years that I have been here—talking about how important the rights of casual workers are yet this bill is the very thing that will disenfranchise those workers of all their rights in the first 3 months of their employment. Mr Brown does not understand what the vote is that he is taking today. 
Does the Maori Party understand what this bill will mean for Maori workers who are some of the most vulnerable workers in this country? For the first 3 months of their employment they will have no rights at all. Under this legislation they can be sacked at will. It is a disgrace. 
Has the National Party spokesman for the elimination of political correctness so run out of work that he has the time to put before this House such an ill-considered and unnecessary bill? The explanatory note talks about the need to have probationary periods in this country but the member is wrong when he says that we do not have a probationary period for new employees. The probation period already exists in the Employment Relations Act. It is open-ended and it is up to the parties to the employment agreement to determine whether they want such a probationary or trial period. 
In addition as a result of recent amendments to the Employment Relations Act there is now a new test for the justifiability of dismissal in section 103A of the Act. This section requires an objective test of what a fair and reasonable employer would have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred. That means I say to the National members that if an employee is on a trial or probationary period it is a relevant circumstance that can be taken into account in assessing the justifiability or otherwise of a dismissal. 
We already have provision for this matter in the Employment Relations Act in a test that can take such a period into account so why on earth is Dr Wayne Mapp wasting our time with this bill? I think the answer is clear. The bill is not really about probationary periods; it is about stripping the most vulnerable of our workers of their already modest protections against unfair dismissal and unfair treatment for the first 90 days of their employment. This bill should not be called the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill; it should be called the “Employment Relations (Kick Vulnerable Workers in the Head) Amendment Bill”. 
Why do I say vulnerable workers and not all workers? The reason is that this bill would allow the parties to agree to a lesser period of probation so that if there was a strong union in a workplace there would be no such probationary period. It would mean that if a trade is in short supply it is unlikely that there would be a probationary period. It would certainly mean that the highly paid executive class would continue to negotiate employment agreements that see them paid tens of thousands of dollars if they have unsatisfactory performance issues and are dismissed. But what about those at the bottom? Who would have their employment rights stripped away by this pernicious legislation? It would be vulnerable workers—the workers whom Dr Mapp mischievously claims he is helping: young workers unemployed workers migrant workers and Maori workers. He should have also added women workers but perhaps he is too politically incorrect for that. 
Starting a new job is a vulnerable time for any worker. Some of the most sensible comments on this bill came from Andrew Little from the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union yesterday. He pointed out quite clearly that this bill would increase the risk for employees changing jobs and that it would in fact add rigidities to the labour market. Employers tell us at the moment that they hate rigidities and that they want a flexible labour market yet this bill will have the opposite impact. 
Worse than that—and I am not sure whether it is an intended or an unintended consequence of this bill—is that not only could workers be dismissed at will during that first period but also they would potentially face a mandatory unemployment benefit stand-down period of 13 weeks. The Green Party has always campaigned against the stand-down. We saw dreadful situations arising in the early 1990s when it was used in a widespread way. Do people remember the chap who had to live in a hole in the ground? I know that there were lots of people in Auckland sleeping out living under trees and surviving in the most terrible circumstances because of what was then the 26-week stand-down. If we go back to a system like that we will see a lot more of that happening. People would not only be sacked at will; they would then have to survive somehow for up to 13 weeks without any income at all. The consequences of that situation are not something we want to see in this country again.