Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I ask the Committee for a little tolerance and leeway during the initial speech on Part 1 to indicate the overall thrust of the Opposition in the Committee stage, in order to draw the attention of the Committee to some amendments. Some are in Part 2, but in order to make sure that people are aware of them, they are on the Table; we have done that as quickly as we can.
The first amendment, which is in my name, makes it clear that mediation will be available even to people who are no longer employees—people who have been dismissed—because as the bill is drafted, it applies only to people who are employees. Of course, once one has got the sack, one is no longer an employee, and the mediation promised by the Minister would not apply. The second amendment is the one supported by Anne Tolley on YouTube—it was widely circulated—which makes it clear that people within schools are exempted from this.
Hon Anne TolleyHon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
The member should look at herself on video and just continue to tell the truth.
The third amendment makes it clear—again picking up the commitment given by the Minister of Labour—that employers are not allowed to dictate that people are to have these trial periods; it has to be a matter of agreement. So if it is a requirement of employment by an employer, it will void that clause. That will provide new subsection (4A) for new section 67A, which makes it clear that a trial provision as a requirement is something that will be voided and will cause it not to take effect.
Another amendment is a requirement to put notice of termination in writing. That is relatively simple, and something I think any reasonable person would support.
The next proposal puts some pretty limited requirements on employers before the removal of personal grievance rights applies. That one requires the employer to set out in writing any concerns that could result in the employment being terminated and the behaviour required by the employee to address those concerns, and provides a reasonable time for people to perform according to that written notice.
The last amendment makes it clear that the probation period applies to a position rather than a particular individual. That makes it clear that the trial provision must be fully disclosed in any position description or material seeking applicants for the position, and it cannot be subsequently added to the employment description or any subsequent employment agreement.
With this series of amendments we have attempted to encapsulate the commitments that have been made by the National Party in their description of this bill. I think the amendments could well be described as the “keep Kate honest” clauses for six of them; the seventh one is the “keep the Minister of Education honest” clause. Here we are attempting to be helpful to the Government, to make sure that it has good legislation—it will never be good, but at least it will be designed to do what it said it would. We think that these are minimal changes that would have occurred if in fact the bill had gone to select committee.
I am obliged to tell the Minister of Labour that we will be opposing the bill and every clause in it at every opportunity we have between here and Saturday, or next week if we have the opportunity.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
We are not going to be here Saturday? Oh, I thank the member! When are we leaving? Can we get our flights booked? When will National throw in the towel? Friday—it will throw in the towel on Friday. That is good; we will all change our bookings. I will get the taxi booked for Friday and not for Saturday, as would otherwise have been the case.
I go now to Part 1 in more specific detail—and I thank you, Mr Chairman, for your tolerance of me working slightly outside Part 1 in the first 5 minutes, but I think now we should come back to the bill, and in particular Part 1 of the bill. I should say next that National indicated during the campaign and before the campaign—and I remember Kate Wilkinson at the Backbencher the day she earned the “KiwiSaver Kate” moniker indicating this—that National would keep the Employment Relations Act but it would make significant changes to it. She is right. This is one of the very significant changes that has been proposed, and I am wondering whether it would in fact be appropriate to rename the Act as a result of the approach she has taken.
It is certainly not an Employment Relations Act; it is an “Employment Relations Destruction Act”, or something similar, as a result of this change. The purpose of the Act is “to provide when an employment agreement may specify a trial period of 90 days or less,”, but we all know that this can already happen. We all know that it does happen. We had pleas from National on behalf of the ex-prisoner population of New Zealand—which I thought was interesting from National—for trial periods. I think just about everyone on this side of the Chamber knows that lots and lots of former prisoners have trial periods. Often when employers want to take on or look at ex-prisoners they will agree to have a trial period. Some of those trial periods actually occur while they are still prisoners. That is an interesting arrangement. It happens quite often in the Hutt Valley, and the Hutt Valley is better off for it, because in an area of labour shortage—at least up until recently, rural labour shortage—it means that people come out, have their trial periods, and at the end of their prison sentence they quite often go into full-time employment having already had what is effectively a probation period. They often still have a probation period from the other perspective as well; I think that is important.
The other part addressed in the “Purpose” clause is the changes to the Employment Relations (Breaks, Infant Feeding, and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2008 relating to KiwiSaver. I want to make it clear that this is the companion measure to the shocking thing that occurred yesterday, where as workers get a wage increase, employers are allowed to take the employer’s contribution to KiwiSaver out of the wage increase that is going to the worker.
Hon Parekura HoromiaHon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Well, it is just unfair and it is unreasonable. When I had discussions with some of the very big employers in New Zealand who were contemplating doing this in the period before the election and before we passed the legislation, when they looked at the question, every single one of them backed off. Every single one of them accepted that it was not fair. Every single one of them saw that it was wrong. But a lot of them saw that if they took that negative backward approach, what would happen in the future—and I think it is almost inevitable now—is an approach that looks more like an Australian one, where the 9 percent is a strict employer contribution and there can be no question of trade-off at all. I think if National goes down this route—and from yesterday it is clear it wants to go down that route—we will end up with something that is not a shared responsibility between the taxpayer, the employer, and the employee; it will go on to the employer completely. I think that would be regrettable, because I think the current cooperative arrangement—although I note that “cooperative” is something that is now on the proscribed list for Cabinet papers! National has put out a list of words that are not allowed in—
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
Today we are discussing the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, a bill that has actually been through a select committee process in very recent history.
It has. Members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee will know they debated this bill a short period of time ago. We took on board a great deal of public input, in the sense that some of the changes that members actually see in this bill, in comparison with the original member’s bill, were influenced by changes brought about at the select committee.
One of those changes is the requirement that the measure applies only to businesses with up to 20 employees. Basically, this bill applies to small businesses, and the whole heart of this legislation is to make it easier for small businesses to take on new employees. Is there anything wrong in our society, in our communities, and in our corporate world in letting small business have the opportunity to take on new people? Apparently, from the Labour Party’s perspective, there is a problem with that. Labour members will engage in all the fear tactics that they have to try to persuade people that this bill is not in the best interests of New Zealanders, especially people wanting to get a job, and especially small-business owners who want to take on people.
A small business does not have the infrastructure behind it that a large business has. It does not have the ability, necessarily, to take advantage of the current statutory ability to have a trial period. Small-business owners want a much more resilient approach, which takes into account the nature of their businesses and the way that they have to run their businesses. They do not have a big professional development team around them; they need legislation that is suitable for their environment. This legislation provides that suitability; it provides an avenue for small employers to go out there into the market and take on people they might not otherwise have taken on.
So it is not correct for Labour members to come here and say that this legislation has not been debated in public. It has. It was consulted on in a period of time close to the election. It was consulted on through the select committee process in the last parliamentary term. In that process, we came to some extraordinary conclusions. Many people—whether employers or employees—submitted that they thought there was a real need for this legislation. In case after case, people came before the select committee to say that they wanted legislation like this, because it would give them a chance to get a job. Migrants came and said they needed legislation like this to give them an opportunity, and employers said it, as well. This legislation has been debated, and it is in the best interests of New Zealand employers and employees.
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
Because of this Government’s absolute determination to deny a select committee the chance to subject this bill to scrutiny and the public to make submissions, Labour members expect that this will be a long Committee stage, and we expect that the Minister of Labour will take the call to answer the questions put to her. She has to be accountable; she is not paid $240,000 a year to sit in the chair dumbly and not answer questions. I want to put a series of questions to the Minister. I hope she makes a note of them, and I hope she answers in full, because this is the country’s only opportunity to get answers from this Minister and this Government.
The first question I have for the Minister is this. She said in the first reading that this bill was not about taking away rights. I refer her to Part 1, which we are now debating. The explanatory note states that the purpose of this bill is to enable employers, during an employee’s first 90 days, to “dismiss an employee without the employee being able to bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal,”. The Minister said it was not about taking away rights, but the part we are debating explicitly says that an employee in his or her first 90 days can be sacked for any reason, without having the redress of a personal grievance procedure or being able to take a case to the Employment Court. That redress, I put it to you, Minister, is a fundamental right for workers. It is fundamental because there is nothing more important to most people than their security of employment—holding on to their jobs. Their jobs are their way of earning a living, and having the protection that they cannot be sacked for illegitimate, unfair, and wrong reasons is a fundamental right. So I want you, Minister, to justify to this Committee why you say this bill does not remove rights.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
The member knows he cannot use the word “you”, and from now on I make it very clear that the word “you” cannot be used in this debate.
I accept your ruling, Mr Chairman. I want the Minister to answer the question as to why she misled this House by saying this bill was not about the removal of rights, when this part that we are debating now patently demonstrates in black and white that this bill takes away one of the most fundamental rights and protections that any worker has. Why should any worker be subject to dismissal for unfair and invalid reasons, and not have redress for that? If that is not taking away a right, I would like to know what it is. It seems clear to everyone that the Minister has misled the House with her initial claim. Then she said that this bill was a moderate bill to protect the rights of workers. How does one protect the rights of workers by denying their ability to take a personal grievance if the boss sacks them for invalid reasons? That is fundamental.
I would like to ask the Minister a second question. We know that this bill will not come into effect until 1 April next year—1 April 2009. That being the case, will the Minister explain to the Committee why a bill that is so controversial, a bill that denies people basic rights, cannot go to a select committee?
The third question is whether the Minister accepts that a whole range of critical stakeholders in this legislation have protested about the denial of their right to have an input into it. The Minister knows who those stakeholders are. They are groups like the engineers union, the Council of Trade Unions, FinSec, the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, and even Business New Zealand, which said that this was an improper process. I want to know from the Minister why she thinks it is acceptable that legislation of this nature cannot be commented on by stakeholders who have a vital interest in it. I want the Minister to tell the Committee of one other example in the last decade of legislation that strips people of fundamental rights not having gone to a select committee—one piece of legislation in the last decade, or even going back to 1951. I want the Minister to explain to the Committee what the precedent is for introducing legislation as dramatically bad as this—in that it takes away rights—and denying the people who lose those rights the chance to comment on it at a select committee. If this bill is not to come into effect until 1 April, what excuse does the Minister have for denying a select committee the right to subject it to proper scrutiny?
I want to know next from the Minister whether she accepts the argument of the human rights commissioner who said that rushed legislation is potentially risky legislation. I would like the Minister to tell this Committee whether this legislation is rushed. If it is not rushed—
Dr Jackie BlueAnne Tolley says that it is not rushed. Well, maybe Anne Tolley can tell this House why it is—I am sorry; it was Jackie Blue. Oh, the brunettes all look alike to me. If this legislation was not rushed, I want Jackie Blue to explain for her Minister why this House was not given a copy of it until 11.45 p.m. last night. If it was not rushed and it had been prepared long ago, why were the public, the news media, and members of this House not given access to it? It was because Government members were so ashamed of it that they did not believe that it could stand up to public scrutiny—they did not want anyone to see it. That might explain why it has not gone to a select committee. That seems to me to be a logical reason. But I also suspect, looking at the officials, that this bill has just been drafted. It is hot off the press. It was produced in haste, and there are bound to be mistakes in it.
Everybody in this House knows that the whole purpose of taking a bill to a select committee is to give the select committee members the chance to subject it to proper scrutiny. Almost all legislation that goes through this House goes through a select committee. The select committee system is a fundamental safeguard of the democratic rights of the members of this House, and of the country. Yet at the moment we are seeing bill after bill after bill that is not urgent, that is not needed, and that is not coming into effect for months not going through the select committee process. I want the Minister to tell us why this new Government is so arrogant that it can bring all of these bills—in particular, this bill—to the House, rush them through, not give anybody the chance to comment on them, and not put them through the scrutiny of a select committee.
We have heard no answers to those questions, Mr Chair. I put it to you—and I am putting it to you, Mr Chair, so I can say that—that this is the only chance we have to get accountability from the Minister, and I hope that you can exercise your powers to ensure that the Minister addresses and answers those questions. We do not want to sit here and ask questions that are purely rhetorical because the Minister sits dumbly in her chair and does not answer them. I expect to get full answers to those questions. We have put the questions clearly. Why did the Minister tell this House that there was no removal of rights and that this bill was about protecting rights, when this part says exactly the opposite? Why, when such an important right is being taken away, is no select committee hearing being held on this legislation? Earlier I heard members say “Oh, there was a member’s bill. Mr Mapp had a member’s bill.” That was a member’s bill, not a Government bill. There was no expectation on the part of the public that Mr Mapp’s bill would go through the House. This is a Government bill, there is majority support for it, and therefore New Zealanders must have the right to have their voice heard on it. Why is the Government running scared and not allowing that to happen?
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this
This bill is wrong, both in process and in substance. If it is so urgent, we have to ask why it was not identified as part of the 100-day programme and was not outlined in the Speech from the Throne. It seems to me that the only answer to that question is that the Government is trying to get it through quickly so that people might forget about it over Christmas. They will not have had the chance to speak on it, and when they see the consequences of it, it will be too late.
In essence, this bill is about removing workers’ rights. It allows workers to be sacked for no good reason. It would allow employers to sack somebody because they wanted to replace him or her with somebody else. It would allow employers to sack somebody because they did not like that person, or did not like something about him or her. It does not even have to be rational; it can be for any reason at all. This bill removes the worker’s right to seek redress for unfair dismissal. I remind the other side that workers are people. They are not commodities. They are people who have feelings, who have financial obligations. This goes against core New Zealand values; it goes against values like fairness and the belief in natural justice.
Who will be most likely to suffer under this bill? I can tell members—and the Human Right Commission obviously shares this concern—that it will be young people. I wonder how members on the other side of the Chamber would feel if their child or grandchild were sacked because an employer did not like the look of him or her on any given day. It will be young people, it will be lower-skilled workers, it will be new migrants, it will be Māori workers, and it will be Pasifika workers; they will be the people who suffer as a consequence of this bill.
This bill is particularly cruel and particularly cynical in the current economic climate. There is already a great deal of insecurity. People are worried about unemployment—we all are. This bill reminds me of the cynicism and cruelty of the National Government in the 1990s; it also attacked workers and stripped away their rights in a time of high unemployment. People will be less likely to raise issues with their employers, less likely to question things, if they believe that their employers have the right to sack them for no reason.
The point about there being a choice is absolutely laughable. In the case of most people—especially those whom I have outlined who feature in high unemployment statistics—it is absolutely laughable to think that when they get a new job they will turn round and say “Oh, I am sorry but I will not accept it with that provision.” You talk about this side of the House not having a view of the real world; well, actually, we do.
The other thing that I would like to say is that Government members believe that you are talking about a more—
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
I have explained before that you cannot bring the Chair into the debate, so do not use the word “you”.
He is the Chair, actually, I believe.
The Government members talk about a more productive economy. Well, one thing that I can say to the other side of the House is that more productive work places will not be obtained where workers’ rights are stripped away. More productivity will be obtained in workplaces where there are decent rights, where workers feel free to have a say, and where they are respected and valued and their opinions are respected and valued. The Employment Relations Amendment Bill does not create that sort of workplace.
Finally, I say that this bill is addressing a perception rather than a real problem. As an adviser to the Small Business Advisory Group, I can assure members that I have discussed it extensively with small businesses. [Interruption] I have discussed it with the Small Business Advisory Group; do those members think it does not represent small business? If members had read its report, they would have seen that the recommendation in it argued for—
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Five calls have been taken by the Opposition now, and a series of questions have been put to the Minister of Labour. The Minister is failing to answer any of those questions—failing to take the call. My question to you, Mr Chair, is whether you will take that into account in terms of the length of time that you allow this debate to go on for. I put it to you, Mr Chair, that this is a very special situation. Normally, the select committee would have hours to go over this bill, to cross-examine officials, to ask questions, to get answers. We have only the period of time that is available in the Committee of the whole House. Therefore, it is essential that the Minister rises to her feet and answers the questions; otherwise, this process, frankly, Mr Chair, is a farce. I am sure that you are committed to ensuring that this House does take this matter seriously, and that the Minister is accountable—and she is accountable, given her position.
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
I am sure that the member, who was having trouble using the correct terminology despite days of being corrected by the Chair—I think it is because he is just so excited—knows that how long the debate goes on is totally at the discretion of the Chair. Actually, it is not right for the Opposition to try to put pressure on the Chair over the way that the debate is being conducted. The Chair is running this debate, not the fresh new Leader of the Opposition, who cannot remember to stop bringing the Chair into the debate. Mr Chairman, my advice to you is to stick to the Standing Orders and to your traditional and conventional role in running the debate.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
Mr Chairman, I am somewhat surprised that you did not interrupt the new Deputy Prime Minister during those comments, because he clearly went outside what has been raised. You were, I think quite properly, asked by the Leader of the Opposition for a ruling. There is precedent in this area, and I am sure you are being advised on the precedent for setting the length of debates in the Committee stage; it involves the nature of the debate and also whether the bill has been to a select committee. Having said that, I want to say that this part of the bill is not the significant part; the next part is the significant part, and we will get on to it at some stage, either later tonight or tomorrow morning. But, Mr Chairman, I think that the ruling you are being asked to make is whether the Minister’s declining to take a call to answer questions is a factor to be taken into account in your deciding the length of the debate on Part 1.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
Thank you, Mr Mallard. These are not points of order. The Minister has the discretion to take a call when she feels that she wants to. The second point is that the length of the debate is determined by the Chair, and I will take into account all relevant factors in deciding when the debate will come to a close.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Well, I am not going to tell the Chair that it is unrelated when it is not, but it is a new question.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Well, it is asking you for an elucidation on the comments you just made.
Hon Tau HenareHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My request to you is to answer the question that was being asked—that is, whether the Minister’s not taking a call is one of the factors that you take into account. You said that you have discretion, and members in the Chamber have an absolute right to ask you what factors you take into account as you exercise your discretion. I am not arguing about whether it is your right to have discretion in determining the length of the debate. I accept that it is entirely up to you. But we also have rights as members to understand how your discretion is being exercised. That was the request that the Leader of the Opposition made, and I think it was something that was quite reasonably asked.
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
Of course, the member is wrong. The Chair is free to shorten the debate if he does not like the colour of the tie of the next speaker who is taking the call. That is the definition of discretion. There are conventions about repetition and about having had a full debate, and the Chairs of the Committee stage debates in the last few days have been very liberal—in my view, far too liberal—in how broad they have allowed the Committee stage debates to run. It is getting close to being out of order for a member to try to put pressure on the Chair to explain the reasons for the decisions that are made. We all know that, in the end, either the Chair or the Speaker makes a decision, and makes it for reasons that are fit and proper to his or her office, and we accept it. I hope the Opposition is not embarking on a tactic of trying to pressure the Chair continually in that way.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
There is nothing to rule on. There has not been a closure motion. If there is one, then I will take into account at the time whether all relevant information has been supplied.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
I rise tonight to speak to Part 1, particularly to the purpose clause, and to outline our opposition to this bill. Basically it is unfair. I was one of the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that considered the Wayne Mapp - Don Brash - Kate Wilkinson bill—the “Get the Sack in 90 Days Bill”—and I am very familiar with the arguments that went on through that process, so I do not accept the argument that this bill has already been debated. I am familiar with the arguments, yet I have found a whole lot of new arguments in this bill and a whole lot of new questions.
You know, I do not understand why it matters how long an employee has been in employment. What is the difference between having 20 employees and having 21 employees, for example? I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, why this particular figure has been created. Why did she pick the figure of 20 people? I would like to hear an explanation for that, as workers cannot do anything about the size of the firm they work for. They do not have any choice. If they want to go and get a job, they do not go and ask employers whether they have 20 workers, 15 workers, 10 workers, or 21 workers. And what is so different about a workplace that has 21 workers versus 19? My question to the Minister is how the staff will be counted. Will the number include part-timers, contractors, temporary, or casual workers? Will it be fulltime-equivalents, and what will count as a separate business?
I ask how the Minister will make sure that employers do not create separate businesses to be able to take advantage of and exploit workers under this proposed bill. What happens if the workplace had fewer than 20 workers when they were employed and then, when the workers started, the number went up to 23? I ask what happens where the employer employs 21 workers and sacks two of them at once. Will one worker be able to take a personal grievance and the other one not be able to? I would like to know the answers to those questions.
I would also like some answers to questions relating to the purpose in Part 1. Why does the Minister not think it is already hard enough when new workers start a new job? They have to learn new tasks and new routines, and they have to remember new information. They have to adjust to new hours, they have to adjust their family to the situation, and they have to make arrangements with their families to fit around their needs. It is a big deal starting their new job, and I want to know from the Minister why she thinks it is fair enough just to say to the worker that he or she has 90 days and can make all his or her arrangements, but it is kind of tough at the end of it, because if the employer decides that he or she does not want the worker—the face does not fit—well, tough.
I also want to know the Minister’s answer to the question of what will happen in the 90-day period if the worker gets the sack because he or she raises a health and safety issue. I know that the answer will be that the law provides for this scenario, but most workers will not raise those issues in the first 90 days, nor will they say that they would like to join the union and ask for a union form, because it is too dangerous. Why would they do that? No, they will keep their heads down. I ask how this helps us to engage and to build productive workplaces when livelihoods are on the line.
I also have not heard a satisfactory explanation from the Minister as to why the current probationary periods do not work. We do have them. We have already pointed out that we currently have probationary periods. The only thing that I have heard is that it is just too difficult and that it costs a bit.
I heard the member from ACT talking about his time as an employment lawyer, and one of the things we looked at during the select committee process was lawyers and advocates conducting personal grievance claims. What we looked at was lawyers and advocates conducting personal grievance claims—in other words, the ambulance-chasers who were the “no win, no fee” advocates. It sounds like that is what that member was, and I say good on him for being honest about it. But we asked the Department of Labour to look at it and to do some research, because there is more of a perceived problem than an actual problem. I think that the member said that the number of workers employed under 90-day probationary periods is very, very small, so what is the problem we are trying to fix here? As the member Shane Ardern used to ask, what is the mischief that we are trying to fix here? I do not understand that.
Even if a worker did get sacked because of racism, because she was pregnant, or because his or her face did not fit, how will the Minister make sure that that is not covered up? All that is provided for in this bill is that the employer just has to say that the worker is dismissed. The employer does not have to give a reason.
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this
I am delighted to take the call. I was waiting to take the call until I had my list of questions, but that is OK, I have four so far.
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
As we have said, the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is a very moderate bill. It was carefully drafted to give new employees the opportunities to get their feet in the employment door. It is not about taking away existing rights.
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
If the members on the other side of the House would like to read the bill, they would see that it does not apply to existing employees. It applies only to prospective employees, and it is only by agreement. I refer, firstly, to the labour issues spokesperson, Mr Mallard, who commented about mediation.
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
The Hon Mr Mallard said that, once sacked, mediation would not apply. That shows an alarming ignorance of employment law by the previous Minister of Labour because, if that was correct, under the Employment Relations Act at the moment no sacked employee whatsoever would have access to any mediation services. Perhaps Mr Mallard might like to refer to sections of the Act, such as section 146, which refers to “persons” rather than “employees”, in respect of where mediation is covered.
I refer to the Hon Mr Goff’s questions. He asked why the bill cannot be referred to a select committee.
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
The choice of when I answer questions is mine, thank you, I say to Mr Goff. The Hon Mr Goff asked a question about why the bill was not referred to a select committee. A very similar bill was referred to a select committee in 2006. The recommendation stated that the vote was tied and therefore lost. There were 619 submissions on that bill and we addressed much of the opposition to the bill. As I said in my second reading speech, one of the objections was that employees would be reluctant to change jobs if they were subject to a probation period. That is why we have made it by agreement. We are not forcing a trial period on employees. We are saying to employees to go to an employer and say “Give me a chance, give me a try, and I will prove myself in that 3-month period.”
There were concerns during that original select committee hearing about human rights and discrimination. We have specifically protected rights against sexual and racial discrimination. Those protections of human rights and health and safety still remain. They are still protected. One of the other objections made at the original select committee hearing was that it would allow employers to engage employees on a series of probationary periods—in other words, the 89-day rollover. Again, we have provided for that, because the employer of somebody who has been previously employed by that employer cannot use that same probationary period. We have added in those safety mechanisms because we appreciate that there are some unscrupulous employers.
What we have done is to balance the interests of the employer and the employee, and we have come up with a bill that is a win-win situation. It has safety mechanisms in it. It has a trial period for which small businesses have been asking for many, many years. In fact, the Small Business Advisory Group report in 2003-04, which was referred to, had as its first and foremost recommendation a trial period for small businesses.
The member Darien Fenton asked why this provision applies to businesses with fewer than 20 employees. Well, 20 is the recognised number for small to medium sized business enterprises. Those are also businesses that are less likely to have the human resources capabilities to make, perhaps, those right recruitment decisions. We have again added that extra protection to give small businesses the confidence to employ workers who are perhaps on the margins and perhaps have not been in the workforce before, and to give those prospective employees an opportunity.
The other protection that we have specifically stated is that those on a benefit who enter into a trial period that does not work out for some reason other than their own fault will not have to face the stand-down period on their benefit. We want to encourage workers to go off the benefit with the confidence that they can go back on to it if their trial period does not work, so they can get some confidence, and have the opportunity to enter into the workforce.
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
Frankly, that was pathetic. I said before that this Committee has one opportunity only to get accountability from the Minister of Labour, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, and the Minister ignored all of the questions that were asked of her. She ignored all of the questions. Let me put them again, Minister, so you can take a note this time and answer the questions that are being asked of you.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think we have a pretty unique situation here, where the member has had, according to my count, probably half a dozen rulings from presiding officers over the last few days about what is now a relentless abuse of a strong parliamentary convention, which is that members do not address members by the term “you”. By convention, for the benefit of members who do not know this, I say use of that term can only refer to the Chair, and it is wrong to bring the Chair into debate. That is against the Standing Orders. I think the Leader of the Opposition can be forgiven for doing that three or four times, in his excitement. But you have given a ruling earlier tonight, which I heard, and the member is continuing to do it. He is continuing to do it because he is trying to pressure the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, in a highly personal way. That is not how Parliament does business. Members can yell at Ministers in the chair and they can ask hard questions, but they cannot use that term. The member is getting into the position where he is flouting consistent rulings from the Chair. Either the Chair asserts its authority, or the rest of the Committee will have to assert its right to have the Standing Orders obeyed, not flouted consistently by a senior member.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Points of order are to be heard in silence, and if the member does not think that is a serious matter, I say it is. To have a Leader of the Opposition consistently flouting rulings from the Chair is something that the Parliament takes seriously.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
No, I do not need any help on this matter. I will just comment on the Hon Bill English’s point of order. I made it very clear at the beginning of this debate that members were not to use the word “you”. That does bring the Chair into the debate, and we are not to have that any longer. It has happened over the last couple of days. Other presiding officers have commented on that, and we want it to stop, because it is an abuse of the process. Members cannot use the word “you”, and it will not be accepted. We now move on.
I think the Committee can reasonably expect accountability from the Minister, given that this matter is not being referred to a select committee. Therefore I ask of you, Mr Chair, that when questions are asked of the Minister, you ensure that an honest attempt is made to answer them. No honest attempt was made. The questions were universally ignored.
I will put those questions again, and I would like, Mr Chairperson, to have some quiet from the Opposition, because I fear that the Minister is not hearing the questions over barracking such as that we are hearing right now. I want her to understand what the questions are.
My first question to the Minister is: since she asserted in her initial speech in the first reading that no rights were being denied to employees, why does the clause we are debating say employees will be denied the right to bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of a dismissal? And why can it be considered fair that if a person is dismissed for bad reason, without legitimate reason being given, such a person should properly be denied access to due process to challenge that dismissal? Those are questions one and two.
Question three is: as this bill is not coming into effect until 1 April, why is it not being referred to a select committee, where public submissions could be considered and proper scrutiny of the bill by members of the House could be allowed instead of it being rammed through under urgency tonight? The Minister partially attempted to answer that question by saying it had gone to a select committee before, which patently it has not; it was a member’s bill that went to a select committee. The member’s bill had some similarity to this one, and it was rejected by 527 submissions out of 619. Is it therefore simply the result of the sheer arrogance of this Government that because a similar bill went to a select committee and was roundly rejected, it will not take the chance of subjecting this legislation to similar scrutiny?
I want to know from the Minister—this is question No. 5, I think—when a law was last passed through this Parliament that took away fundamental rights, such as the right to due process if one is unfairly dismissed, without that law being referred to a select committee. That is a very clear question, and I expect the Minister to be accountable and answer it.
The sixth question is: given that stakeholders—
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. During that exchange—and this is not directed at the leader of the Labour Party—the gentleman sitting next to the Hon Phil Goff threatened the Minister in the chair. The leader of the Labour Party may not have heard it because he was in full flight, but the Hon Darren Hughes used the words “I’m watching you.”, and he was pointing in a threatening manner. That sort of behaviour is for the older members of the Labour caucus, certainly not for the jumped-up little person in that seat.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I think that of all the things I am known for, being threatening is not one of them. I was telling the Minister that she was busy chatting away to the Government whips or to her colleagues over there, and she was not listening to the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. He was having to use one of his calls in order to put his questions again, because they were not answered the first time. I said to her that she was not even listening to them or writing them down. She then showed me a pad of paper, and I said: “I’m watching you; you weren’t writing it down.” Mr Henare, who thinks only in terms of aggression, which is interesting, then decided that was some sort of terrible abuse. I would be amazed if the Minister felt that, because we were in a dialogue with each other, and Mr Henare is not the referee of interjections between members. So I am perplexed to know what he is talking about.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
I thank the Hon Darren Hughes. I just caution members about the language they use. I did not hear the comment. We will move on.
Question No. 7 to the Minister is, and was: was she aware of the criticism of this measure by stakeholders, the Council of Trade Unions, the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, FinSec, the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, and, most important, the Human Rights Commission, all of whom have been critical of the fact that they have been denied the right to have their voice heard? And is she going to arrogantly override that concern by continuing to deny those interested stakeholders the chance to have their voices heard in the normal democratic way that applies to almost every piece of legislation that is passed by the country?
The final question—we shall call it question No. 8—was whether she accepts the criticism by the Human Rights Commissioner that rushed legislation is potentially risky legislation. Was this legislation rushed? If not, why was it not available to members until a quarter to midnight last night? Was that because the legislation was in fact rushed—the Government had just finished drafting it—or was it because Gerry Brownlee was so absolutely arrogant that he did not want any member of this Parliament to see it, so it could be subjected to scrutiny? If that is the case, is the Minister satisfied that not sending the bill to a select committee so that the select committee can scrutinise it, not allowing public submissions so that the public can have a say, and not even allowing members of Parliament to see the bill until midnight—
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this
I seek leave to table a document that shows just one of the numerous occasions over the last 9 years when the Labour Party took particularly urgent actions to pass bills without the bill being on the Table. It just happens that in this case the bill related—
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
The member just needs to describe the document. He does not need to read it out in full.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
OK. The bill in question, of course, was the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill, which made legal the illegal spending of Labour in 2005—and I can say that Labour members did not want the public to know about that, either.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) Link to this
The Leader of the Opposition—who frankly would be better advised to spend his time up in his office signing off his Christmas cards rather than coming down here and making a fool of himself—purports to ask eight questions. He really only asked one question: why did the bill not go to a select committee? The truth is that this issue was extensively debated in the select committee. I inform that member that all the people who wanted to make a submission on the issue did make one. Interestingly enough, of course, 837 of the submissions were form submissions by hardcore, leftist trade unionists. I guess that may be disappointing to members opposite, but how seriously can one take submissions that are just written out by the Service and Food Workers Union on a little postcard, for heaven’s sake? The truth is that these issues were extensively debated.
This bill has actually benefited from that select committee process. When the bill I proposed came back for its second reading, the document from the select committee that was tabled in the House set out the nature of the amendments that would have been made had the bill got to the Committee of the whole House. Virtually all of those issues have been picked up in this bill. Effectively, it is as if this bill had gone to the select committee, and the issues that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are concerned about have been thoroughly canvassed. That is precisely why there is a mediation provision in the bill before us now. That was one of the outcomes of the select committee.
The other issue was the ability to go to the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court on the human rights issues. Initially in my bill they were going to go to the Human Rights Commission, but it was considered after hearing the submissions that it would be better to keep that within the authority. That also is now reflected in this bill.
Hon Ruth DysonHon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
Again we hear from the Opposition. That is complete ignorance on its part. There was never any suggestion, ever, on this side of the Chamber that we would abolish the Human Rights Commission. What an absurdity! That is another untruthful statement coming from those members. There was never any suggestion of that. When we think about it, why would I suggest that when I actually had it as the remedy in the bill I proposed? It is simply absurd, and I advise the member that if she and her colleagues are going to spend hours debating this bill, then they should at least get their facts right before they do so.
So the core issues, which seem to be exercising at least the minds of some members on the other side, have been answered. The issues that are relevant have been fully addressed in the select committee. The only people who would make submissions are precisely the people who have already made those submissions and their concerns have actually been addressed.
One of the bizarre issues that I keep hearing from Darien Fenton, who is obviously an ardent unionist, and I guess we would understand that, is that this bill will send New Zealand employment relations back into some dim, dark past. I remind that member and, indeed, New Zealanders at large, of two things. First, we are the only country, along with Denmark, in the OECD that does not have a proper probation period—that is, it does not have access to the full processes of the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court. Certainly there will be mediation. The second issue that she keeps raising is that this bill will somehow mean it will be difficult for people to get jobs. That is the actual suggestion; that this will make it difficult for people to get jobs. Do Opposition members not get it? The whole point of this legislation is to make it easier for people to get jobs, and that is the clear and obvious intention.
Finally, I want to remind members that this issue was put fairly and squarely to New Zealanders in the general election. There was a result in that election. Members opposite were once on this side of the Chamber. They are now on the other side. The reason is that they lost the election on this issue and on others.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I want to thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, albeit in a relatively limited way, for her response. I counted about 15 questions that were asked, and she was kind enough to address one of them. But unfortunately—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Well, she did answer it, but unfortunately she got the answer wrong. The question is one of mediation, and earlier I asked her whether someone is in fact still an employee after he or she is dismissed. She quite correctly pointed out that section 144 of the Act—and in particular subsection (2) in paragraphs (b), (c), and, most important, (d)—refers to persons. I think if clause 67B(4) had referred to persons, then they would be caught. Unfortunately, unlike the primary Act, the amending bill refers to employees. These people are not employees, because their employment has been terminated. I do not want to suggest reconciliation, because I do not want to get as close as that, but in the spirit of helpfulness I ask the Minister whether she is prepared to accept an amendment that changes “employee” to “person whose previous employment agreement”, or similar words.
It is not a complex issue, but there is a difference between the Act and the amending bill. A court would not be able to go to these issues; there could be declaratory judgment, but an individual could not take a case. It is possible a court could go there around a declaratory judgment. I am sure some of my learned friends will be able to outline that relatively soon. The court tends to think that Parliament does things deliberately, and if it says that a person whose employment relationship that has broken down and terminated can go to mediation, but in the amendment it says an employee—and clearly it is not an employee—I think it could well be the case that a court would say, on the basis not of an individual case but on review if the question is part of a case stated, that Parliament has acted deliberately. They will think that we know what we are doing. They will think that the Minister knows what she is doing, and that she has acted deliberately.
Rt Hon Helen ClarkHon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
The former Prime Minister says that it is very unlikely that the court would think that; unfortunately, I tell the member, what happens is that we ask the courts to take us seriously and to consider that we do things deliberately. There is a clear differentiation here from what is in the Act in section 144(2), paragraphs (b), (c), and (d), where it refers to persons. I accept the advice that it refers to persons. I then ask the Minister why this clause of the bill does not refer to persons.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
We are debating Part 1, not Part 2. I bring you back to Part 1, as that is the part we are debating.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Sorry, Mr Chair, I am quite happy for one of my colleagues to continue on that. I thought it would be useful.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. Are you going to rule on Mr Brownlee’s interjection while you were ruling?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I am therefore happy for my colleagues who have comments to continue, given your direction that this matter be considered, and I think considered very, very carefully.
SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this
Mr Chair, first of all I congratulate you on your appointment, because it is the first time I have been able to speak in this Chamber since you have been appointed to your position. I will address you for just the first couple of minutes because you, of course, are in your first 90 days in this position, and I would expect that if you were taken aside by Parliament—
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
I warned earlier on that you cannot use the word “you”; you cannot bring me into the debate.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
Well, you cannot address me. We are addressing Part 1 of this bill, and the member should confine her comments and debate to Part 1.
Nathan GuyI raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member Darren Hughes has moved out of his seat to interject, and under the Standing Orders a member may not move from his or her seat in order to have a clearer spot to interject from.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
I do not need any information. The member can shift to anywhere within the Labour seats, but he cannot shift to make interjections from a seat that gives him an advantage over the one where he would normally sit. We will move on.
In the Committee stage of a bill we would normally be referring to the select committee process, and talking about the submissions and what had come back to us from the select committee. In talking about Part 1, including the purpose of this bill, of course we cannot talk about what happened in the select committee on this bill, because there has not been a select committee process. I was on the select committee during the term of the last Parliament when the member’s bill that was similar to this bill, but was not this bill, was actually considered by the select committee. But it was not the same consideration that there would have been of this bill, because no one had the opportunity, for example, to debate or present a submission on the issue of how this measure would affect small businesses. So no one has had the opportunity to tell us that small businesses will actually suffer as a result of this bill because they will not be able to compete with large businesses, which, of course, can attract the sort of staff who want job security and stability. Those small businesses have not had the opportunity to come to the select committee to talk about their issues.
Organisations are running red hot in pumping out press releases, because they do not have the ability to participate through the normal democratic process. They are pumping out press statements because that is their only opportunity to be heard. This Parliament has stopped organisations from following the normal democratic process, so groups like the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women have put out press statements. What did the federation have to say? It stated: “We have worked hard to improve the status of women in New Zealand over the past 70 years, and to hear that New Zealand might soon have a law that would allow employers to fire an employee without reason or redress horrifies us.” The federation is horrified at this law. It further states: “Employers should have robust employment processes and administer them competently to ensure they employ the right person, rather than rely on being able to sack someone if they find they got it wrong.” That press statement was released by Mrs Faye Gardiner, who is the president of the Federation of Business and Professional Women.
Another organisation that has had to pump out a press release, because it has not had the opportunity to address this bill through the normal, democratic select committee process, is the New Zealand Educational Institute. We all heard what Anne Tolley promised the institute when she talked about teachers, and that has been an issue of some contention in this debate. Well, this is what the institute has said: “Thousands of schools and early childhood centres will be affected by the government’s ‘Fire at Will’ bill which is being pushed through parliament today under urgency.” The institute understands the employment relationship; it knows that teachers in thousands of schools and early childhood centres will be affected by this measure. The institute now knows that Anne Tolley did not tell it the truth when she went to its conference. The institute has further stated: “Many teachers and principals move to gain promotion but they would be reluctant to move to a new job where there was no certainty of employment for the first 90 days. The law will jeopardise professional and career development and make it even more difficult for small, rural and remote schools and centres to attract experienced staff.”
I will talk a little about what we did hear during the submission process on the member’s bill about the purpose of this measure. My colleagues have quite rightly said that, far and away, most of the submissions were opposed to this measure. New Zealanders believe in fairness for everyone. It does not matter whether it is an employee’s first day, 20th day, or 20th year in a job—New Zealanders believe in fairness. This bill takes away workers’ rights, and the Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson, has still not addressed that issue. How can she stand up and say this bill does not take away workers’ rights, when it clearly strips away workers’ right to take a personal grievance? It clearly strips away their right to go to the Employment Relations Authority. I ask the Minister to explain how this bill does not take away the rights of employees who work for a small employer in the first 90 days of their employment.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) Link to this
I was sitting in my office a while back and I heard people waxing lyrical on the efforts of the Small Business Advisory Group. I know intimately the work of that group because I had the pleasure of being its Minister for a period of time. I have here three of its reports: one is from August 2004, one is from March 2006, and I have just got off the Internet the 2008 report as well. The only report of the Small Business Advisory Group that the Minister in the chair, Kate Wilkinson, referred to was its 2004 report.
The Minister completely failed to note that the group responded to the fact that the Government of the day did not want to let employers off the hook in terms of their needing to understand how important it was to employ the right people for the job and to ensure that they had good-quality information so that they could make good employment decisions right from the outset. It is absolutely extraordinary that the National Government somehow seems to think that it is OK to let employers off the hook in this regard. We all know that if the expectations on both sides of the employment relationship are not well established right from the outset, then no productivity whatsoever will be built from it.
I cannot understand why National is holding to the first of the Small Business Advisory Group’s reports, when we know that the group’s view changed. In the first report the group was very much in favour of the personal grievance - free period. In the second report it was also in favour of the personal grievance - free period, but at the same time it wrote to me, the Minister for Small Business, and said that it was really important that we got to the bottom of the real problem. The real problem was that employers were paying out money to people they felt were not performing in the job, because the employers feared the consequences of ending up in a personal grievance situation. They would rather just pay the employees off and make the problem go away. The Small Business Advisory Group sent a letter to me asking for a new mediation system that would enable mediators to listen to the essence of the issues before them, give some guidance, and make a decision when that was appropriate; the group also proposed that there would be limited rights of appeal. That was something that the Government of the day was having a look at. So an employment facilitation process was how the group responded.
The Minister has completely ignored the group’s latest report. It might be worthwhile to table it, because I do not think the Minister has actually read it. The Small Business Advisory Group in its latest report reiterated its “support for grievance-free probationary periods. However, we would take a [much] more targeted approach than our predecessors and believe that, whilst preserving human rights protections for all employees, [the provisions] should apply to any businesses with 15 or fewer full-time employees.” I want to know why the Minister has chosen to apply this bill to firms with 20 part-time or full-time employees. She has made no differentiation. She has not actually looked at the group’s report. I want to know why National has not taken up that proposal.
The Small Business Advisory Group further stated that the most important thing was to “break the cycle of misconception and destructive behaviours during employment disputes. Our recommendation involves making it easier for both employers and employees to get access to balanced and helpful advice relevant to their particular dispute.” The group’s recommendation was “That information on good practice in employment relationships tailored to small business owners and managers, preferably endorsed by employer organisations, be made more readily available and be better promoted.” That sounds like a very good idea to me because it does not let employers off the hook. We know that a lot of small employers are seeking an easy way out rather than addressing the real problem, which is the failure to have really good processes in place in order to establish expectations on both sides of the employment relationship. We have heard members opposite say that Labour talks about one side of the employment relationship only; well, I say that the expectations on both sides of the relationship are very, very important indeed. I would like an answer from the Minister.
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this
I start by congratulating Lianne Dalziel on her very constructive comments. Although the Minister in the chair, Kate Wilkinson, may not have been listening, I would hope that members on the other side of the Chamber were listening. Maybe they were thinking they should slip outside and talk to the officials; maybe they were thinking that there had been some constructive advice from this side of the Chamber.
This is a sad day; it has been a sad few days in this Chamber. We have seen ordinary Kiwis absolutely dealt to by the National - Māori Party - ACT - United Future Government.
That is right.
We have seen either tax increases or the status quo for low-paid workers and modest-income earners. We have seen innovative businesses dealt to. We have seen people’s KiwiSaver dreams and aspirations slashed by National within 2 days. But if we look back at this debate, we see that the most insulting thing is for members opposite to argue: “We’re from the Government and we’re here to help workers. We are giving you the right to be sacked in the first 3 months of your employment. We are here to help you and we will make it really easy for you. We are here to provide a really bright future.” Yeah, right!
I can see that every time a member on this side of the Chamber who has had involvement with workers or unions gets up to speak, Government members froth at the mouth. I want to talk about the union movement. I want to talk about unions, which advocate for warning procedures, which teach delegates—
Who said “Whatever.”? The laziest union official in New Zealand, Tau Henare. He is right—he never did anything on the job. He was lazy. Every other official in the union movement gets out there and tells employers that if they want to have a good relationship with their employees, they should make things clear and have good procedures. They tell employers that they should not threaten employees, and that if there is a problem they should give warnings.
How can I be the laziest union official? They’re all lazy. Where do you think I got it from? I used to work with Rick Barker.
Poor old Tau! He never got it. He was too busy skiving off work, as he does around here. He never got on to it. But I am telling him that members who have worked in the union movement, worked for workers’ interests, and worked to see businesses do well know that good businesses say to their employees: “Let’s have a constructive relationship. Let’s talk about how to make things go right, and if there are problems, let’s talk about how we address them.” They do not put people’s livelihoods at risk because they may or may not make a mistake.
Workers might change their hairstyle, as Wayne Mapp has done. He got innovative; he went out and got a cool hairstyle. We in Parliament say we like it and he looks cool; MPs in Parliament have been saying that Dr Mapp has made an effort and he looks nice. But an employer might say: “Wayne, I don’t like your hairstyle, so you’re sacked.” Where is the redress? It is a new hairstyle. It is a 90-day hairstyle. [Interruption] Exactly! Members on this side are saying that that sort of thing needs to stop. We need a constructive dialogue. Although Tau Henare, when he was in the union movement, did not promote that, we did.
The employers’ organisations have to take some responsibility here. They have a duty to educate their members, their constituency, about constructive working relationships. The answer is not to lose people’s skills or to deprive people of their livelihoods because they have not had the opportunity to put things right. If they have made a real error—rather than doing something that the employer just does not like, on a whim—or if they are not performing, then surely it is fair and reasonable that that issue is raised with them so that they can correct it.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
I am happy to take a call on Part 1. I have some questions for the Minister in the chair, Kate Wilkinson. First, I want to know which one of the two stories she has been telling on this bill is the correct one. She said the public do not need to be worried about this bill because it is not the Wayne Mapp bill. Then she said that it does not need to go to a select committee, because it is the Wayne Mapp bill that has come before this Parliament. So the simple question is which one of those two stories is true, and, by proxy, which one was misleading.
The second question I have for the Minister in the chair is whether she understands the difference between a member’s bill and a Government bill. Does she understand the difference between member’s bill that did not have the numbers to pass and that the public never expected to become law, and a Government bill that the public knows will be passed but did not expect to be rammed through under urgency—a bill that will nevertheless be on the statute book and that the public would like to have a say on? I want to know whether the Minister in the chair understands that difference.
Let us look at clause 4. It states that the purpose of the legislation is to provide for a trial period of no longer than 90 days. That is fine; that is what is in the current law. In fact, the current law is more flexible. Workers can negotiate a trial period that is shorter than that or longer than that. But the clause goes on to state—and this is the crux of it—that an employer can dismiss an employee without the employee being able to bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal. I want to know how on earth the Minister thinks that that is not a removal of rights. I want to know in what parallel universe she thinks that that is not a removal of rights, given that employees now can bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of a dismissal. It is a simple question, and I think the workers of New Zealand deserve an answer.
Then the clause states: “subject to certain exceptions;”, and the Minister has made a big deal of this. She said she has made sure that the human rights of every worker will be upheld.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sure Tau Henare did not really mean that you are a grievance, but he should not bring you into the debate in that way, at all.
As I was saying, the Minister in the chair has made a big deal of the fact that she is protecting the human rights of every worker. So my question to her is how she will police this provision. How will she get into the minds of every employer who lets someone go within that 90-day period? How will she know why that person was let go? How will she know that someone who fired a worker because he or she did not like the colour of the skin of that person’s wife or husband, fired the worker for that very reason, when that employer just says: “I’m sorry; you just don’t fit in this job.”? How will the Minister know?
Also, how can she possibly know this when the bill states that it is not required that a reason be given as to why that person has been let go? One does not even have to give written reason. So how will we know the reasons why someone has been let go, so that we can police it and know that the reason is fair?
I also ask the Minister in the chair whether she appreciates the fact that although everyone appreciates that employing people, with their terms and conditions and their wages, is a cost to a business, that same money also puts food on the tables of working families? Does she appreciate that it puts a roof over the heads of them and their families, and feeds and clothes their children? I have not heard one word from her. I have not heard one word from any member in the National-ACT Government who has talked about the livelihoods of workers and the fact that the money they are complaining about is the very money that feeds and clothes those children. Those members will stand up and complain about law and order and never make a connection to low pay and to people being dismissed unfairly and not having a job.
My last question to the Minister is this: does she not think it is offensive to tell workers who have been let go from their job unfairly that they should feel grateful that she has allowed them to go back on a benefit right away? Does she not believe that that is offensive to working people, or does she genuinely believe she is being generous?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I raise this matter with you because you were not in the Chair at the time when I raised and enumerated eight questions with the Minister in the chair. I ask you, before you consider taking any closure, to give the Minister a chance to give answers to the questions, which I understand she has written down.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
It is not for me to direct the Minister in the chair as to whether she will answer questions.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this
I will take a brief call to highlight an issue that was brought up on the taxation bill, and in the case of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill it pertains to the adequacy statement in the explanatory note of the bill.
What we have regarding this bill is a series of events. First, it is going through under urgency, even though it will not be implemented until April. So the first excuse for urgency is gone. Then there is no select committee process at all. There is no chance for any public input at all, even though Mr O’Reilly from Business New Zealand, who, as my colleague Lianne Dalziel and other colleagues have alluded to, is probably more sympathetic to the National Party way of thinking than to ours, has said it is not appropriate to ram this measure through. Mr O’Reilly, who is a man of principle even though I may disagree with some of what he says, wanted there to be a public process, so that there would be scrutiny and quality control of the bill. Under urgency there is no public input and no select committee input at all. Then we have a Minister in the chair, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, who, since I have been in the Chamber, has not answered any of the questions about the bill that have been put up by speaker after speaker.
I want to address something to the ACT Party, given that its tanned Minister from the sunset-tan paradise of Epsom is the regulatory-buster, or the Minister—what is his name—
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
Indeed, I am far too statesmanlike, as my leader says, to say that.
Last night a bill went through the House with a regulatory impact statement that was inadequate. But that slid by Rodney Hide. Today we are looking at this bill, and we see the adequacy statement states this: “It has not been possible for the Regulatory Impact Analysis Team to undertake an assessment of the adequacy of the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the Regulatory Impact Statement for this proposal within the time frames.”
One then has to say that Mr Hide, being a member of the executive, being well briefed on this bill, and being the regulatory-busting Minister who went on Close Up and said: “Bring me your waifs and strays”—
[... plus a further 198 contributions not shown here]