Employment Relations Amendment Bill

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this

I move, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I firstly thank the officials for their hard work, advice, and efforts in bringing the bill to this stage, to the third reading.

The Government is committed to improving employment opportunities for all New Zealanders. The proposed trial period enacted by this bill will allow greater certainty and flexibility for small to medium businesses when it comes to taking on staff. Additionally, employment opportunities will increase for some marginalised groups of employees who are struggling to break into a crowded market. This bill has been drafted carefully and reasonably, and with caution, to ensure there are safety mechanisms so that workers are not exploited.

I remind the House that we have specifically retained the provisions of good faith. The legislation is subject to the overriding principles of good faith. Perhaps I should remind the House what good faith actually means. Good faith requires the parties to an employment relationship to be active and constructive in establishing and maintaining a productive employment relationship, in which the parties are, among other things, responsive and communicative. Good faith requires an employer to provide to affected employees access to information relevant to the continuation of their employment and the decision, and to give an opportunity to comment. This bill expressly protects and is subject to that overriding provision of good faith.

The trial period under this bill is also subject to agreement; it is not compulsory. It is subject to the prospective employee wanting to be given a go—wanting to be given the opportunity—to get his or her foot on the employment ladder. This bill is subject to existing protections under human rights legislation—

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this

I have seen unusual approaches, but a Minister who cannot make it to 8 minutes on a controversial bill on a third reading is just pathetic. To try to fill the time until the bell rings with a bit of clapping to make it look like she knew what she was talking about is even more pathetic. But I must say it was very good to see Kate Wilkinson on her feet. It was good to see Kate Wilkinson on her feet because during the Committee stage she appeared to be pinned to her chair. In fact, there was a disgraceful episode of Gerry Brownlee telling her not to speak—an outrage; a senior member of the House clearly breaching privilege in front of many, many members by telling a Minister not to speak. I am not going to test you, Mr Speaker, through the formal process, but you should know that under your watch members of the Government are blatantly breaching the traditions of this Parliament.

In another way traditions have been breached, and that is that there has always, in the past, been a focus on having controversial bills—significant bills—go to select committee, especially in the employment relations area. Did this Government have the backbone to do that? Did it have the backbone to do what was recommended by the New Zealand Herald—its rag, its cheer squad—that the bill be sent to the select committee? Business New Zealand suggested that it should go to the select committee to get it improved, but did the Government take any notice of that? No it did not.

It was almost unbelievable in the final stages of the Committee process, when an ACT amendment, on which the Minister had not commented, was voted for by the National Party. I must say that at that time, it is fair to say, between the Minister and the Government whips there was a lot of confusion. They were not clear whether they should have been voting for it—it was back and forth, yes and no, and “I am not sure.” In the end National voted for it. I say that never, never in my life in this House—and it has been quite a long time—have I seen a non-Government amendment accepted by a Minister in the chair without comment. We do it occasionally. It happens—often to improve bills. This is a substantive amendment. It is an amendment that will cost the Minister’s department money. An enormous amount of overtime will have to be worked over Christmas, bureaucrats hired and paid overtime during that time, boosting the economy of Wellington central, as a result of this bill being brought forward, to get the call centre set up, and to get all the work done that will be necessary for the bill’s implementation. Was there a comment from the Minister? No, there was not. National members accepted that amendment in a very confused way because it was not clear whether they were going to.

But there were some amendments during the Committee stage that National members did not accept, which were pretty simple, such as giving people notice in writing. So an employer who does a “don’t come Monday” has to give the employee a note rather than just say “Don’t come Monday.” That was refused by the National Party. Also refused was an amendment requiring people to give reasons for termination of employment. No! There is no requirement here whatsoever to give reasons. The member says that people can go to the Human Rights Commission, but how can a person go to the Human Rights Commission on a gender issue, a religious issue, or on an age issue if the employer does not have to say why he or she is sacking someone? How does one know? How does a person get to the Human Rights Commission?

National members rejected an amendment that guarantees mediation. They said there was mediation but, as we pointed out, the clause is very, very badly drafted. They rejected a clause that said that young employees or new employees should be given notice, given a warning, of the likelihood of this clause being triggered. They rejected that. They rejected a proposal to put that in the advertisements. They also rejected the amendment designed to stop making Anne Tolley a liar. The passing of the bill, if it does pass and is assented to, will make her a liar. I am not saying she is yet, and I will not say in the House that she is, but when this passes she will be.

What I want to do—because the National Party was not prepared to table the DVD under the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings allowing visual aids—is use a visual aid, which is a video. It is a video of Anne Tolley promising—

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

Members—[ Interruption] When I am on my feet members will cease their interjections. Before I call the next member I want to refer to an issue raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard. When he suggested that there had been improper behaviour in a member seeking to influence another member, he inappropriately suggested that that was a matter of privilege. I will not have members raising in the Chamber issues of privilege, and I just alert the member to that. In fact, if members look at Speaker’s ruling 174/5, they will see that Speaker Harrison made it very clear that there is nothing improper in members seeking to influence other members as long as no implication of bribery or improper practice is involved. I just mention that to members. I also say that this is a debate where members feel very strongly about the issues—and that is very important; it will be a robust debate—but the Hon Trevor Mallard walked down a very fine line within the Standing Orders. I do not like interrupting members, so I urge members to be careful not to breach the Standing Orders.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) Link to this

One of the issues that the other side has never really grasped is that 90 days as a trial period is at the moderate end of what occurs in the OECD. I guess members opposite would object if the trial period were 30 days or 1 week. They would object on ideological grounds. They have a totally blinkered approach to this issue even though they know that New Zealand is one of only two countries in the OECD that does not have a proper probationary period where the full personal grievance processes are triggered. They know that. They also know that they have to be seen to do something. I guess they cannot just sit in their offices signing their Christmas cards. So they say: “Oh, well, I suppose we have to show our allegiance with the union movement. We have to be able to tell Mr Little that we did our bit.”

So Labour members have come down to the House and spent all their time hyperventilating and pretending that some sort of industrial dark age is about to be visited on us, even though they know that this is actually a very moderate measure. That is why the Otago Daily Times says it is moderate and sensible. Those members know that, but they have to pretend to take a different approach. So we have heard all sorts of absurd hyperventilating, as if that would give some substance to their objection, but all it has really done is make them look ridiculous.

The public have had the opportunity to judge the Opposition and the absurd approaches it is taking to this legislation. One of the odd things, I have to say, about this whole process is the spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition taking call after call as if he is some kind of new backbencher who has to establish his reputation. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is not really the way to have any long-term future, but I guess that is why everybody is calling him “Phil-in”—and he has been demonstrating that here, day by day. He thinks that the best thing he can do is rally all the troops, make sure all the seats are filled, and make sure he is with the team. I wonder what some of those members are really thinking about this. Perhaps they are thinking “Is this really the issue we want to be going into Christmas on? Is this really the issue we want to say we stood strong on? Is this really the issue we made sure the Parliament was held to account on?”.

I want to say just a couple more things. This issue was comprehensively debated in the select committee process on the bill that I put forward 2½ years ago. As a result of those submissions this bill has been introduced in the way it has been. So I remind members of two things. Firstly, the mediation process is available. We have given that assurance. It is already part of the law and it does not need further amendment. That was one of the outcomes of the select committee hearing.

The second thing I remind members of is the issue of teachers. This is a voluntary measure. When I listened to delegations from teachers, I asked whether it was realistic that a collective agreement involving the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers Association would include probation provisions. The answer, logically, is that it will not, and that is effectively what the Hon Anne Tolley was saying. We understand the logic of the situation; it is just a pity that Mr Mallard does not.

I close on the point that although the 90-day trial period is voluntary, it is also about opportunity—opportunity for immigrants, opportunity for young people, and opportunity for people who have been out of the workforce for some time. It is just a pity that the Opposition does not understand how this bill will build opportunity. New Zealand was ranked 20th in the OECD when it came into office, and it is ranked 22nd in the OECD now. All the other countries in the OECD have this provision, and that has been part of their success in a flexible, modern 21st century economy. Why does the Opposition not understand that? I tell members opposite just to get with the programme. They should do something good for New Zealand by supporting policies that will promote growth. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) Link to this

I am very disappointed with the Government’s attitude to ordinary working New Zealanders, who will be disadvantaged by the passage of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I actually found it a bit galling to listen to the Minister of Labour, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, give us a lesson on good-faith requirements when she knows perfectly well that with this legislation she is exempting every employer from the obligation in the first 90 days of employment to treat an employee with good faith. An employer does not have to be open and honest with the employee, at all. Employers do not have to treat employees with respect and dignity, because they can simply let them go if they do not like them. “Don’t come Monday.” is all employers have to say; they do not have to say a single other word. They do not even have to explain why the decision has been taken.

Annette King used a very good example in her comments in the Committee stage. She said it would be very easy for an employer to shoulder-tap an employee and say: “Look, I don’t think you are very happy in your work. On that basis I think we’ll just let you go.” That is what will happen. The problem is—and the National Government has not acknowledged this at all—that the provision covers a multitude of sins because the employer does not have to say what the real reason is. Let us look at people, for example, who do not mention that they are gay. An example was raised by, I think, the senior Opposition whip of a person who does not mention he or she is gay when hired, and suddenly in a conversation the employer finds out that the employee’s partner is a male, or, in the case of a female, that her partner is female—that is, that the employee has a same-sex partner and has had a civil union. All of a sudden this employer says: “I don’t think you are very happy in your work.” The employer does not actually have to say what reason really lies behind the termination of employment, and can just say: “I don’t think you are very happy in your work. Don’t come Monday.”

What if the employer is away on holiday and the manager has to bring in somebody on a trial period? When the employer comes back and finds out that the manager has hired a Māori, a Pacific Islander, an Asian, or a person with a disability—somebody the employer has a deep sense of disquiet about and would not have hired—what does the employer do? The employer says: “Actually, I don’t think you are very happy in your job. Look, don’t come Monday.” That is the real concern that we have about this legislation: it will hide a multitude of sins. Clayton Cosgrove used the example of a worker asking for health and safety training, or for a guard for the saw at the sawmill. The employer will not say to the worker: “I’m sacking you for insisting on your rights to a healthy and safe workplace.”; the employer will say: “I don’t think you are very happy in your work. Don’t come Monday.” That is all the employer has to say under this bill.

The Minister of Labour will look at whether this bill should be extended to apply to all work places; she has announced this morning that she will be giving consideration to that recommendation. I wonder whether the Minister has realised that the compliance costs for business will go up as a result of this legislation, as they did in the UK when legislation of a “don’t come Monday” style was introduced. The UK legislation does exactly what the Minister’s legislation does: it allows for exceptions under the Human Rights Act, such as sexual harassment, discrimination based on racial grounds, sexism, and all of those things. In actual fact, when there is a termination and the employer does not say what the reason for the termination is, people with genuine grievances try to assert that it was for one of those reasons. Therefore, a lot more cases are taken as a result of the change in the law in the UK, not fewer. I think the Minister will find that this will add to compliance costs because employers will have to prove that they did not terminate employment for one of those reasons.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this

As members will be well aware by now, the Green Party is totally opposed to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. It is an affront to the rights of hundreds of thousands of New Zealand workers. The Council of Trade Unions estimates that around 100,000 workers, at any given moment, are in a position where they will be affected by the impacts of this legislation, and that over the course of a year the figure is likely to be around 700,000 workers. There is also the fact that in this age, people change jobs a lot more than they did in years gone by, which means that people will, over and over again, be affected by the fact that they are in the first 90 days of their employment.

This is a disgraceful attack on workers’ rights, at a time of rising unemployment and job insecurity. Sadly, we see every day now newspaper reports of jobs being lost. We have just had the report, over the last 24 hours, of what is happening in the manufacturing sector. We know that retailing is really under pressure—and who knows what is going to happen there, once Christmas is over? The wood industry is being decimated around the country at the moment. We have had job losses just this week from the ANZ, the BNZ, Tritec Manufacturing, the Warehouse, and other employers, and a whole lot more jobs that we actually never even hear about are being lost. That means that the impacts of what will happen, once this legislation takes effect, will really be accentuated, because people who are unemployed and seeking work, of course, will be in this position—if they are lucky enough to even get a chance at a job. This bill will make their situation even worse.

Within the people who will be affected, as the Māori Party has recognised, will be Māori, who are among the groups of people most affected by the bill. Once again I would like to say “Good on you!” to the Māori Party members for being willing, within just the first couple of days, to stand up to their new ally, the National Party, and their ally the ACT Party, and to just say no, they will not support this legislation. They are sticking to the principles they had when they earlier, in 2006, finally made the good decision to oppose Dr Mapp’s bill at that time. It is great that the Māori Party members are sticking to that decision and understand how this bill will really affect their own people.

Another group who will be disproportionately affected, of course, will be migrant workers, who often find it really difficult to get into the New Zealand workforce, and who are still, sadly, subject to a lot of racial prejudice in the workplace. Women too will be affected, and I note that just last night there was a press release from the Federation of Business and Professional Women. That is not a left-wing, radical trade union but a group of women who work in the business and professional community. The federation says this bill is a huge step backwards for New Zealand women. It is horrified that the bill is not going through the select committee process, when it is something that will impact on workers so adversely. The federation says: “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’ve got it wrong.”

In respect of young people, National promotes the myth that this bill will assist them to get work, and that somehow this measure will be great for the young people of this country, who do often find it hard to get their first chance in the workplace. In fact, the bill is likely to have the opposite effect of that on young workers. For example, those who get a job and are full of hope and enthusiasm because it is their big chance may then, within the first 90 days, for some reason or no reason at all find themselves out of the workforce. That is very damaging for people in their early years of employment, when they are just adjusting to the workplace and learning how it all works.

The National Government has, for some reason, talked a lot about the benefits of this bill for ex-prisoners. That is quite ironic, as others from Labour have pointed out, given National’s stand during the election campaign on law and order. But it is great that National does care about the fate of ex-prisoners and their need to find a place in the world of work. I cannot quite understand how National thinks this legislation will in any way particularly help ex-prisoners. In many cases now, ex-prisoners who find work do so only through a probationary employment situation, which is allowable under the existing employment law. In fact, the bill will do nothing for ex-prisoners. I think it will make matters worse for them, because employer prejudices against criminals and former criminals are very high, for natural reasons. This bill will make it easier for employers to follow their prejudices and get rid of people in that situation, if they want to, without having to give any reason at all.

But it is a myth that this bill will affect only categories of people like ex-prisoners, migrants, Māori, young people, and so on. This legislation can apply to anyone who takes a job with, or moves jobs to, an employer who has fewer than 20 staff. I note a release this morning from the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists—again, an organisation that is not really at the low end of the workforce—which is very concerned about the impact this legislation will have on doctors who, for example, work in places such as union and community health centres, and in other places for small employers. A doctor may move to a rural district. He or she may uplift the family and go to Kaitāia to work in the local primary health organisation, and, for some reason, be dismissed within the first 90 days. The association is very concerned about the impact of this legislation on its sector.

We are only just beginning to hear such stories, because of the lack of process around this bill. If we had had a select committee process, I am sure we would have literally thousands of submissions telling us all these stories that are just starting to come out now. If we had had a select committee process, we would have had a chance to get really good advice on amendments to the bill. The Labour Party and the Green Party valiantly attempted last night to put up really good amendments that would have helped the bill, and some of them, I believe, National members could even possibly have supported, if they had the time to consider them. But when one rushes a process like this, one does not end up with good legislation. One ends up with a shambles.

An area that the Green Party has been particularly concerned about, and where we put up a Supplementary Order Paper, was around the issue of what will happen to people who lose their jobs as a result of the “fire at will” bill, then register at Work and Income, and are asked why they left their job. If there is any allegation of misconduct, they are subject to the 13-week stand-down. Now, that puts a whole heap of workers into a double-jeopardy situation. Not only are they losing their job for whatever reason; they are also possibly subject to 13 weeks without any income at all, at the whim of Work and Income.

The Minister, Ms Wilkinson—and I am grateful for her clarity on this—over and over again said that is not actually the Government’s policy intention with regard to this measure. National did not support the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Paper, which attempted to make it clear that that could not happen, but I invite the Minister to watch the situation with the Ministry of Social Development very, very closely—as I will be watching it—once this bill comes into effect, to ensure that the negative impacts that we have been talking about do not occur. I really hope that we will not see people who have been laid off as a result of this bill then enduring a 13-week stand-down. There is also a real problem area where people have an allegation of misconduct made against them, but then have no way to clear their name, because there is no access to the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court, and then it is up to Work and Income to make a judgment over whether the misconduct happened. Who knows! Work and Income case managers are not the people best placed to make those kinds of judgments.

One of our biggest concerns around this bill, of course, is that no one, ultimately, is safe. Although at this stage its application is limited to workplaces of 20 or fewer people, there is a statement, which a number of us have referred to, in the explanatory note of the bill that, basically, the Government is looking in the future to extend this measure out to all workers. Now, that is something that everyone who cares about workers’ rights in this country will have to be very conscious of in the months ahead. We are very concerned about this legislation being the thin edge of the wedge of a whole series of potential attacks on workers and beneficiaries. Of course, we hope that does not happen. We hope that the National Party does not go down that road. But I think we all have to be very alert.

There are many, many reasons why this bill should not go through. For example, because the new Minister is Mrs Kate Wilkinson, I was reminded the other day of the human resources professionals meetings a number of us spoke at early in the election campaign. Mrs Wilkinson spoke about KiwiSaver; that became the only story about that meeting. But those of us who were there will remember that there were hundreds of human resources professionals in the room. That profession has done a lot of work in the last decade or so around uplifting employment practices and trying to improve how employers treat workers in the workplace, for the benefit of both employers and workers. I believe that this bill actually undermines all the good work that those human resources professionals have been doing, because they are about helping people to learn how to do jobs well, treating workers well, and explaining issues when things go wrong: if a worker is incompetent, does not turn up to work on time, or whatever the issue is. They actually work with people so that they become better at their job, rather than simply firing them at will.

This bill will not reduce unemployment. Instead, it will increase unemployment, as employers find it much easier to fire people for any reason or no reason at all. It is a disgraceful attack on the working people of this country, and it will not be forgotten when the next election comes around.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

As a new member sitting here, this debate on this bill illustrates a division in attitudes between the two sides of the House. On the Government side, of which ACT is a part, the majority of employers and employees are seen as good people. Both parties to the employment relationship, by and large, try to make things work. In that world employees do not run off to the Employment Relations Authority or the Mediation Service at the drop of a hat, and employers do not sack people unless they really have to. The reason is that it is too much trouble, apart from anything else, and costs too much money.

In the Opposition view of the employment relationship all employees—sorry, it is still “workers”, is it not—are downtrodden beings cowering under the yoke of the lord of the manor; all, or at least most, employers are willing to sack employees at the drop of a hat; many employers are sexual predators who put the word on young girls and if they turn them down they sack them; and many employers come to work and decide that they do not like the hairstyle or the eye colour of their employee that day, so they should go home. Well, in the real world—and by the real world I do not mean down at whatever today’s equivalent of Trades Hall is, but the workplace that most people inhabit—the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but in my view it is a great deal closer to the Government’s view of things.

As for the amendment, I must confess as a new member to being totally bemused by the cacophony that erupted when it was passed. No doubt someone will explain to me later just why that was; I have been sitting here trying to work it out. From my perspective, if it is a good idea on 1 April it must be a better idea on 1 March. It makes logical sense to me and I think that other than those watching and listening at Trades Hall it will make sense to the rest of the country. To me, it is an example of the parliamentary process working. Amendments were put up on the Opposition side of the House, but they were unpersuasive. I modestly say that it seems mine was persuasive. I thought that was how Parliament and democracy supposedly worked. There seems to be no point in delaying the implementation of a good idea.

We have heard from the other side of the House extravagant predictions of what will happen. We did not quite get to predictions of suicide, but we were close. This reminds me of the predictions that followed the passing of the Employment Contracts Act in 1991: extravagant predictions of mass sackings and all those kinds of things, none of which came to pass. With the passing of time we no longer think that the removal of compulsory unionism is any big deal; it is just common sense.

I am old enough to remember the last days of demarcation—that is a word that no one has heard for a while. In 1983 I was a trades assistant at the methanol plant for an engineering company. Yes, some of us got our hands dirty. But I could not touch a strop, because that was riggers’ work—that was demarcation. We no longer think about that, because it is silly. It seems to me that before very long, curtailing personal grievances for a short period will no longer seem very unusual at all and will seem an entirely sensible idea.

As I said, I have been bemused and confused—but I will work it out—as to why there was such a cacophony. I guess it can be only that the Labour Party was performing for another audience outside this House. Someone asked why we should not bring it in tomorrow, or after the Royal assent—I think it was the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Well, from my perspective that would be a good idea, but I understand that in these days—where workers can no longer just read employment news in the paper—some logistical exercises need to be gone through to set things up, so a period of delay is considered reasonable. The Government, being made up of reasonable people, would have rejected its being assented any earlier.

It seems to me that this is a very sensible idea. It will be seen as unremarkable very shortly, just as now is seen the idea that a trades assistant for a fitter cannot touch a strop because that is riggers’ work. Thank you.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this

This is a week of shame for this new Government—a week of shame by turbocharge—and today caps it all. What a great way to acknowledge human rights anniversaries! This is the 60th anniversary of the adoption in New Zealand of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When other countries are enhancing human rights and working hard to make life better for people in their countries and their communities and for their workers, this country is taking a major step backwards—a major step backwards.

National members say they are from the National Party and they are here to help. They are here to help vulnerable people, young people, older people, and ethnic people. They are here to help them by helping them to get sacked in their first 3 months of employment. They are somehow helping their employment rights! Members should look at Kate Wilkinson: Kate Wilkinson, who did not have the guts to stand up and defend this disgusting legislation; Kate Wilkinson, who said: “National is not the party of compulsion.” That is the “Kate Wilkinson-ism”: “National is not the party of compulsion.” Well, let us look at it. If someone goes to a job and is told to take it or leave it, is that not compulsion? Job or no job—is that not compulsion? If someone does take the job, within 3 months he or she may be gone—no reason given, no discussion; that person has just gone. Is that not compulsion? I think it is a great way to indicate the National Party’s understanding of workers in New Zealand, and where their needs, their rights, and their entitlements are. To me, it smacks of the 1990s.

The world is coming into difficult and challenging times—very difficult times. We in New Zealand now—workers and all New Zealanders—are coming to the ghastly realisation, after 1 week of debate in this House, that we have a totally inept and incompetent Government.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare i tēnei ata, kua rarauika mai ki roto i te Whare nei ki te wānanga i ngā take o te wā. E te Kaihautū, koia te pai o tēnei kirimana i waenganui i a māua te Pāti Māori me te Rōpū Nāhinara, he rā tōna, kotahi te kōrero, he rā tōna kua rerekē te kōrero. I tēnei rangi, ko te mea tuarua te mea ka whakaarahia ake i tēnei rā. Pēnei taku kōrero, i ētahi rangi e ōrite ana te kōrero o te Pāti Māori me te Rōpū Nāhinara. I ētahi wā kua rerekē te kōrero. I te rangi kotahi, tērā pea koi nei te ara. Koi rā. Hei whaiwhai haere i tērā kōrero me haere tonu ngā kōrero mō te wā poto. Te tikanga o tēnei pīre, he tautoko i te hunga kua roa e noho ana i te koremahi me te rangatahi me te Māori.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this

I am glad of the opportunity to take a call in the third reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. This is my first time of standing up in this House in this new Government, so I thank New Zealand for the mandate they gave us, and say that we are humbled by that.

I stand up today and thank John Key, and in particular Kate Wilkinson, for believing in New Zealanders—for taking back that mandate and having belief in New Zealanders and their abilities to get ahead. This is a great day for New Zealand. It is a great day for moving forward, and a great day for us to recognise the abilities, the talents, and the skills of New Zealanders. This is a day when we actually take back a belief in their abilities to get ahead and understand what this country is about. It is about reward for effort, it is about guts and determination, and it is about people standing up for themselves. It is about recognising that a person has a part to play in society—an individual responsibility—but that a collective mentality comes with that, and an acknowledgment that we all have a role to play.

This National-led New Zealand Government believes in peoples’ abilities to get ahead and make the most of themselves. We understand that we have had 9 years of Labour. We understand that we have had 9 years of beating people down. We understand that we have had 9 years of people being treated like victims, and of their having no belief in their abilities to get ahead and make something of themselves. We understand that all some young people know is an interventionist Government that can only control them, and that actually controls all aspects of their lives. But they are here, and they have given us a mandate to stand up for them and believe in their abilities, and back them to make a difference in their lives.

I actually do not feel sorry for New Zealand employees. I actually believe in their abilities, and believe they can advocate for themselves in a way to go forward. I acknowledge that not everyone has a strong voice and a way to go forward, so I actually believe that unions have a place in standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. I am thrilled that this bill stands up for New Zealand rights, and for New Zealanders to stand against racial and sexual discrimination. I say to the New Zealanders out there who are wondering where they are going and what they will do: “Step up!”, and I am proud of a bill that gives them the ability to step up. To those people who want to give it a go, who want to get ahead, who want to take a bit of a risk and a chance, and who want someone to take a risk and a chance on them, I say we, the National-led Government, will back them in that. We will support those people to get ahead. We will back them to step up and to take that risk, and this bill is part of that process. This bill will play a vital role in recognising that New Zealanders know how to get ahead—know that it takes a bit of guts, determination, and hard work—and that they want to step up and be counted for it.

I understand that for some of those young people, this will be a little bit nerve-wracking. They are used to being told what to do, how to do it, and how to live under a prescriptive regime. This is a new Government, this is a new way forward, but it is one that backs them. It backs them in their abilities, instead of backing a socialist regime that will tell them what to do. In fact, I say thank you to Kate Williamson for recognising that New Zealand employees want an opportunity and want to step up and be counted. They want to get a shot at that, and I tell them that their rights will be treated respectfully. I say to those New Zealanders who find there are ways in which the situation is not working out for them, to stand up, because we will back them. We will back them for those odd things that are a problem.

New Zealand delivered us a result on 8 November; people delivered a result that said they wanted to stand up for being New Zealanders and for their way forward. New Zealanders said they wanted to get back to some of the basics of “a good day’s work for a good day’s pay; give me a go and I will step up for it.” That is what this bill is delivering to them. I say to beneficiaries out there, and to those who are dependent on the Government for their income, that we will back them to take a chance, to go for that job, and to get an employer to give them a go. There will be no stand-down periods for them if that relationship does not work out. This bill will open up opportunities for people to get up and give it a go. I will back them every time to do that.

I finish by saying thank you to New Zealand. I say thank you to John Key, and to Kate Wilkinson for leading this—for showing us the way forward and for backing New Zealanders, who, at the end of the day, know how to move forward and how to make a difference.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this

Three words came to mind as I listened to that speech made by Paula Bennett—humbug, hogwash, and poppycock. On the eve of Christmas, and we have 14 days before Christmas Day, when most families throughout this country are preparing themselves to find gifts and to celebrate the Christmas spirit of gifting to young people, what do we have from the National-ACT-Māori Government? First, there were tax increases for those on $44,000 or less. Second, there was the 50 percent reduction in the employer contribution to KiwiSaver. Now, we have the “fire at will” bill.

This bill will create a group of unscrupulous employers whose only desire is to abuse and make use of workers for 90 days, then get rid of them. This bill will enable new workers to be sacked without reason, without notice, and without a written warning. Employers will be able to sack new workers, and those workers will not be given the right of a personal grievance, which is a right that they currently have. In short, the bill will strip workers of the certainty and confidence in the workplace that they currently have.

Those most affected are the vulnerable workers whom the Government is targeting. I say that the vulnerable workers whom the Government is targeting are generally Labour supporters. The Minister assumes that the working relationship in the workplace is equal—that both employer and employee are equal in the workplace. That is the situation that currently exists under the law that Labour put in place. But what will happen now? This new law will strip workers of their rights, and it will undermine the relationship that currently exists.

The most affected are the vulnerable. Sadly, they are from my part of the world, Māngere, Manukau City, Manurewa, and Ōtāhuhu. The Government is targeting young people, and in that part of the world we have more young people than throughout the rest of New Zealand. Young people who are taking up a new job, young people who are unfamiliar, will be keen-as to take on new roles, and they will be working hard to try to ensure that they keep them. What could happen to them? They could be sent a letter saying “Don’t come in on Monday” or they could receive a phone call—or they could be given not even a word. They will simply lose their jobs, because that is what this law provides for. There can be no reason and no notice. They can work all they want for 90 days, work hard, but can lose their job at the flick of a finger from an unscrupulous employer. I say “unscrupulous employer” because not all employers are inclined towards what this bill will create.

The other most vulnerable group that this bill targets is womenfolk—women who are coming back into the workforce, and women who want to make ends meet and to contribute to the finances of their families. What happens if my sister or my aunt decides, for some reason, during the month that she is not able to go to work? She can be fired. That is what this bill provides for. What happens if, during those 90 days, she calls in sick or says she has to visit the local school because her child needs some support there, and she cannot go to work on that day? She can be fired. That is what this bill provides for, without any notice and without any ability or opportunity to put her case forward.

Elderly folk will be targeted, and they are being targeted under this law. What will happen to the elderly folk who want to come back to work and make a contribution to the economy if, for some reason or other, they have to visit the doctor, go into hospital, or need to go home and have a bit of a rest? What will happen to them within those 90 days? They will be fired, at will. That is what this bill provides for. The most vulnerable in our communities, those who are protected under the current legislation, are being targeted and being stripped of their rights to be able to take a personal grievance if they feel they have been unjustly dismissed. I refer to migrant workers, Māori, and Pasifika workers. All of those workers, the most vulnerable in our communities, are being targeted.

The Minister said that there will be opportunities. The only opportunity that I see being legislated for here is the opportunity to take away workers’ rights—to be able to sack a new worker, without the employer taking responsibility for making a bad decision. That is what this bill provides for. It provides the opportunity for unscrupulous employers to undermine the union in the workplace. They can sack a worker within that period if that worker wants to join a union, and if he or she wants to be able to meet with a union official. Employers can sack a worker for those reasons.

I also feel that as more and more workplaces close and more people are unemployed as a result of the economic crisis that we are experiencing at the moment, we will have a pool of unemployed workers competing for whatever these jobs might be. If they are competing for those jobs, what will happen to them if, after 90 days, they have no guarantee of a permanent position? It means that some unscrupulous employer might say: “Look, I will keep you on here if you are prepared to forgo some of your other conditions and terms.” That is a strong possibility under this legislation, because this legislation creates fear and uncertainty and takes away the confidence of workers in the workplace.

It is wrong for this Government to use the economic crisis as an excuse to take away the rights of workers. Workers want certainty in their employment relations, and workers have fundamental rights that are enshrined in the United Nations declaration. They have rights to redress, and this Government is stripping away the right to a personal grievance. The Minister also said that this bill will enable the creation of jobs. That is laughable, I say to the Minister. This bill does not create a single job. It creates bad employers and bad business practice, and it takes away personal grievance rights from the workers. During the Committee deliberations I asked the Minister how many jobs this bill will create. There was no answer. That was because that is not the intent of this legislation. The intent of this legislation is to fire at will the most vulnerable workers in our communities.

The Minister said that employers and employees will maintain active relationships and subject themselves to mutual agreements. That is hogwash. In this competitive global economy, the key issue facing our labour market now is how to attract new workers, not how to sack them. It does not matter what they say about opportunities, job creation, and equality in the workplace. When people use words like that to cover up something, my grandfather would say: “E fiu lava e u’u le tae pua’a e pipilo lava.” I will translate that for members. It means: “It doesn’t matter how much perfume you pour on pig shit, it still stinks.” That is what this bill is about. It stinks. It stinks for our communities and it stinks for workers throughout New Zealand.

The Government wants to take us back to the 1990s whereby workers are stripped of all rights in the workplace. With those words, Labour strongly opposes this bill and will vote accordingly.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this

After listening to the speeches from members on the other side of the House, we can understand why New Zealanders voted on 8 November for a brighter future. The dirges from the members on the other side have indicated the controlling nature of the Government of the last 9 years and the effect that it had on New Zealand. When we look at the performance of New Zealand in the last 9 years, during the best economic times in the last 30 years, we see that that lot over there squandered that opportunity. We are talking about creating a brighter future, and that is what we intend to do. The most important step in a journey of a thousand miles is the first step. Labour, when in Government, dug a big hole for New Zealand. It tried to bury New Zealand’s aspirations, goals, and visions in it. This John Key - led Government is determined to lead New Zealand into a brighter future.

It has been an insult to sit on this side of the House and have to tolerate the dirges and pointless discussion that have occurred from last night onwards. Fortunately, the other night I had the privilege to go to a very upbeat prize-giving at Queen Charlotte College, and I can tell members that people there were over the moon that they were being presented with an opportunity. In simple terms, this bill has been well and truly canvassed.

I would like to finish with a little comment from a blog site, because I do not think this bill deserves to be ridiculed in the way it has been by members on the other side. It is a visionary bill and it is something that has been long overdue. This comment is from a blog site, and I would like those members to listen: “This is an interesting announcement from National. I think it is one of those policies which people will be ashamed to support in public due to the ‘left’ interpretation of it but which most people, in the privacy of the polling booth, will support, because it is an actual common sense policy from National.” The second point is “This debate may be cast as a evil-capitalist’s charter by the left. It could also be cast as an ‘anti-deadbeats’ charter by the right.” Finally: “I think National will do well on voting day with this policy. It appeals to the kiwi sense of fair play. Let the people decide.”

And they did, on 8 November. Let this bill stand. I congratulate Kate Wilkinson; she has done a fine job. I take great pleasure in supporting this bill.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this

Well, well, well, those members could not wait, could they? They could not wait to put the boot into hard-working New Zealanders. The very minute that this National Government gets into power, on day two they use it to take away workers’ rights. When have we seen that before? That is right, it was the last time that the National Party came into power. One of the first things National members enacted was the shocking Employment Contracts Act that took away workers’ rights. It not only took away workers’ rights, but it also reduced workers’ wages. It took away their rights to have penal rates. It reduced their take-home pay. Here National members are, back in power, and they are at it again. They are straight into it, straight into taking away workers’ rights.

All of the speakers from that side of the House got up and said that this is about opportunity, and that we had it wrong. Where is the opportunity in workers one day having the right to take a personal grievance if they are unfairly dismissed, and the very next day not having that right if they are unfairly dismissed? The date has changed during the course of the debate, because it turns out that it will now be until the last day of February that workers will have the right to a personal grievance if they are unfairly dismissed at work. Suddenly, on 1 March, overnight, all of those many workers who are in their first 90 days of employment in a company with 20 or fewer employees will lose that very basic right to have legal redress if they are unfairly dismissed at work. That Minister knows it. She knows that having a legal remedy, the backstop of taking a personal grievance case, is at the heart of a worker’s right to fairness at work.

The people of this country voted for a new Government, and by gosh have they got a shock! They thought it was going to be business as usual. That is what National Party members went out of their way to say on the election campaign trail. They tried so hard to make it look like there would not be much of a change. They said that it would just be business as usual. Workers in this country are already reeling. They now know that it is not business as usual. I have an interesting graphic here that I think says it all. Members will want to have a look at this. This is the smiley face of John Key. Here he is. This is the smile that people voted for. They thought they were getting a nice guy. They thought they were getting someone who would continue with business as usual.