Employment Relations Law Reform Bill

By popular demand, I am back to finish the story I was telling last night. The woman in question, who had been through a targeted selection interview process, did not get the job. She took an action against the company, which failed in the Employment Court. So she went to the Human Rights Commission and said: “I’m a woman, I didn’t get the job, and I’ve been discriminated against on the basis of my sex.” The commission, like a rabid dog, grabbed the case and charged. To cut a long story short, she took an action, which went something like this: she had no justification, she admitted privately that she had no justification, and the commission said that it did not think she had any justification but, by the way, it did not think that that big company would like that sort of adverse publicity, so why did it not sit down and write out a little cheque. We ended up writing out a small cheque for $220,000.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: How much?

It was $220,000. So the moral of the story is that people should grab one of the Minister’s forms and go out and make themselves a fortune. That is why we do not like Part 4. We do not like either point that the Minister in the chair, Paul Swain, is suggesting. [Interruption] I do not know what that Minister is doing in calling out; he has no idea what is in this part. I suggest he keeps very quiet. I cannot give the Minister a better example than that as to why he should rethink that component. The company paid $220,000. That is what took place. She admitted, as did the commission, that she had no justification whatsoever. She had been treated fairly, and her grievance was a complete and utter fabrication. That will be replicated by others, who will simply say they do not like the boss. They will be given a choice whether to take step (a) or step (b), and they will be able to make themselves a small fortune. Surely the Minister cannot believe that is right. It is a huge injustice. I ask the Minister to take a call and explain that away.

Part 4 allows an individual who is so inclined an opportunity to double dip, as the honourable member Brian Connell has just outlined. People can go through either the human rights legislation or the employment legislation. It seems to me that people of such character as has just been well described will look for the weakest link. That is regrettable. I know that the Labour Party members over there do not like to admit it, but, whether we like it or not, there are people who capitalise on that sort of circumstance. They can see gold at the end of the rainbow, and they put themselves into a situation in which it is easier for the employer to pay up and write a cheque rather than to challenge their claims or assertions.

In new section 79A, “Choice of procedures”, inserted by clause 100, subsection (2) states: “To avoid doubt, a complaint referred to in subsection (1) includes, but is not limited to, a complaint about sexual harassment or racial harassment.” Why does the legislation not stipulate what can be embraced in it? Why does it state that those can be included, implying that there is something else that an individual can claim about, but not mentioning what it is? That seems to open the pie wider than has ever been envisaged before. It seems to give people who are fairly unscrupulous an opportunity to be even more unscrupulous—to capitalise on whatever weak link in the chain they can find. New Zealand First is totally opposed to this type of legislation. We believe that this matter should be tightened up rather than loosened.

I note that United Future member Paul Adams spoke quite earnestly about it yesterday. I was impressed by his contribution. He has been making assertions about the Holidays Act that seem to put him on the left side of the playing field, yet for some reason yesterday he came back to the mainstream, and indicated very well the effects of this clause. It did not sound as if he were eating an elephant, bite by bite! This part is a small part but it is a significant part, and it actually leaves a bad flavour about the whole bill. New Zealand First is not going to support the bill, but this part in particular leaves a bad flavour about the whole thing.

We have heard about several cases. I think that Brian Connell raised the worst case I have heard about in this Parliament, although I have heard privately of similar circumstances. I see no need to widen the existing system, and this measure will simply make—[Interruption] Oh, the member over there thinks it is a joke. I can tell him that many relatively small employers have been caught by the sorts of circumstances that the previous speaker just illustrated. I personally have never had the experience, but I am well aware of many small employers who have been faced with the task of either paying up, or going through a huge legal operation, with huge costs, if they challenge the system. This Part 4 opens the door so that people of that mind can have two bites of the apple. They might think they could do better under the human rights legislation, or they might think they could do better under the employment legislation.

I say to the Minister of Labour that this is employment legislation, and it should be confined to employment. Those sorts of claims should be confined to employment law. Human rights legislation has a part, no doubt, in New Zealand society, but to my mind it does not have a part in employment law. It should be quite categoric that if people want to lay claims, they should do so under existing employment legislation. So there is absolutely no need for this part. It disappoints me, and I know that it will disappoint thousands of small employers.

I move, That the question be now put.

Employers throughout the country today will be feeling a distinct shiver running up their spines at the thought that we will be passing legislation that in any way extends the grubby little hand of the Human Rights Commission into their businesses any more than already happens.

💬 Jill Pettis: Oh, such passion.

I am very happy to say that I am very passionate about it. I am sure that employers in Jill Pettis’ electorate of Whanganui have been through this experience. As with Brian Connell’s example, I can give chapter and verse, time and time again, of employers—decent, good employers who have a really good workforce, who have lots of staff who have worked for them for years, and who are very happy to have them—who take on someone new, and within no time at all it has become very clear that that person’s objective is to get as much moolah, booty, loot, or whatever the word is, as possible out of that employer within the shortest possible time—to take the money and run. It is nothing to do with reasonableness or with any treatment that that person has had.

I would be more comfortable, at least, if the employment law stayed with the Employment Relations Authority having some rights where there were clear breaches of the employment relationship between the staff member and the employer. We are starting to favour employees who are on the razzle—who go out to find where they can get their next bit of moolah from. We are opening the door to an agency in this country that really could not give a damn about employers. It could not give a damn about the costs. Its members all sit around in their caftans and sandals at night, with their macramé sets out, asking how they can practise fairness, decency, and honesty: “I’ll tell you what we’ll do: we’ll put the boot into employers, because they can afford it.” That is their attitude, over and over again. To Darren Hughes, who has never employed anybody, that may seem funny, but I do not think it is funny, at all.

Now, of course, we have all the ambulance-chasers out there, who are so affluent from the regime that has been in place that they can afford to do television advertising. Members should just watch television at night and they will see: “No win, no pay; you come and see us if you have a problem.” Where is the incentive to settle, to say: “Look, we’ll bring back those staff members, we’ll do some things within the company that will re-accommodate them, and they can carry on their merry way working for us.”? Why would one want to do that, if one were a lawyer on a “no win, no pay” regime? That lawyer would get nothing out of it—nought, zero. So what are we doing? The ambulance-chasing lawyers will look at Part 4 and say: “Whoop-de-doo! Here we go, guys! This is Gold Coast holiday home stuff for us, because we will be able to take this as far as we like.” As I said, the caftan-wearing brigade down at the Human Rights Commission, who are so pious and so worried, will pass rules about how unfair it is, and so on, without any knowledge whatsoever—

💬 Brian Connell: As they reach for their Chardonnay.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON:—as they reach for their Chardonnay, as my colleague says.

I do not think anybody in this country ever believes there is not an element of discrimination in employment; I do not think there is anybody who does not believe that. I think every person has his or her own personal prejudice. I am not a religious person, but I supported the Christchurch petrol-bowser man who said he wanted only staff members who were religious. That would have excluded me from his company, straight away, but I think he should have had the right to say that. But, oh no, if he says that now, he will be discriminating. I can understand if someone does not want a big tall bloke with a loud voice and a beard working for him or her, and says so. I would say: “That’s fine; I’m not wanted, so I will go and get another job.” But with this legislation we are opening the door to an unbelievably open chequebook. People will be able to claim that they have been discriminated against, over anything: “Oh, the employer looked at me side on as I was walking down the corridor.”; “Oh, he didn’t! Right, that’s it. We’ll have the Human Rights Commission brought in. We’ll pay for counselling services, accident compensation, a grievance case, and so on.”

This Part 4 is a disgrace. There are already enough mechanisms in employment legislation to deal with the genuine case where an employer is unfair and does act in a punitive way towards his or her staff member—and I am very happy about that. But I tell members right now that employers across this country will find it hard to lie a-bed at night knowing that the Government is now extending those mechanisms to include the Human Rights Commission.

I move, That the question be now put.