Employment Relations Amendment Bill

Given that Part 2 is the substantive part of the bill—we have got past the minor procedural part, and I expect the debate on this part to be proportional—I want to start running through some of the many amendments that Labour members are moving in order to clarify the bill and, in fact, to hold the Minister of Labour to account.

We have canvassed substantially already in the debate on Part 1—and I thank the Chair for his generosity in letting us do that—the question of mediation. We had one explanation from the Minister, but it was not adequate. It is clear that this bill uses the term “employee” for someone whose employment has been terminated. Clearly, at the point that people’s employment has been terminated they are no longer employees. The substantive Act, in the mediation section, refers to a person in an “employment relationship”. Clearly, an “employment relationship” can be a relationship that has broken down—the person is not an employee. The other important point is that that person then has the right to take a case through further stages, whereas someone on one of these trial periods does not have the ability to do that.

Another amendment in my name makes it clear that an employer cannot make a trial period provision a condition of employment. Basically, if employers try to say “take it or leave it”, they will fail. That was the problem with the Employment Contracts Act. Many employers had a “take it or leave it” contract. My amendment makes it clear that an employer cannot make a trial period provision a condition of employment.

Another amendment makes it clear that the notice of termination has to be in writing. There is no requirement under the legislation at the moment to give the notice of termination in writing; it can be given verbally. This amendment makes it clear that it must be written.

Another amendment makes it clear that there are some very limited requirements on employers before the personal grievance rights apply. There are a couple of things. The first is that if employers have a problem with employees, they have to give them a note that says so, and they have to give them some time to sort out the problem. If someone is on a trial period, and it is clear that an issue is developing with the quality of that person’s work, or within the employment relationship, the employee is given a note that says so, and is given a few days to sort the issue out. Again, I think that is pretty minor and pretty reasonable.

The next one requires that employees whose employment is terminated under the probationary period provisions are informed in writing of the reasons for that termination. That, again, is something that is fair. Assuming that the employees could go to mediation—and our argument is that, at the moment, under this bill they cannot—it gives them something to consider when deciding whether they should do that.

Another of the amendments, which my colleague Chris Carter will speak to fairly extensively later, might be referred to as the “Anne Tolley amendment”. It is the one that makes it clear that people working within schools will be exempted from the probationary period provisions. I want to say, as a former Minister of Education, that I think about a third of schools have 20 or fewer employees, and they are most often the schools that struggle to find teachers. They are often in remote areas, they are often smaller schools, and they are more likely to have boards of trustees that are involved in what might be described as parish issues or local dissent. Sometimes generations of dissent can be played out within the board of trustees. People sometimes can have a down on teachers. I think there will be a very real recruitment problem. There is already a recruitment problem in many of our smaller schools, but this bill will add to the problems and it will drive down the quality of education within those schools.

The effect of the amendment is to make sure that what Anne Tolley has committed to is incorporated—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Promised, at least twice.

Promise, commitment—she made it clear that people within schools would not be affected by this legislation; that there would be an exemption. We are trying to make sure that her promises are kept.

The next amendment proposed is to ensure that the probation period applies to a position rather than a particular individual. This means that the trial period must be fully disclosed in the provision description and in the material given to applicants seeking the position. It also means that it cannot subsequently be added in. It also cannot be added into the employment description later in the process, or into any subsequent employment agreement. This amendment makes the situation very, very clear to people deciding whether they should apply for a position, because it makes clear the intent of the employer—the employer’s choice, I think it is fair to say—on this matter right from the beginning.

I think it is fair to say that we have reasonable expectations of a reasonable Minister saying “Yes, that’s what I promised.” All of those amendments are what the Minister promised and what she committed to, and it is our expectation that she will look carefully at them and that there will be reasoned discussion. I say to the Minister that if she thinks that we have not quite got those amendments right, if she thinks that they could be improved in the drafting, that Mr Iles or his successors in these matters could give us a hand in order to make sure that this bill works better—that her intent and our intent are better reflected—then I am quite willing to have a discussion and to have amendments made to my amendments. In fact, I would be happy for the Government to take over the amendments. It is not a matter of my getting credit for improving the bill; it is a matter of making sure that the bill is improved.

There is an amendment that I think is relatively unlikely to be picked up by the Government, but it is worth a crack anyway. The amendment is to change the wording in the heading of new section 67A, inserted by clause 7, from “90 days” to “1 day”, and, within section 67A(2)(a), to delete the specified period of “90 days” and to substitute “1 day”.

That is the first set of amendments to this bill. The proposal we have is that, as an Opposition, between now and about lunchtime tomorrow we will work our way through this set of amendments, and then we will work through the second set, which are focused on the latter part of Part 2. But I reiterate to the Minister through you, Mr Chair, that this part is the operative part of the bill. I think that is something that Mr Mapp accepts. This is the guts of the legislation. This is the only opportunity, given the lack of select committee consideration, for careful examination of the bill. It is the intention of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to be very, very thorough as we work through it.

Having said all of that, again I want to make it clear that even if the Government accepts every single one of these amendments, including the one that switches the trial period from 90 days to 1 day, the Opposition—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I don’t think so.

The member does not think it is likely? Even if the Government accepts every single one of the amendments, this legislation is wrong in principle and it is wrong in process, and the Opposition will continue to vote against it, right through all further stages. I want to make it clear that it is my understanding that, so far, 27 members of the Opposition would like to speak on this part.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: At least—at least.

I am not saying they will speak only once—not 27 speeches, but 27 separate members who would like to take a call on this bill. And by the time that we have finished with this part, three more Labour members will have made their maiden speeches.

This is the major part of the bill. This is a bill that of course, quite unusually, will not be going to a select committee. It is almost unheard of that a bill that would deprive people of fundamental rights would not go to a select committee. I therefore expect that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, will this time answer the questions that were put to her repeatedly in Part 1, but that she failed to answer. If she does not answer them, it means effectively that the Government accepts no accountability for what it is ramming through the House, maybe by midnight tonight—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: No, no—midnight tomorrow night.

—or maybe tomorrow night, if the Chair is fair and gives everybody on this side who wants to speak the chance. I am sure the Chair is fair, Mr Chairman.

The first question I want to put to the Minister is whether she sustains her argument that this bill benefits employees, and does not in any way detract from their rights when we see in the new section 67A that an employee is precluded from taking a personal grievance or bringing legal proceedings in respect of a dismissal. I ask the Minister whether this means that a person who may have been dismissed absolutely unfairly, without justice, without any due cause, therefore has no effective redress for that dismissal. Is that, effectively, what the bill does? If so, how does she justify that in light of the fact that one of the most important things for any individual is his or her job, and the ability to make a living? That is why we have employment relations legislation, because the general principle is that nobody should be deprived of his or job, other than for good cause and through following due process.

Is the Minister saying that in the first 3 months of an employee’s employment, he or she is to be denied that right? Is the Minister telling everyday New Zealanders that they can be sacked without good cause, and they have no come-back? Is this really what the bill is about? If this is what the bill is about, I ask the Minister how she can go around this House saying that this bill does not deny people of their rights.

Secondly, I ask the Minister whether she agrees with the Human Rights Commission that rushed legislation is potentially risky legislation, and to answer the question of whether this legislation is rushed. If her answer is no, I ask the Minister to explain to me why, when the regulatory impact analysis team was asked to undertake an assessment of the adequacy of this legislation, they said they could not do so because of the time frame. Can we assume from that, that this is indeed rushed legislation? Can we assume that from the fact that this legislation was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and that this legislation was explicitly ruled out as being within the 100-day programme of the Government?

If this legislation was not foreshadowed in this way—it was done at the last moment, it was rushed, and members did not see this legislation, until 15 minutes to midnight, last night—does the Minister therefore accept that the Human Rights Commission does have a very valid point that this legislation should go to a select committee for scrutiny? If the Minister’s argument is that there has been a bill already that looks like this, a bill that went to a select committee last year, can she explain that there is no difference, then, between a Government bill and a member’s bill that nobody expected to pass, and, indeed, did not pass, and was opposed by 80 percent of those making submissions, and that, therefore, the stakeholders who have a vital interest in this legislation should be given the right to have a say on it?

For example, should not the Human Rights Commission, which has expressed concern that this legislation would impact negatively on school leavers seeking their first job, would have a negative impact on other vulnerable and disadvantaged groups wanting and needing employment, have the right to make a submission? The Human Rights Commission is a serious agency in this country. It says that it believes that it should have the right to have its voice heard on this legislation. Why is the Minister, therefore, denying that body the right to make submissions? If the answer is that this legislation is so important that we need it as soon as possible, given the fact that it does not come into effect until 1 April 2009 what is the Government losing by putting this to a select committee, and still getting it through within the same time frame? Is the Minister not putting it to a select committee because the Government understands that its arguments in favour of this legislation are utterly unsustainable? Is that the real reason this legislation is not going to a select committee?

I think it is only fair that serious questions asked genuinely be addressed by the Minister. Eight questions were put by me to the Minister on Part 1. Some of those questions have been repeated. The Minister might not be able to answer adequately, because, frankly, we would not expect there to be legitimate answers to those questions, but she should, when she has to answer questions in the House, at least make an attempt to answer those questions.

On this side of the House our argument is that this clause denies fundamental rights to everyday New Zealand workers in their first 3 months of employment. I ask whether the Minister is really serious in saying that the potential employee has to agree to it first. Is the Minister telling the House that the bargaining power of the single individual employee desperate for a job will be the equal of the employer who says: “If you want this job you sign this agreement.” Is the Minister seriously telling the House that that is what she believes, or will she own up to the House that there is no equity in the bargaining position between a single person desperately seeking employment—and one suspects that under this Government unemployment will get much worse—and the employer who can pick and choose? I think that that is a red herring; that is no safeguard. The Minister raises the question that the safeguard exists, that a person does not forgo these rights if he or she works in a company that employs more than 20 people. But the Minister would have to admit that 97 percent of New Zealand businesses employ fewer than 20 people.

I ask why it is good enough for a person in a big firm to have the protection, but not good enough for the majority of workers in this country who work for small firms. Will the Minister acknowledge that none of the safeguards she says exist to protect workers’ rights have any substance at all? This Opposition is utterly opposed to people losing the fundamental right to have redress if they are treated unfairly. This Opposition is utterly opposed to the arrogance of a Government that for no good cause pushes this bill through under urgency without the scrutiny of a select committee, and without New Zealanders having their normal democratic right to comment on something that will adversely affect them.

I have in front of me the National Party policy on employment and workplace relations. I remind the Committee of what the Government said it would do before the election, because I think the public have been led to believe in the debate tonight that the National Party made it perfectly plain what it was intending to do. Of course, this measure is not on the 100-day post-election action plan. It is not mentioned on there at all.

But let me look at the employment and workplace relations policy document. It says “National believes employment law should treat all parties fairly. It should: … Protect employees and employers. … Expand job opportunities for those having difficulty getting work—like young, inexperienced people or new immigrants. … Increase flexibility. … Let businesses grow.” The policy goes on to talk about the “90-day trial period for new employees by agreement between the employer and the employee, for businesses with fewer than 20 staff. During the trial period, either party may terminate the employment relationship for performance, without a personal grievance claim being brought.” That was what the Government said it would do before the election. But let me read the next line of National’s policy under that heading. It says “Good-faith provisions will still apply”.

Let us look at the good-faith provisions of the Employment Relations Act. Section 4 of the Act states: “(1) The parties to an employment relationship … must deal with each other in good faith; and … must not, whether directly or indirectly, do anything—(i) to mislead or deceive each other; or (ii) that is likely to mislead or deceive each other. (1A) The duty of good faith … (a) is wider in scope than the implied mutual obligations of trust and confidence; and (b) requires the parties”—and I think this is the issue that the Minister should respond to—“to an employment relationship to be active and constructive in establishing and maintaining a productive employment relationship in which parties are, among other things, responsive and communicative;”.

How on earth can taking away an employer’s obligation to have a reason for sacking somebody, and to actually talk to an employee about expectations and explain to the employee what the employee needs to do to lift his or her performance, as a normal probationary period would allow under the existing legislation, be maintaining good-faith provisions? “Good-faith provisions will still apply”; that is what the National Party’s policy said before the election. So why is National now deciding that there should be no good faith in the first 90 days of employment? It is when the employment relationship is established that—

💬 Hon Member: Is he alive or is he dead?

Well somebody should wake that member up, for goodness’ sake! That is a bit embarrassing, but let us not mind that.

The point I would make is this: the good-faith provisions actually require the parties to have a responsive and communicative relationship. If we are seriously talking about having a quality employment relationship, then establishing expectations right from the outset is what matters the most. All that this legislation does is to encourage people not to talk to each other about what really matters to them, because employees will say what they believe employers want to hear in order to get a job. They will have to agree to the 90-day period going in, and we all know that that will be a “take it or leave it” option; it will not be anything more than that. And the bottom line is that National’s policy is given lie to by the bill that we have in front of the Committee tonight.

In addition, under the good-faith provisions of the Act, in section 4(1A)(c), “an employer who is proposing to make a decision that will, or is likely to, have an adverse effect on the continuation of employment of 1 or more of his or her employees” has to give those employees “(i) access to information, relevant to the continuation of the employees’ employment,”. Employers do not have to do that under the 90-day bill. So I ask, why did National, in its policy, state: “Good-faith provisions will still apply”, when those members knew perfectly well that they were bringing in a 90-day period where no good faith applies at all? It is quite clear that National, by including that provision in its policy document, was not being up front with the electorate, and that is a very good reason why this bill should go to a select committee. The public of New Zealand were told that yes, the National Party would bring in a 90-day provision, but that it would also retain good-faith obligations during that period. But no, there are no good-faith obligations during that period, at all.

I want the Minister, who, as I understand it, was responsible for the release of that policy, to stand up and explain not only to the Committee but also to the people of New Zealand why National’s policy stated that good-faith provisions would still apply when, in fact, they do not apply in the 90-day period when somebody is just starting work.

The other thing I want the Minister to respond to is the question that I raised in Part 1, and to also respond to the question that I raised in the first reading of this bill—that is, if this bill is designed to get vulnerable workers into employment, then what happens when it turns pear-shaped? What happens when an employer walks into an after-match function and sacks an 18-year-old for flicking a bit of ash on the floor—not that he or she would be able to smoke inside these days? But the point I am making is to ask why it is acceptable to allow that sort of thing to happen, and then to allow that worker no rights—none; not one right, at all. I cannot understand why the Minister believes it is important to argue a point that is so demonstrably wrong in those particular circumstances.

It is the case that young workers who are entering their first job need to be well supported in that job, in order to have the confidence to take up that particular career and continue in it in future. I believe that the Minister is quite mistaken in saying this legislation will expand job opportunities for those people who have difficulty in getting work—people like young, inexperienced people or new immigrants. In fact, those two groups of people will be the most disadvantaged by this legislation.

Another question that I want the Minister to respond to is one about immigration visas. Of course, an immigration visa may apply in the context of a work permit for a specific employer. If the employee has to agree to a 90-day provision in order to get the job and is then sacked, then the visa no longer applies and that person has no right to work in this country at all. That is a serious problem, which I think the Minister of Labour should respond to, as well. As she is also the Associate Minister of Immigration she will, of course, have the answer at her fingertips, but I say a specific work permit that applies to an individual employer cannot be transferred to another employer. That is the case unless it is an open work permit, in which case the employee could move to another employer. But if the employee is on an employer-specific work permit that is relevant to one employer only, then as soon as that person’s job is over, so too is his or her right to work—gone. I think that is a very serious issue, which the Minister should stand up and respond to. We could have dealt with that issue at a select committee hearing—but, of course, we are being denied the opportunity to give this bill the degree of scrutiny that it ought to have—because issues like that are important.

National’s policy states that this measure is about helping young people and new immigrants, and there is a very real question about the situation facing a new immigrant who is working under a work permit that is specific to a single employer and is not able to move on to another employer, but who is forced to sign up to the 90-day agreement in order to get the job in the first place. If people think that not all migrants are in the position where they are vulnerable like that, I tell them to think again, because I know that many migrants will sign up to any conditions of employment just to get their foot in the door. It is the same case for young people, who will agree to provisions that are not in their best interests because they have no other choice. I think the Government is prepared to say a “take it or leave it” approach is OK.

As mentioned earlier in the debate today, I have tabled an amendment tonight to Part 2, introducing two new clauses—clauses 7A and 7B. These clauses are aimed at ensuring that people who are fired from their job under the provisions of this legislation cannot be subjected to the 13-week stand-down period that is provided for under section 60H of the Social Security Act 1964. The Minister has continued to assure me in the House that it is not, in fact, the Government’s intention to have this double jeopardy happening to people who are dismissed under the 90-day rule, but I am not convinced completely by what she has said so far.

I will summarise again the reasons why the Greens believe that the amendment we have on the Table tonight is necessary. At the moment Work and Income has the power to impose a 13-week stand-down on anyone who has been fired from his or her job for misconduct. However, there is some protection for sacked workers at the moment, because if a person takes a case to the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court, a benefit can be paid until or unless the authority or the court finds against the worker in terms of stating that the misconduct allegations are proved.

If the misconduct allegations are not proved, the worker keeps the benefit; if they are proved, the benefit has to be paid back, and that is fair enough. Once the Employment Relations Amendment Bill comes into effect, this back-up protection will no longer exist, as sacked workers in enterprises with under 20 employees will have no recourse to the authority or the court during their first 90 days on the job. Therefore, if workers are let go for misconduct, how are they to find any justice when they report to Work and Income? Will the case manager, as part of his or job, then have to investigate and judge the facts of that particular employment case or grievance—whatever we call it—in the way the Employment Relations Authority would have done up until now? I do not think case officers working for the Ministry of Social Development are likely to have the training, time, or competence to carry out the sorts of functions that the Employment Relations Authority currently does. I believe that in fact they are far more likely to simply take the word of the employer, accept the allegation of misconduct, and deprive the applicant of any right to an unemployment benefit for the next 13 weeks.

This adds a double jeopardy to this bill, making it even more ill-considered and unjust for some workers than I believe the Minister of Labour originally intended. On top of this, as far as I can ascertain, the existing clauses of the bill we are considering tonight do not give an employee any right to be told why he or she is being dismissed. This will increase the problem for people applying for the unemployment benefit in these circumstances, some of whom may well end up with no clear information whatsoever to give Work and Income when they are asked why they have lost their job. In the absence of any clarity or proof, I feel that Work and Income case officers may, at least sometimes, apply stand-downs based on confused or no information. This is because case officers at times—not universally, but at times—act in quite a prejudiced way towards beneficiaries.

Welfare law is itself a nightmare of confusion. The consequence of this bill becoming law in its current form will be to add yet another layer to that confusion that the poor Work and Income staff have to deal with. Experience tells me that it is usually the beneficiary who misses out if there is any doubt at all in the granting or declining of benefits. This amendment from the Green Party is an attempt to address one part of the imbalance that is being created by a bill that strips new workers of their rights to contest unfair dismissal. I invite all parties in this House who believe that all workers deserve the right not to suffer twice over as a result of the implementation of this legislation, to vote for the Green Party amendment.

In rising to debate Part 2 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, I must say that it feels like being in a bit of a time warp, because the last time a new National Government came into power, one of the very first things it did was to strip away workers’ rights, and it is happening again. Last time, the National Government did it with the Employment Contracts Act, but even then its members stopped and paused to listen to what the public had to say. Even back in the bad old days of the Employment Contracts Act, at least there was a select committee process. This time, workers’ rights are being stripped away without any recourse for the public to say what they think about it. It is just like being in a time warp, and Part 2 is the mechanics of how exactly workers’ rights are being stripped away once again by an incoming National Government in its first 100 days.

Did National members ever warn us that it was going to happen in the first 100 days? No, we did not learn that, it was not on the list that was published before the election when John Key said—and I will just double-check, and I may table this copy of the 100-day action plan later because it is definitely not on the list.

I start with clause 6 because this actually amends the current provision for probationary periods. That is right, ladies and gentlemen. In the current Act of Parliament there is already a provision for probationary periods. That is why clause 6 in Part 2 of this bill amends the probationary period that is already in the Employment Relations Act. The bill amends it by taking the words “or trial” out of it. Suddenly it is not a trial, it is just a probationary period. I ask how that changes anything. I would like the Minister to tell us exactly how taking the phrase “or trial” out of the current Act actually changes things. I suspect that this is a further stripping away of workers’ rights, but I do not understand what the implications are. I would like the Minister to answer that question addressing clause 6 in Part 2.

I move on to clause 7, because this is where it really starts to get down and dirty. This is where workers’ rights are actually stripped away, and I can understand this part. First of all, it talks about the trial period being for 90 days or less. I wonder whether it is any coincidence that the Employment Relations Act also has another time frame in it that fits inside of this. It is the ability for workers to decide to join a union and thereby stay on the collective agreement within the first 30 days of their employment. I think this is an important time frame to think about, because when employees are first employed, under the Employment Relations Act they automatically go on to a collective employment agreement if one exists in their workplace. If they want to stay on that collective employment agreement they must join the union within the first 30 days of their employment.

Perhaps I am being a little suspicious, but it seems to me that the reason 90 days is the probationary period is that it fits outside of the 30-day period, so that employers can use this bill to discriminate against workers who decide to join a union. We will never know the answer to that, I say to the Minister, because under this bill employers do not have to give a reason at all. They just have to say: “Sorry, don’t turn up tomorrow. Don’t come Monday—DCM.” That is what this bill should be called, the “Don’t Come Monday Bill”, because in fact that is all that employers have to tell them—to not turn up to work again. They do not have to give workers a reason, they do not have to say: “It’s not because you weren’t performing properly; it’s because you joined the union, and I didn’t like that.” There are a whole range of reasons that employers will be able to use to discriminate against employees, and those are just some of them, off the top of my head.

The other thing covered by this part of the bill is mediation. I know that the Minister has made some deal about mediation being put into this bill. Those of us who have been practitioners in this area know a little bit about mediation, and we know why mediation works. It does work. It is extremely effective. Mediation is effective because all of the parties to mediation know that there is another part of the process, that if they do not commit to coming out with a good-faith process of mediation, there is potentially a personal grievance procedure they can go on to, and other remedies that can be sought under the Employment Relations Authority. That is why mediation can be very effective in sorting out these issues, because both parties know that if they cannot sort it out at mediation, there are other legal remedies and further steps where those things can be resolved—but not under this bill.

This is the really important part, because this, in my humble view, is where the rights of workers get completely stripped away, in the first 90 days if they work for an employer with 20 or fewer employees. It is in clause 7, which inserts new section 67B in the current Act. I will read out new section 67B(3) for anyone who is listening to this debate and who may be in any doubt whatsoever that the rights of workers are being stripped away by this bill, and I ask them to contemplate subsection (3) of new section 67B. This is the actual wording: “Neither this section nor a trial provision prevents any employee from bringing a personal grievance or legal proceedings on any of the grounds specified in section 103(1)(b) to (g).” What it does tell us is that employees employed in a small workplace will, in the first 90 days of employment, lose the right that every other worker in this country has to bring a personal grievance or to go to the Employment Relations Authority. That is what they actually lose, and that is taking workers’ rights away.

I think the timing of bringing this in—[Interruption] ACT Party members might find that very, very funny. They may actually think that the situation of workers at their most vulnerable time is funny—the first 90 days of their employment when they are trying to learn the culture of the workplace, understand their job, and come to grips with all the health and safety provisions and all the regimes that happen in those first 90 days. They may think that it is incredibly funny that they will not have their full rights in place, but that period is the very time when people do need to have their full rights in place.

I particularly want to argue the case for young workers and those experiencing their very first job. Of course, I want no one to be fooled into thinking that this bill applies only to people experiencing their very first job, because it does not. It affects anyone who changes job and it applies for the first 90 days of that employment where his or her employer has 20 or fewer workers. But it is young workers, primarily, for whom this will be the most difficult. As a parent of young children, I do not want my children to be exposed to this, because I know that when they are very, very nervous and new to the workplace they will want the opportunity that every other worker has, which is to have properly explained to them what they may be doing wrong, and let them understand what the culture of the workplace is; this bill actually stops those conversations from taking place.

The other point I would like to mention quickly—because I think it does need serious consideration by the Committee—is the very good proposed amendment that has been put forward in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to ensure that teachers be exempted from the probationary period provisions. I know that members of the Government have argued that they are not employees in places of 20 or fewer employees, but that is not the view of the New Zealand Educational Institute. The institute, which actually negotiates the employment agreement for teachers, says that they will have this bill applied to them. I want to ensure that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill does contain this very, very good amendment that has been put forward in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard, to insert new section 67C, “Teachers to be exempted from probationary period provisions”. I would also like the Committee to consider other groups of workers that may need that protection as well. I had not thought previously of teachers as being particularly vulnerable groups, but clearly they are. It has been in the debate.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Anne Tolley said they were.

Perhaps they will be, under a National Government. Perhaps that is what she meant. Perhaps Anne Tolley was making a prediction that teachers will become vulnerable under a National Government.

I rise firstly to ask the Minister in the chair, Kate Wilkinson, why she would not support my colleague Trevor Mallard’s amendment that exempts teachers from the probationary period and inserts a new section 67C in clause 7.

As many members of this Committee will know, until a month or so ago I was privileged to be New Zealand’s Minister of Education. During the election campaign I also was privileged to be Labour’s education spokesperson, and I occasionally had the opportunity to debate with Mrs Tolley, National’s new Minister of Education. Sadly, she would never appear on television or on Radio New Zealand National with me. I am not sure why. Perhaps she was a little bit nervous about it. But she did come to the occasional New Zealand Educational Institute meeting.

One of the meetings was held in Rotorua, where I was ably represented by my colleague Steve Chadwick. We saw on the Television One programme Tonight the hapless Mrs Tolley saying at that Rotorua meeting that teachers would be exempt from the 90-day trial period. I understand that Mrs Tolley came into the Chamber earlier this evening and denied saying what all of New Zealand had seen her say on the Television One programme Tonight. I can also say unequivocally that when Mrs Tolley and I attended a New Zealand Educational Institute meeting in the Epsom electorate, she said when asked a question about support staff in schools—not teachers; the people who do invaluable work supporting students and teachers in their quality teaching and learning—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you would consider whether the contribution from the member addresses Part 2.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Chairperson, an amendment that certainly has not been ruled out by you or by anyone else in the Chair goes to the very question of whether teachers should be covered. It is known on this side of the Chamber as the “Tolley amendment”, because it attempts to ensure that she is not made a liar by her colleagues on the other side of the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): At this point, the member who has the call has not contravened any of the institutional expectations of Parliament. The member who just spoke to the point of order did, I believe, in a roundabout way—[Interruption] I am ruling on this. You can shake your head, but we are not going to get into any usage of words that are not accepted in this Chamber. I am not going to rule out the direction the member is going in, as long as he ties it to the amendments that he mentioned. But he should be very cautious of what words he might use in that regard.

I am just reinforcing the rationale behind why I believe the Minister should support Mr Mallard’s amendments. I will continue. Mr Brownlee may have intervened to protect Mrs Tolley’s reputation. He should save that for question time, where I will look forward to questioning and exploring this issue further.

I can say unequivocally that when I was present at a New Zealand Educational Institute meeting in the Epsom electorate, Mrs Tolley, in response to a question on whether support staff would be included in the 90-day period, said they would not. Today as we look at this legislation we can see that they, and teachers, and other staff working at schools are included. We were told by the National Party during the election that it was time for a change. Well, this is not a change that the education sector was expecting. In fact, it is a change that the sector was told by Mrs Tolley would not happen.

Earlier tonight, while working in my room but listening to the debate—as I am sure all members throughout this building are doing—I heard John Hayes, the National MP for the Wairarapa area, say that this trial period could not possibly apply to teachers because teachers are employed by the Ministry of Education. That is the level of ignorance of, in his case, a quite experienced and senior National Party MP! I have to say to him that teachers are employed by boards of trustees. Boards of trustees will now have the right to sack a teacher in the first 90 days of his or her employment. That is not something that schoolteachers were expecting, thanks to Mrs Tolley.

Indeed, my colleague Sue Moroney read out earlier this evening—and in a few minutes I might reinforce what she was talking about—the release put out by the New Zealand Educational Institute expressing its deep concerns about its inability to discuss this legislation. All New Zealanders who are listening to the debate or who have any interest in what is happening in their Parliament are seeing this legislation being rammed through Parliament with no chance for teachers, workers, employers, or anybody else who has an interest in the legislation to have an input. I have to say that every New Zealander should be passionately interested in this legislation, because it will touch the lives, ultimately, of every one of them. Nobody in our country has the chance to have an input into it, least of all teachers, who when this legislation is passed will be trapped into having a period of insecurity.

My colleague Mr Mallard, who, like me, was privileged at one time to be a Labour Minister of Education, talked about the impact of this legislation on our schools and early childhood centres. We have about 2,600 schools in this country, of which about 30 percent—about 800—have fewer than 20 employees.

I move, That the question be now put.

I would like to associate myself with the comments made by all my colleagues on this side of the Chamber in the debate thus far. I do not think this legislation is in any way good. I do, however, want to constrain my own remarks to some things that are a little bit technical, and I would like to engage the assistance of the Minister in the chair, Kate Wilkinson, if I could. I have previously given the Minister an indication that I want to raise these matters.

They come to the issue of what happens where the employer changes in the course of the 90-day trial period. What happens if the employer changes in the course of the 90 days? There are several threads to it. The first thread is covered somewhat by the legislation. The Minister would probably point out to me that new section 67A(4), in clause 7, states: “ ‘Employer’ means an employer who, at the beginning of the day on which the employment agreement is entered into,”, and, in a sense, begins to cover the issues that I would raise. Further, if one goes to Part 6A of the principal Act, as I am sure the Minister has done, one sees that it is about contracting out, contracting on beyond that, flexible working provisions, continuity of employment, and so on. I have recently refamiliarised myself with that part of the legislation.

But I note that section 69J, if the Minister would be good enough to turn to it, states: “(1) The employment of an employee who elects to transfer to a new employee where that employment is to be treated as continuous,”. Subsection (1) is a grab-all and it says that everything is held safe—including the ticking of the 90-day clock, one assumes. But in subsection (2) there is a series of avoidances of doubt. One of them is all to do with holidays. One of them—by now we are up to section 69J(2)(b)—is all to do with Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 stuff. I wonder whether any harm would be done by adding a subsection that saved the provisions of this bill; that made it explicit beyond any doubt that new sections 67A and 67B were saved in section 69J of the principal Act. I hope that I am making some sense.

💬 Hon Member: You are to me.

Well, we must avoid the possibility, and I am sure the Minister would want to avoid the possibility, of the clock starting to tick in any unforeseen circumstances. Notwithstanding the wording of clause 4, I wonder whether the Minister would contemplate adding a saving clause to section 69J.

That leads me to another point. I think it is covered but I am not sure. In the course of the 90 days the employer might change in a variety of ways. The partnership might change, the business might be put up for sale lock, stock, and barrel, there might be changes in the shareholding that are substantial enough to create what might be called a new business, or the business might be split in a manner in which the resulting businesses, or one of them, has fewer than 20 employees. I am not an expert on the Employment Relations Act. I held the portfolio some long time ago. My understanding is that the architecture of the Employment Relations Act is such that it is not size-specific. The size of the company is not a feature of any of the sections or parts of the Employment Relations Act. Therefore, when the original Act was being put together no consideration had to be given to what would happen if a company became a smaller company, a larger company, or whatever. The people who were drawing up the legislation did not have to consider that.

My proposition is that this bill, for the first time, creates a size difference: employers who employ more than 20, and employers who employ fewer. Mr Chair, I will sit down in just 30 seconds—

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: No, don’t!

Well, I think the Minister wants to take the floor. I think that because this is the first time that the size of a business has been added to the legislation, we ought to be very careful that there are no unintended consequences. I for one am not sure that we have got that covered. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to offer her remarks.

Just to answer the member Pete Hodgson’s question—and I thank him for his question—if one looks at new section 67A(4) in clause 7, one sees that it triggers the employment relationship. It states: “ ‘Employer’ means an employer who, at the beginning of the day on which the employment agreement is entered into, employs fewer than 20 employees.” That is the triggering date. In relation to Part 6A of the principal Act, because a transferring employee, if one likes, must transfer on the same terms and conditions, it would not be possible for the new employer to impose or ask for a new condition—namely, a trial period. I trust that that answers or addresses some of the Minister’s queries.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to disturb the Committee’s progress, but I just want to ask whether the advice of the Minister will be read into Hansard. I cannot remember whether the proceedings of the Committee of the whole House under urgency are recorded in Hansard.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes.

Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

We can be thankful that Minister Tolley has gone public in suggesting that teachers will be not involved in this legislation. It certainly shows, like the Māori Party’s move to vote against this legislation, that people are making a strong effort to do the right thing. I suggest to the Minister that her starting to adjust this heavy-handed legislation is one of the most outstanding things that she will do in her career.

What is certainly interesting is the issue of doubt, in that it is one-sided, and that side is the employer’s. The two provisions are section 67A(2)(b) and (c), in clause 7. Paragraph (b) states: “during that period the employer may dismiss the employee;”’. I am not too sure about the talk about adjusting by amendment, or by one of our amendments, in relation to this issue.

The removal of personal grievance rights and any legal proceedings within the 90 day trial period is quite staggering—quite staggering. Thousands of young New Zealanders this week—today and tomorrow, I think—are on the cusp of getting on the highway of employment. It is fascinating that Minister Tolley has focused on teachers. I have heard our very learned past Minister of Education, Chris Carter, suggest that he does not think that what she said is true. I think somebody should put a lot of effort right now into talking to a whole lot of the students who are about to go into employment. Somebody needs immediately to spend a lot of time telling them that if they are about to be employed by an employer with 20 or fewer employees, they had better understand that for the first 3 months they cannot be sure, and neither can their employer be sure, that they have job security for the future. It is a new addition to the career choices of a lot of our students. That is the nonsensicalness of this adjustment. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that it is an attack on the collective, and, certainly, tries to disengage people from their right to union support and to the support of anybody else.

We have heard continually today that organisations, including Business New Zealand, do not think this bill is a good idea. What I have struggled with in listening to the discussions tonight is the idea that it is to the benefit of employees in that it will mean that more employees are taken on. In the sense of the current recessionary tensions, how can that be so? I look across at Mr Lindsay Tisch and think about when he and I dared to work together on things like Be Your Own Boss—“Be Your Own Future”, be whatever. Lindsay would charge around in his car, advising people in communities how not to get put out of work. We created things like Company Rebuilders, for businesses that had started to collapse. That was a lesser situation compared with the recessionary impact of global activity at this period of time.

New section 67A(2)(c) states: “if the employer does so, the employee is not entitled to bring personal grievance or other legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal.” That is incredible, given this country’s history. That is just outrageous. Simon Power would not agree with it. It is more than stripping away people’s rights; it is an addendum and an addition to all those things that National, including Simon Power, voted against. What did National vote against? There has been a lot of waffle about mana enhancement.

💬 John Hayes: There is a lot of waffle right now!

I tell Mr Hayes that there has been a lot of waffle in relation to the enhancement of employers.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to raise two points. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, is bereft of any ability to answer questions, for some reason.

My colleague Lianne Dalziel, who is a former Minister of Immigration, as I am, raised a very important point as to what the immigration status would be of migrants on an employer-specific work permit who are sacked and have no right to work. The Minister of Labour is also the Associate Minister of Immigration. She has very learned officials—I know that because they worked with my colleague and me—sitting around her. They are very professional, learned legal officials. If she does not know the answer, she has the ability to turn to her right and ask them.

This issue will affect many thousands of migrants in New Zealand, and it will determine the choices and decisions of migrants who are thinking of coming to New Zealand. A genius on the other side of the Chamber earlier in the day rubbished the point made by one of my colleagues—I think it was Lianne Dalziel—that there are migrants for whom this bill will determine their decision whether to come to New Zealand, because if they are on an employer-specific permit their permit will be negated or in jeopardy if they are sacked. I would have thought that, given that there is no select committee process, the bill is being rammed through the House, and there is an inadequate regulatory impact statement, it was reasonable of the Opposition to ask a question about something that is incredibly important to the economy of this country, and that is what happens to the status of migrants. I would have thought that was a reasonable question. A colleague put it forward, and I put it forward again.

The other question I ask goes back to the points made by Mr Carter and other people about teachers. We know that Anne Tolley made a commitment that this bill does not apply to teachers. I remember during the election campaign raising the same issue in my own electorate, at the Rangiora War Memorial Hall, with this Minister—or member, as she was then. I think Mr Carter or Mr Mallard outed Ms Tolley and then outed Ms Wilkinson in respect of their responses on this issue. We got a lot of waffle from Ms Wilkinson as a candidate then; we never got an answer. If we look at the background, we see that Ms Tolley, the Minister of Education, said that the bill would not apply to teachers, we had an election campaign where Ms Wilkinson said it would apply, and the bill itself makes no exemption for teachers. Then we read new section 67A(4)—in clause 7—which simply states: “ ‘Employer’ means an employer who, at the beginning of the day on which the employment agreement is entered into, employs fewer than 20 employees.”

Well, there is a school in my electorate called View Hill School. It is a two to three teacher school. I will have to go to that school next week and tell the board and the staff that this legislation will apply when they employ a new teacher. From time to time Ms Wilkinson resides in the same patch that I do. I would like to know whether she went to View Hill School and told them that. I am going to tell them, and I am sure they will be shocked about it. I would have thought she would have a skerrick of decency and would get on her feet and answer that question. There are thousands of teachers, trainee teachers, and boards of trustees waiting for an answer—I think Mr Mallard said a third of schools have fewer than twenty employees—and I would have thought she would exercise her professional responsibility to get to her feet and clarify the situation. If she will not do that, then she has answered the question, and we know what to do on Monday morning, before schools break up for the holidays.

If it is the case that the bill applies to teachers, it was never signalled. That is a broken promise made by this Government, because the former spokesperson on education, now the Minister—

💬 Hon David Parker: Add it to the list.

—“Add it to the list.”, my colleague says—made an absolute commitment on tape, on YouTube, or on whatever it was—[Interruption] It was on Television One tonight? I did not see the news. If that is the case, should not that Minister be exercising her professional duty to get off her backside, get on her feet, and actually clarify the situation?

💬 John Hayes: Come on, have some decorum!

I am sure Mr Hayes would like to go to his schools. I am sure he will have his teachers—

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: They don’t know him over there!

Oh, they do not know him—OK. I would have thought those members would say that it was fair enough to put that question—and the immigration question—to the Minister. They have been put and put and put by Opposition members, and we see the arrogance of the Minister, who, after only a couple of weeks in the job, will not get up and answer those simple questions. There is no politics in them; these are questions that we need answers to.

I move, That the question be now put.

This part of the legislation is being presented as being for the benefit of employees. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, has said that this part is in the interests of employees and that it is being done for their benefit. I want to discuss that proposition, because it seems to me to be a ludicrous suggestion that is mere cant, designed to hide the agenda of the National Government. This is truly for the benefit of employers and for those whom National does not want to offend. It hits not all employees, but only the least powerful ones. This is like the National Government saying that a lower minimum wage is better for low-paid workers. It is the same sort of logic—[Interruption] I did not hear that, I am sorry, Dr Cullen. It is like the idea of lower minimum wages for the benefit of low-paid workers. It is that same sort of nonsense being visited again on the least able to advocate for their own interests.

If National thought this was for the benefit of employees, why has it not made it compulsory for high-paid employees? It is effectively compulsory for low-paid workers, because they are not in a position to contract out of this; they effectively have to take what they are given because they are not powerful people. They are not highly skilled; they do not have the ability to go to their employer and say: “There’s only a few of me around. You’ve got to employ me. I’m not going to put up with that condition.” Low-skilled workers do not have that same power; they are forced to take the conditions that are being offered by the employer, and that includes the ability, now, to sack them within 90 days.

If that is good for low-paid workers, effectively on a compulsory basis because they do not have the ability to contract out of it, why is it not compulsory for high-paid people? This is clearly for the benefit of employers. We should take away this nonsense that it is somehow for the benefit of the vulnerable. It is not for the benefit of the vulnerable; it is for the benefit of employers. It is not even for the benefit of all employers; it is, effectively, for the benefit of bad employers. But National is happy to scratch that itch. It is happy to try to keep those people happy, but it is not willing to be honest about what this is, which is that it is compulsory for the most vulnerable workers. National is not willing to visit that compulsion on the people who would vote for the National Party. I am talking about higher-paid people who are in a position to contract out of it, and will contract out of it. No, it is not forced upon them; it is forced only upon the vulnerable.

To hear the Minister trying to dress this up as being for the benefit of the people who are being abused by this change to the legislation is detestable. I really do think that in terms of logic it does stand up there in the same way as the old National habit of never increasing the minimum wage. How often did National increase the minimum wage during 1990s? Once.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: By 87c.

Yes. It increased it by 87c over that long period, and low-paid workers went back in real terms.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: We did it by $5 over 9 years.

Yes. There was a $5 increase in the minimum wage during the tenure of the Labour-led Government. That is the difference between the National Party and the Labour Party. Under Labour, all people went forward. Their terms and conditions of employment were improved, and that included the vulnerable and also the better-off. Under this legislation, which the Minister has the temerity to pretend is for the benefit of low-paid workers, the low-paid workers are the ones who suffer. It is not for their benefit. National is not willing to admit that it is, effectively, compulsory for low-paid workers who are not able to advocate their position. National is not willing to follow through on that same principle and make it compulsory for higher-paid workers—which would also be wrong. But the reason National members are not willing to make that principle clear is that those people are National voters, they think. They do not want to offend them, but they are willing to offend and undermine the interests of the most vulnerable in our society—the lowest paid.

I move that the motion be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That was not—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In case you were inclined to accept the closure motion, I point out that it was, of course, put in the incorrect manner.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank you. I heard what the member said.

I rise again to reinforce to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, that Mr Mallard’s exemption is on the Table at the moment. It seeks an exemption for teachers from the 90-day clause, and this is really important.

As I said earlier, some 30 percent of our schools have 20 employees or fewer. When Labour came into Government in 1999, 60 percent of our schools had 20 employees of fewer, but thanks to our wonderful staffing endowment of 1:18, then 1:15 and extra staff for learning support, we have seen the number of small schools drop. Nevertheless, 30 percent of our schools—about 800 schools—have 20 employees or fewer. Finding staff for these schools has been a very difficult issue, which the National Party has often raised in question time: how difficult it is to find quality teachers for rural, remote and small urban schools. But how will this legislation impact on that? It will impact in a very negative way.

In addition to these 800 or so small schools, we have about 5,000 early childhood education centres, or ECEs. These have also expanded enormously with our 20 free hours’ policy and with over a billion dollars in investment in new capacity in early childhood learning. As every member here knows and supports, getting children into early childhood education is the best and most effective thing we can do to set them on a successful learning path. It avoids all of those other issues we are so exercised about, such as crime, underachievement, unemployment, and so on. What happens to these early childhood education centres? At the moment there is a chronic shortage of staff. Yes, we have invested in capacity. Yes, we have invested in salaries. We are rapidly trying to train young people to go into the early childhood education sector.

But what sort of message will this legislation send out to those young potential teachers wanting to go in? They are being told that, sure, they will have to do their 3 years’ training and be assessed professionally, but if the principal or the board of trustees do not like them, and if in some way they do not fit in, then they are out. When Mr Mallard spoke earlier, he talked about how, often in isolated communities, issues that might not exercise us very much become very divisive. Often a board of trustees is dominated by one family or one group. I have had to deal, over my desk as Minister of Education, with some very unpleasant and unhappy situations in schools, where we have had to put in statutory intervention. If there was an extra capacity for a board of trustees or a principal to sack teachers for no reason whatsoever—remember, under this legislation it is not required to give a reason—then that sort of abuse could easily happen.

This legislation will be a barrier to recruiting staff, particularly principals, and, as we all know, the principal is the key to a successful school. It is getting harder to attract principals into rural areas and small, failing schools. Every member here can probably think of his or her own electorate, where there is a school that is perceived by the community as not being successful. The way of turning those schools around is to get the best type of principal possible, but this legislation gives a board of trustees the ability to sack a principal.

Earlier, we heard the rationale from National speakers that this was a new opportunity to get people into employment, and that employers would take new migrants and young people who are currently unemployed. I have to say to the Minister that the process of a person becoming a teacher is a rigorous process. There is a training period. There is a 2-year probationary period. Teachers are required—and Mrs Tolley probably does not know this—to have a yearly assessment against professional standards. There is a standard for beginning teachers, a different standard for fully registered teachers, and another one for experienced teachers. There are lots of mechanisms in place to make sure that the teachers in our schools are professional, competent, and doing their jobs, and, if they are not, there are mechanisms to remove them.

I was a teacher for many years. I was privileged to be the Minister of Education, and my partner is a school principal, so this is a sector I know very well. I say to the Minister that I cannot see how this legislation will positively impact on employment in schools.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt, but we cannot tell which of the amendments you are referring to. I think you need to refer to the italics in order to make it clear.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There is only one amendment to the heading of new section 67A, and that is what I have referred to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to:

to omit from the heading to section 67A “90 days” and substitute “1 day”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could you now inform us which of the two amendments that refer to new section 67A we have voted on? Is it the one that makes it clear that an employer cannot make a trial provision a condition of employment, or is it the one that changes the maximum trial period to 1 day?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It is the amendment in the member’s name to the heading of new section 67A.

So that is the maximum trial period one? Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The next amendment, in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard, is to new section 67A(1).

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Are you putting the vote on the Supplementary Order Paper or the amendment to the clause? You called it on the amendment to the clause but not on the Supplementary Order Paper. Are you doing the full thing as one, or will we have a clause by clause, new section by new section vote as part of the amendments that are before the Committee? I am happy, of course, to do it section by section, but normally we do it Supplementary Order Paper by Supplementary Order Paper.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is an amendment to new section 67A(1) in clause 7.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to:

to insert in section 67A(1) after “as defined in subsection 4”, “(subject to the process in section 67AA.”

The next amendment is in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard, to insert words in new section 67B(2) in clause 7. The question is that this amendment—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would have thought that you would have ruled this out now, given the earlier decision on the part to which this refers. Clearly this amendment refers to actions set out in my proposed amendment to insert new section 67AA. That amendment was not agreed to by the Committee, and in those circumstances I think the Chair would normally rule out a subsequent amendment to it. One cannot amend a clause that the Committee has already declined to pass.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Does the member wish to withdraw this amendment?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I am asking for your ruling, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have already called it, so we will put it to the vote.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to:

to insert in section 67B(2) after “in respect of the dismissal”, “provided that the employer has undertaken the actions set out in section 67AA”.

The next amendment is in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard, to insert subsection (4A) in section 67B in clause 7. The question is that this amendment be agreed to.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Is this new section 67B(1) as opposed to just section 67?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, this is an amendment to insert subsection (4A) in section 67B.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to:

to insert in section 67B the following subsection:

(4A) In the event that an employer considers that an employee is unable to successfully complete the probationary employment, then the employer shall advise the employee in writing of the reasons.

The question is that Part 2—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I asked you, during that vote, whether you were putting the amendment in my name to new section 67B(1) in clause 7. You said that you were not and that you were putting an amendment to new section 67B, to add subsection (4A). I checked specifically at the time to make sure it was not the amendment that I knew I had tabled, because I had written it out. You assured me it was not the amendment to section 67B(1). That means we have not yet had a vote on my amendment. I am happy to supply you with another copy; it has been on the Table for some time. Given your ruling earlier that we were not voting on it then, I ask that we vote on it now.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have already dealt with the amendment to section 67B(1), and a vote was taken.

You told us you did not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The amendment you asked about was further down, after we had already voted on that one.