Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)

This is the beginning of a series of attempts on the part of the Opposition to ameliorate the approach that has been taken by the Government in these matters. In this particular part of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), we are looking at protections for employees who are covered by the 90-day provisions. We made some attempts to do that as we went through Part 1. We put forward some amendments to make some progress in that area. Unfortunately, they were not accepted by the Government, so we felt that we had no option but to put forward a new part that brought together some of those amendments—and hardened them up, to be fair—and some other amendments. I do not want in any way to pretend to the Committee that we would be prepared to support the bill even if these amendments were supported, but they are designed to ameliorate some of the harshest parts of this legislation.

Again, I say some of the issues were pretty well traversed in the second reading debate, where we featured some of our very real concerns. One of them concerns information about a decision. I appeal again to the ACT Party. We are attempting here to get changes that all reasonable New Zealanders would agree with. The ACT Party is now allegedly a party of transparency. It used to be a party that was very much for transparency, but then the perk-buster was caught using perks. But even then, if we look at the views of Sir Roger Douglas and Heather Roy, and even of John Boscawen—I am not sure about the new member—we can see that they have commented long and hard in this House about the importance of transparency. I say to the new member that the idea of employees being provided with access to information about a decision to dismiss them is something that I cannot see any reasonable person objecting to.

This amendment indicates that any employer who proposes to dismiss an employee under the 90-day trial provisions must in good faith provide access to information about the decision to the affected employee before a final decision is reached. That does not say an employer cannot reach that decision. It does not say he or she has to have good faith. It does not say he or she has to act reasonably in making the decision. But it does say information has to be provided. That gives the employee the opportunity to comment.

Sometimes people get stuff absolutely wrong. It might be that too much sauce has gone on at the request of a customer. If someone is being fired for putting too much sauce on a hamburger—

💬 Carol Beaumont: Some people like a lot of sauce.

Some people are saucy, and they need to keep their sauce levels up. I do not need a lot of extra sauce. In fact, I do not like tomato sauce much at all, but I like a reasonable amount of aioli or similar sauces. Quite often when I go to a decent hamburger joint, I make requests as to the sauce proportions. I ask why a worker should be fired for doing what a customer asks him or her to do, and the employer does not have to indicate the reasons for the firing to the worker. I can understand why an employer might have a general policy on the proportion of sauce. That might save on the use of sauce.

I have to make a ruling. I apologise to the member in whose name the amendment to add a new Part 3 is, but I have now had time to fully consider the import of the amendment and also to take some advice. An amendment such as the amendment the member has tabled should be associated with Part 1. Therefore, it is out of order, as is his amendment to add a new Part 4.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has made one of two points that I would have made. I would like to have an assurance from you that as part of the process you did not refer to the Minister in the chair, the Hon John Carter, on this matter. I saw you talking to the Minister in the chair, and the Minister in the chair is confirming from behind you that he did look at it and you were talking about it. This is quite a hard position for me to be in, but you know and I know that it is inappropriate for the Chair to discuss a matter to do with relevance with the Minister in the chair. I saw you discussing it with the Minister, and—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member is raising a point of order and it will be heard in silence.

—I do, of course, seek your assurance that that was not the case.

But as this appears to be a new ruling—and I have been looking at Speakers’ rulings in preparation for the possibility of this happening—I would like an indication from you, maybe by a nod or a wink, that this is a new ruling and is not one based on a precedent currently within the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings.

Let me respond to the points. I can understand the member’s frustration, given that we have started the debate on new Part 3. Yes, dialogue has been going on around here. The member will have also noticed that a quite senior Clerk came in with some advice for us. I ignored all comments from any other section. I did confer with the Clerk at the Table, and then we sought advice by telephone and got a more comprehensive explanation, because this was new territory for me. I have not had to rule on anything as precise as this. I guess there are some points around whether it is in contradiction, or whatever, but the advice I have had, with which I concur, is that these elements that relate to Part 1 should have been dealt with at that time. I give the member an assurance that I am not influenced—and I am a little bit hurt that he had to ask the question—by the Minister in the chair; I might need counselling! But, in that regard, no, I sought advice from the highest authority available to me, and therefore I make the ruling.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Of course, I take your word that you did not listen to what John Carter said. I move, That the Chairperson report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling on the admissibility of a proposed amendment.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Speaker Recalled