Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill is a very important bill for us to pass before Christmas. This bill will extend the availability of 90-day trials as an option for all employers, repealing what the previous Government did by restricting the availability to only small businesses. Currently, the law for 90-day trials as an option in employment agreements exists only for businesses or companies with fewer than 20 employees. Extending this trial will make a huge difference to the flexibility of our labour market, because larger businesses employ around 72 percent of all employees in New Zealand.

We are debating this bill under urgency because it is within the Government’s 100-day plan and is a commitment that we want to restore business optimism and confidence before Christmas, so that businesses and workers are going into the new year with certainty over the labour market. There is no time to waste in getting rid of the bleak economic environment and outlook that was left by the previous Government. We need to get the labour market settings right so that businesses and workers can both keep their heads above water.

We’ve gone through the history of 90-day trials in the first reading, but why this Government is reintroducing and extending 90-day trials to all businesses is because we’ve heard loud and clear from employers up and down New Zealand that they want more confidence in the labour market, so that they can take a chance on someone who might be seen as a riskier worker. Workers deserve that right as well.

Whether a business has two employees or they have 200 employees, there is a cost to doing business. There is a cost to hiring a new employee and bringing them into the workforce. It takes money, it takes time, it takes resources, and everybody wants that worker and that employee to work well with the employer. It’s in everybody’s best interests to find the right fit. It increases productivity in the workforce, it helps to make sure that you’ve got the culture right within the workplace, and, importantly, it gives the opportunity for somebody who may not have had a fair chance a chance in a new environment. They might not have the right skill, they might not have the right qualification, but if they have the right attitude, they can find a business who’d be willing to give them a go.

Apart from the cost of the dismissal process, retaining an employee who is not the right fit can actually have a detrimental effect on all of the employees within that workspace as a whole. It can take only one employee who has a poor attitude or doesn’t have the right skills to actually do the job to a good standard to take down a productive team. So it’s important that we get the fit right between an employee and an employer.

The costs and risks that are associated with a dismissal can lead to a labour market with fewer employment opportunities, particularly for those people who are trying to just get a foot in the door—people with criminal convictions, as an example. The costly dismissal process, which we would be removing for all employers, can make the workplace less productive. When businesses can employ only a certain number of people—because they’re resource constrained, they are financially constrained—having a worker who is a poor match within that business is not giving an opportunity for somebody else who could do a better job or could be a better fit or could do the job at a higher standard than somebody else.

We have heard time and time again from businesses who tell us that this is their top priority for improving their own workplace culture, by lifting this unnecessary regulation. This bill will help people across New Zealand’s economy, from farmers to retailers. There are many, many more that have sent in their stories, all the time when we were in Opposition, wanting to make sure that we got the labour market settings right so that they have confidence in employing new staff.

This bill will help employers take on new staff by reducing risks in the hiring process. This is particularly the case when employers are considering someone who doesn’t tick all the boxes—people who might be considered risky, people who might not have had a job before, or people who have little job experience or maybe just don’t present well in a job interview. It gives them an option and a chance.

Not all workers, of course, will be happy to have a 90-day trial clause in their contracts—that’s fine; this legislation is for an option to have a 90-day trial. It is not mandatory for employees and companies to have a 90-day trial. Any short-term cost or concern or stress about having a 90-day trial in a contract will be outweighed, I consider, by the lack of stress of actually having a job and being given an option of employment.

Starting a business is a brave move. Hiring staff is a risky move. We are hopeful that everyone will find the right fit of employee for the right job. This gives businesses the opportunity to have that right fit without having an ongoing liability. So this Government supports businesses, we support workers, but we’re a Government that will deliver for both. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Here I am to speak to the same bill quite soon after I finished my first reading contribution, because, of course, for those tuning in at home, this bill is being passed through urgency, which means we haven’t had a select committee process. We haven’t had an opportunity to actually hear from the New Zealanders that the Government purports to be so concerned about.

Now, I listened to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s speech, and I commend her for speaking a little bit longer than she managed on the first reading, but what I can’t commend her for is the lack of evidence and substance within what she’s actually saying. She says that she spoke to someone or to a business and they said that they might quite like this. We’ve heard members opposite accusing people on this side of the House of not having been employers before—and, in fact, most of us have been or still are—and that they had spoken to employers and that this is what employers wanted.

Well, let me just say that the Government is not some kind of Christmas Santa Claus for Business New Zealand, and doesn’t and shouldn’t have the role of listening to all of Kirk Hope’s wish list for implementation without scrutinising whether those policies actually work. The evidence is that this particular bill has no evidential basis that it will help the New Zealand economy at all, that it will help employers at all, and, actually, it will hurt employees. The reason that I say that is because that is what is contained in Treasury’s own advice and that is what is contained in independent advice commissioned by the Treasury.

So, as I said previously, electoral mandates don’t justify bad lawmaking, and this is bad lawmaking. New Zealanders had a right to state their view in relation to the extension of trial periods. If there is a justification for this policy, which is questionable, looking at the most recent evidence, then that justification would only apply to the small businesses which are currently covered by this policy.

The extension that the Government is proposing with this bill is actually not just in relation to the number of employers but, actually, the number of employees in New Zealand will be hugely increased by the extension of this policy. So at the moment, we have about 28 percent of the workforce covered. That will include the remaining 78 percent when this policy is implemented. So a huge number are not currently covered; have security in their employment when they start work; understand that if there are problems, they can be addressed through normal employment processes, on conduct, on performance, with natural justice; but have confidence that they’re not going to be sacked for no good reason by their employer within that first three months. So this is not a minor thing that the Government is doing; this is actually quite a major overhaul of the terms and conditions of a number of New Zealanders.

Now, you’d think that another thing that the Government might want to look at in extending the policy on trial periods is: do they actually work? When we look at the cases that have gone through the Employment Relations Authority on trial periods, we find that, actually, they don’t. Out of the 178 trial periods that were taken to the Employment Relations Authority, 133 were found to be invalid. This is because the Employment Court and the Employment Relations Authority have taken a very strong line with making sure that procedures around trial periods are followed correctly. The reason for that is they have noted themselves that trial periods remove the right to justice. They remove natural justice from employees, from being able to say, “Actually, I don’t think that’s fair.” or “Actually, that allegation isn’t correct.” or “Actually, I’ve got another side of the story.” or “Actually, I think the reason to dismiss me, to make sure that I don’t have a way of making a living, is unfair.”

Carl Bates: You can only be dismissed if you’ve got a job in the first place.

CAMILLA BELICH: That cannot occur in trial periods—and the Employment Court, which I would expect members opposite, who constantly seem to be parroting back the same thing over and over again, should respect. So it is actually a significant move that the Government is making to remove natural justice from New Zealanders with this bill, which is very, very disappointing, and very disheartening.

Now, I’ve mentioned there is no select committee process, and, quite separate to any request, I’ve actually had community groups and organisations come up to me and ask me for information about when the select committee process is going to occur. Why, you may ask, would people do that? Why would people ask about a select committee process? Well, because the Hon Chris Bishop told New Zealanders in November—late November; so, very recently—that there would be a select committee process, and now we find there is not going to be one. So they emailed me, and they said, “When’s the select committee going to be?” I said, “There won’t be one, because this Government is pushing this trial periods legislation through under urgency.”

One of the organisations that contacted me was the National Council of Women (NCW), and they’ve asked me to read out what they would have said if they’d had the ability to make a submission. They said, “Many thanks for your kind offer to share NCW’s views today in the parliamentary debate.”—this is upon hearing that there wouldn’t be a select committee process—

Carl Bates: Who contacted who first?

CAMILLA BELICH: They contacted me first. “NCW firmly supports fair working conditions for all, and, in particular, women and others in low-paid jobs, who are often made to feel vulnerable by insecure employment. Our longstanding policy seeks to promote the rights of workers and to protect all employees from exploitation, including protection from employers who may intentionally employ workers for a short period of time in order to deny their rights to sick leave and other entitlements.” Genuine concern from a very well-respected community group.

Another person who contacted me was Jenny. She said she’s wondering how the mental health of the population is ever to improve with things like 90-day trials. It pushes people into higher anxiety and the burden of depression and stress. Having a job, especially a full-time one, makes it very hard, over those three months, for that worker to keep applying for other jobs and going for interviews, just to have a backstop for a “what if” situation after the 90-day trials are let go. Then, if an employer deems a worker is no longer needed, what happens regarding Work and Income New Zealand? Is there a stand-down period when one has lost their job after the 90 days? Genuine concerns by New Zealanders that could have been addressed through advice in the select committee process.

Another person contacted me: Mel. She said she had a boyfriend unfairly dismissed by a company still using a 90-day trial period last year. It was a dairy farm that employed mainly workers from overseas, and he reported a fallen cow, and then was blamed for pushing the cow over and was dismissed. It is well known, Mel notes, that cows can fall over for other reasons, which I’m sure those opposite who have mentioned the usefulness of these in farms can attest to. She said she supported her friend to the Citizens Advice Bureau, was assigned a lawyer, and won the case.

Finally, I wanted to mention a contribution—oh, no, second to finally, actually; got quite a few people who have contacted me. Craig, another person involved in a farm—so I was pleased when I heard someone mention earlier in the debate how useful this would be to farmers, because we have examples about how this can actually be very bad for farm workers, who we’re, obviously, also very concerned about. “My brother-in-law was employed as a dairy farm worker and his employment package included a house which he and his wife moved into. His employment was terminated under a 90-day trial with no notice and he was required to be out of his house by the end of the weekend that same week, rather than usual 14 days’ notice, because the employer needed a replacement employee.” Extremely unpleasant experience—that’s what Craig says.

And then the last thing was I got another email from Francesco. He said, “As an immigrant who chose to live in this country, I am worried about the future.” I am too, because when we see a Government who is willing to introduce a policy that has no basis in any evidence to work towards the objective that they state, it is very concerning for the future of this country. We know that there is no evidence to back up that this policy increases rates of hiring. We’ve seen independent studies that have looked into whether this is, in fact, correct and we have seen, in relation to this policy, that it’s not. It doesn’t work in New Zealand, it doesn’t work for New Zealanders, and there is no basis for the Government to extend it.

Carl Bates: It absolutely works.

CAMILLA BELICH: Simply stating the opposite of a proposition, Mr Bates, does not render that proposition correct. What I’m looking at is a study that shows that it doesn’t work. What I would implore the Government to do is when they get a request from an organisation like Business New Zealand or where they speak to an employer, that instead of just simply accepting that policy and pushing it through under urgency in their first 100 days, just on the basis that they said they would, they actually look at the evidence and see whether that policy actually does what people want it to do.

I have sympathy for the fact that employers want to employ more people. I have sympathy for that, and I know that there are a lot of very good employers out there who always want to do the right thing. This policy will not help them become better employers. This policy will not help them take chances on people who they might not otherwise. The effect of this policy is simply to make vulnerable people, who have no job security, not want to take on new opportunities or be sacked for an unfair reason. That can be traumatising and impact them for the rest of their life. I do not commend this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t wish to insult the Minister’s intelligence by implying that she has not read the evidence available, that she has not looked for evidence around the impact of this bill. I think the Minister knows what she’s doing; she knows that she’s making workers’ lives worse, and she doesn’t care. Let’s not pretend that this is a Minister who simply hasn’t done the homework. She’s done the homework and she’s come, as part of this Government, with the intent of making workers’ lives more difficult.

So let’s make it really, really, really clear what we are talking about when we’re seeing an extension of 90-day trials; a scheme that has not shown to improve conditions for workers, that has not shown to improve retention of people in their workplaces, and that, if anything, it increases the precarity, it increases the ability for employers to exploit workers, it does not lead to the so-called high productivity that she talks about, because the agenda that this Minister has is one where employers hold more control over workers, where workers are not able to get ahead.

When the Minister has spoken about the risk that employers take with their workers, she forgets that it is not just employers who are taking a risk here; it is workers too. Workers take a massive risk entering a new job. They’re risking their time, they’re risking their ability to stay well. So often, people are entering into workplace cultures that may be completely unfamiliar to what they’ve been used to before. They’re risking their income. They’re risking their ability to pay rent, because if they get fired as a result of the 90-day trials they may face a period of living in poverty with the income support that has been kept in poverty as a decision from successive Governments, including from previous National Governments as well.

So the Minister is conveniently omitting a key part of this, which is the risk that workers take when they enter employment. She has at no point throughout the passage of this bill, throughout this debate, spoken about the need to improve the wellbeing of workers. She has focused on the control that employers should have, according to her, on those very people.

I want to reflect a bit on my own experience in the hospitality scene prior to entering this place, and the aspect of serving customers. Something that I think many people in this House clearly lack is coming from a place of serving and a culture of serving because it’s—

Mark Cameron: How do you know she hasn’t?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Well, maybe she has, but, if she has, she’s clearly forgotten. But the point around here is that I worked in a workplace at a time where 90-day trials were a thing and I’ve seen firsthand how some of my former co-workers themselves were impacted by this. The fear of being unjustly dismissed, effectively, for just making the smallest of remarks that would have put off the manager, manager’s using excuses to then get rid of workers that they just simply didn’t like. This whole talk about “not a good match” is actually giving the ability to employers of getting rid of people who they just don’t like.

And, actually, if the other side of the House wants to talk about putting more people into good jobs and supporting people to go into good jobs, all they’re doing is actually creating a cycle and a trap of poverty by creating the conditions where people will be being cycled between poverty-level benefits and otherwise, and I’ve seen that happen in my previous workplace. And to me, the other element that the Minister has submitted through this is that maybe, actually, what some of these businesses need is better management. They need better coaching for those new workers to be supported into those new jobs, and they need processes to on board people rather than simply giving themselves the ability to get rid of people. And if those businesses don’t have a business model that can support on boarding those workers, and don’t have hiring practices where they are able to identify who is going to be a good match, perhaps they need to go back to the drawing board about the business model that they have and the way that they’re running businesses. Because if we want to create a condition where those businesses have a good working environment, we should be putting in place regulations that ensure those businesses have good management, good practices, rather than simply treating those workers as disposable units.

Clearly, the members of the Government have chosen to not bring any substance to the debate by not taking substantive contributions in this bill, making a disservice to the fact that they’re putting this bill in urgency. All that they’re doing is throwing the argument around that this is part of a coalition agreement, but, actually, good policy-making, good lawmaking, a good service to this whole country requires a level of scrutiny and justification for laws that have such a material impact on people well beyond what has been put forward by the Minister and by the very dutiful backbenchers who stand up with their 10-second contributions, get back down, and then they go back to their homes, go back to the cafes over the Christmas period, will be served in the restaurants by the very same workers who they’re now telling that they should be able to be fired within 90 days of starting a new employment.

And, yes, maybe the Minister in her contributions claimed that no workers currently in employment may not be affected, but she forgets that those workers may go into new jobs where they will now face that precarity, where they’ll now face that vulnerability, and none of the research that we have shows that decreasing working conditions increases productivity. The so-called flexibility that she wants to afford is only flexibility for the employers. She has nothing to be afraid of by actually giving those workers greater protections from abusive employers. But this Government is hell-bent on destroying the rights of workers, whether it is by extending the 90-day trials, whether it is by dismantling fair pay agreements, whether it is by removing other subsidies on public transport, etc.

But to bring it back to this bill, I wanted to also—as the previous speaker, Camilla Belich, told us—talk about some of the stories that had previously been brought forward when it came to the issue of 90-day trials. A few years ago, we heard from Andrew, who, actually, at the time was a National Party supporter and an industrial electrician by trade with over 30 years of experience. He spoke about his experience in a new job and how he was let go under the 90-day trial, how it came as a surprise to him because—and I quote—“At no time was I advised that my work wasn’t up to scratch. My supervisor and I had an occasionally bumpy relationship, but nothing that the company seemed concerned about. It was certainly never taken up with me. When I specifically asked for the reason I had been let go, HR refused to tell me. Presumably, that was so I had no way of taking the matter further.”

This speaks of poor management practices which this Government is entrenching, which this Government does not seem to care about. They do not seem to care about people who will be now concerned whether they get let go during their first 90-day trials, who will not have the ability to raise this matter in a way that honours the experience they bring, that honours the contributions they brought to the workplace, that honours the fact that they will be thrown on to a benefit which in and of itself will decrease the overall wages and incomes that people receive. So let’s make it clear, let’s not pretend that, again, we don’t know what this Government is doing. They’re creating a low-wage economy. They’re creating an economy of poor management practices. They’re creating an economy where workers are set up to fail rather than set up to be supported and to thrive. And, yeah, as the Minister talked about, some of the people who will be subjected to 90-day trials may be first-time workers. This may be the first job they enter. And, again, the evidence and the research tell us that when those workers are supported in their first time working, if they receive good wages, if they receive good coaching, we’re setting them up to succeed. If we put them in a precarious position where we’re setting those young people up to fail, what we are doing is diminishing the wellbeing, the mana of those workers. And this is what the Government is intending to do by using the justification of maybe somebody who’s new may not be a good match.

We actually should be creating the support system so that people can thrive in their work, and if they don’t, then we need to create the income support systems to support them, then, to find a better job. But this Government wants to have it both ways. They want the ability to fire people in those 90-day trials, basically at will, and, at the same time, they want to keep that income support below the poverty line. And if I see the face of disgust of that member to the opposite of me, just being aghast of it, it’s because maybe for those members, it’s scary to imagine a world where employers don’t have that full control over workers. It’s the scary prospect of workers actually having power because it threatens the world view that these members were brought up with, where they’ve been told that they can trample over workers, that they can come into this place and remove the rights of the workers because that will create a world where they continue having control over the systems they created in the first place.

I look forward to challenging the Minister on her lack of evidence, on her lack of basis for bringing this bill into the House, and on the cruelty in which she is bringing this bill forward.

I am pleased to speak on the amendment bill in this second reading. I want to address the claims of the members opposite that people will lose their jobs or be exploited. This is scaremongering. They speak as if every employee is now going to work on a 90-day only contract. The 90-day trial is yet another tool that gives employers and employees flexibility.

How many times has somebody missed out on a job because of a lack of experience? How do they get that experience? Someone gives them a shot. I want to cultivate a relationship between employer and employee, not take it out of their hands and destroy it. I commend this bill to the House, and I hope it to be amended promptly.

New Zealand First rises to continue our support for this Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. I’m really interested because, during our last term in Parliament, we had some part to play in protecting the 90-day trials for businesses under 20 employees. I remember it being quite a pitched battle behind the scenes, but we were proud to do that because we believe in the merits of this.

So the question I would have for the members opposite: if it’s such a dire situation, why, in the three years when the Labour Party had a majority Government, did you not get rid of the 90-day trials? Why did you not do that? If it was that dire, you would have done that. So this is virtue signalling in extreme from those members opposite.

It was a very wise move from New Zealand First in our previous term to protect those measures, so we absolutely support the emphasis of this bill. Out in the real world, good workers are highly valued. Any employer you talk to, they are screaming out for good workers. They are not just culling people willy-nilly because of their hair colour, Camilla Belich, and they’re not evil people. They are capitalists.

Hon Willie Jackson: They are.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: They are people that are—they are not—

Hon Willie Jackson: They are.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: —the Hon Willie Jackson—that shows your mentality. You’ve got such a vexed view of these New Zealanders that are risking their own capital, often putting their own houses in to actually give someone an opportunity to have a job. It is a huge responsibility, but we need to get flexibility back into our workforce. We need to get confidence back into our business communities so they can hire and start to grow this economy so that we can start to deliver the services that we need. New Zealand First absolutely supports this piece of legislation. Thank you.

He taukī weherua tēnei i waenga i Te Pāti Māori me ngā Kākāriki.

[This is a split call between Te Pāti Māori and the Greens.]

Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori i te rangi mō tēnei pire.

[I stand here today to convey the opinions of Te Pāti Māori regarding this bill.]

I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to speak to the second reading of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill—my first reading of a bill in te Whare Pāremata. This bill will reintroduce the ability of all employers to hire employees on the condition of a 90-day trial period, or otherwise known as “last hired, first fired”. The decision of this House will affect all houses throughout Aotearoa this Christmas, making it harder to put kai on the table, presents for tamariki, and gas for travelling away over the Christmas holidays.

Ninety-day trials are simply a way of employers getting around the employment law, and sacking workers more easily for no cause. How can the first actions of this Government literally sprint through legislation under urgency that will keep wages low and erode workers’ rights? This kind of employment practice should have no place in Aotearoa. What our whānau need at Christmas is better pūtea, better mahi, better workers’ rights.

The Key-led National Government were responsible for establishing the trial period. It tested the scheme in small businesses for some industries in 2009, rolling it out nationwide in 2011. As a rangatahi Māori myself, I fear that many rangatahi from Hauraki, Waikato, and throughout the motu will apply for jobs during this Christmas break, in December, and be fired mid-March under this 90-day trial period. A Treasury study in 2017 found that 90-day trial periods had no significant economy-wide impact or increases beyond what was already achievable without it. Our people deserve job security. Te Pāti Māori opposed this introduction of 90-day trials when National first introduced them in 2009. We remain opposed to them today.

Māori are much more likely to be in industries that will be impacted, and the policy enables employers to get away with racism more easily. This bill tramples on the mana of mokopuna, as the policy is designed, and rangatahi in making it harder for them to get into the job market. The impact on Māori, particularly rangatahi Māori and those in construction and retail industries, will be significant.

This Government has championed that this country wanted change, but they have failed to understand the change people advocated for. Instead, they have put us all into a time machine and taken us back to a time when answering the phone call with “Kia ora” was racial. What will negatively impact Māori will have the same effect on everyone else. The heart of this issue is that it is treating people—actual human beings—as if they are limited, expendable, and disposable. Heoti, e te Pīka o te Whare, Te Pāti Māori opposes this anti-worker, anti-Māori, anti-mokopuna, anti - Te Tiriti o Waitangi bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

Thanks, Mr Speaker. I’m really glad to follow my eloquent sister Hana-Rawhiti here today to oppose this bill in front of us. I’ve heard members shouting, the whole time I’ve been here, about how there is evidence for what they’re proposing, but we know that there is not. When you press them on where they got their evidence from, they come back and say they’ve talked to employers, but it’s clear they haven’t talked to any workers about what they’re actually doing, and I wonder if that’s because those members only ever ask to speak to the manager instead of speaking to the workers that serve them—that bring them their coffees and serve them their food. To me, this bill just emphasises the fact that this Government hates the people that carry the country on their backs.

The one thing I want to talk about is the effect of this bill on workers’ rights and the rights of all workers to be able to be in a working environment that is safe and free from discrimination. I want to talk about the hundreds of young people that have taken to the streets of Wellington because they face discrimination, sexual violence, harm, and harassment in their workplace, particularly around times like this: summer times, Christmas times. When you’re at a Christmas party and your employer gets a little bit too drunk and makes a move on you, what are you going to do if you’re in your first 90 days? You can’t do anything. You can’t take a personal grievance. You can’t do anything about that, and this is the kind of effect that this kind of bill will have.

Sam Uffindell: You can’t sexually harass people. Of course you can push back against that.

TAMATHA PAUL: What—are you saying that victims of sexual violence should just go through the justice system that does not centre the rights of survivors? It doesn’t. Anyway.

The second thing that I want to focus on is discrimination for the way that people look and the way that they think. People getting let go for what they look like—we’ve heard about that today. You can be fired for something as small as the colour of your hair, if you have tattoos, if you say the wrong thing while you’re in the smoko room. You can be let go because—guess what!—it’s completely arbitrary and it’s up to your employer to make up those rules. You are no longer protected by the same rights as everybody else. This is not the type of working environment that any young person wants to find themselves in and it’s another reason that people in my generation are going to go off to Australia, because they’re going to be paid better, they’re going to have better working conditions, and they’re going to feel safe at work.

There is no evidence behind this. It’s another cruel blow to workers after this Government just scrapped fair pay agreements right before Christmas. The worst thing is the members across the House can’t even give the basic decency of explaining why you’re doing what it is. I’ve been sitting here; you’ve been giving 30-second speeches, sometimes—30 seconds is the only decency that you’re giving to workers about why you’re taking their rights away. You can’t even give a fair and robust debate about what you’re doing, and you don’t have any evidence to back it, either.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Please don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

TAMATHA PAUL: Well, that’s all I’ve got to say, anyway. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the son, the grandson, and the great-grandson of business owners—people who have put their own capital at risk to employ people and give opportunities—and I think today of Colin Tyson-Tahana, who was the first person that started in my dad’s plumbing business. In fact, he was the first person that came to the hospital the day I was born. I was thinking earlier in the year, when I was at Te Manu Atatū Business Awards in Whanganui—when even the local MP wasn’t there—how proud he would have been of his son who won a business award in a plumbing category. An opportunity that came because in those days, people understood that employer and employee had to work together to make business successful in order to provide opportunity for all.

This bill provides those opportunities to new employees today. Members opposite would do well to appreciate that business is a relationship between employers and employees. So I finally say that data from the 2018-19 National Survey of Employers said that this opportunity enabled people—employers—the opportunity to check a person’s skills and ability to do the job. So the evidence is there to commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Another fabulous speech from the Government! Yes, there must be a lot of aroha there in the Whanganui area. I want to mihi to Hana and Tamatha for that beautiful kōrero in terms of tautoko for our people. Mihi nui ki a kōrua kōrero ataahua. Tino waimārie mātou ki te whakarongo ki tērā kōrero.

[Thanks to the two of you for your beautiful words. We are very fortunate to listen to those statements.]

It is wonderful when I hear our young wāhine giving their views, because these are the views of our young people today. They really object and reject this type of legislation. I was listening very carefully to what both of them were saying in terms of the breach of rights, the assault on rights, and the helplessness of some workers who feel intimidated with the position they’re in. They’re nervous to complain, and we had a very genuine example there of young wāhine who may be harassed in the workplace. I was listening to that example, and I thought that was a very good example. They’re a bit mataku, or a bit nervous perhaps, to complain for fear of losing the contract. It’s pretty simple, but it’s far too complex for this Government, who are so fixed on this and hell-bent on rolling out strategies that are, basically, offensive to our communities, the communities we represent—to Māori, to women. So I was really pleased to hear that kōrero early on.

When I sit here, I listen to the market flexibility arguments, and I always believe that that’s a load of rubbish that we hear from the Government with regards to market flexibility. The fair pay agreements would have ensured that the so-called market flexibility—there was no barrier in terms of fair pay agreements stopping market flexibility, but there’s always this view that productivity, above everything, even common sense, is paramount, and that’s something that we always get from the right. We continue to hear it, but they never see the results.

Now, this Government is ramming this legislation through with no public consultation before Christmas—

Carl Bates: It’s called an election.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: An election does not give any Government the right to breach—to breach—the principles that they waffle on about all the time. We’ve heard Chris Bishop saying so many times over the last few years that it’s virtually a breach of democracy to roll out urgency. We’ve heard Chris Bishop in this House say that, but, oh, no, he’s apologising now because he wants to appease and placate his dirty, rotten mates on the right—Madam Speaker, I say that very respectfully—and he wants to appease and placate the dirty, rotten National Party and ACT supporters, and so he brings in urgency just to get this terrible legislation through. Here we are, five days from Christmas, and all we can think about is our rich mates on the right—we just want to look after them.

Now, I want to bring in this research from Motu in 2016. This was commissioned by Treasury and it found no evidence that the ability to use trial periods significantly increases firms’ overall hiring, and no evidence that the policy increased the probability that a new hire by a firm was a disadvantaged job seeker. Research also showed that it did not appear to affect the likelihood of new hires remaining in the long term or make workers less likely to move jobs. The research, as I said, was commissioned by Treasury, and we choose to ignore them, as this Government is doing. The research concluded that “the main benefit of the policy was a decrease in dismissal costs for firms, while many employees faced increased uncertainty about their job security for three months after being hired.”

So let me reread that for this new far-right, race-baiting Government. It said that the main benefit of the 90-day right to sack policy “was a decrease in dismissal costs for firms, while many employees faced increased uncertainty about their job security for three months after being hired.”—many employees faced increased uncertainty. I say that again about their job security for three months after being hired. I mean, that’s just terrible. So the reason why the Government is giving bosses the right to sack doesn’t stack up. All it does is intimidate workers—that’s just the reality. Now, that’s official, but as we all know, the Government knows best, because their grandfather invested in their useless son, who came to Parliament—something along those lines.

Intimidated workers, as we’ve heard already, don’t complain about poor safety conditions, and I know this, coming from the workplace. Intimidated workers don’t complain about abusive bosses or, sometimes, sexual harassment. Intimidated workers don’t sign up as union members—it’s so sad—and intimidated workers are a Christmas present for bad bosses, whom this Government wants to empower. We support small businesses and their right to a 90-day rule because a business with under 19 employees needs that support.

Carl Bates: Show us how you support businesses.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, we have shown you how. We have shown you how over the last few years, but you choose to ignore that. You choose to breach your own rules, your own principles, the very tenets of democracy that you love to waffle on about, but when you get a bit of power, you go crazy and attack communities: Māoris, workers, women—everyone.

We support small business. We can all understand, though, that small businesses don’t have large HR departments to vigorously vet potential workers lending a pressure valve if they hire a poor fit for a small business, but extending that to large corporations and companies who do have large HR departments means bad bosses who want to exploit are given more power to do that.

This Government is standing with those who already have the power, and ramming legislation through under urgency with no public submissions is an abuse of power for the powerful. This is a Government for the few, not for the many. It’s a kick in the guts to the many working-class families that their ability to get minimum wage jobs will actually be intimidated and threatened by the legislation, not enabled and empowered by it. That is why this legislation is so offensive.

This far-right, race-baiting Government will tell you this law—[Interruption] That’s true. I think we’re all agreed on this side—we all agree with that, don’t we? I’ll say it again—this far-right, race-baiting Government will tell you this law will allow bosses to take on more workers, as if giving large corporations the right to sack before 90 days is helping the worker. Only National, ACT, and New Zealand First can kick workers in the guts and then call it a helping hand.

We hear them: “Oh, we’re helping them. We love them.”—oh, great, yes. The research, however, shows that the only discernible gain is a drop in the cost of dismissals and making workers feel bullied. Bullying anxious workers into being intimidated helps no one other than the boss who is exploiting the dynamics—as we keep hearing from our side—in that power relationship. The employment laws should be there to protect the vulnerable, not empower the bullies, who are all great friends of the ACT Party, National Party, and New Zealand First.

This really is a disgraceful piece of legislation. The common thread of policy this Government is ramming through right now is bashing people their voters don’t like. That’s malice, not good policy. Good governance demands more than empowering your abusive friends of your political circle, which this crew is doing. There’s no sense in this law and no wider public good other than benefiting bad bosses. It’s counter-productive and it is offensive to the communities and the people we represent, and we reject it and oppose this legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The bit the other side over here continually seem to miss is that the extension of the 90-day trials works both ways. That’s both ways: for the employer and the employee. This country’s been built on a premise of having a go—giving people a go—having a fair suck of the sav. It’s not about exploitation—that’s rubbish. It’s about creating opportunities for employment, and that’s why I’m pleased to support this bill.

Thanks, Madam Speaker. I acknowledge you, Maureen, in your new role as Speaker—fellow resident of Te Wai Pounamu, or, if you’re from the New Zealand First Party, the South Island. This is my first time speaking in the House. I’d like to thank the voters of Christchurch East for backing me to get here.

This is about balance, it’s about fairness, it’s about power, and, most importantly, it’s about people. I want to speak about this from the perspective of an employer, because that’s a perspective I’ve known firsthand and it’s not, as some members across the House would have you believe, the exclusive purview of ACT, National, and New Zealand First MPs. I’ve directly employed a large number of people across more than two decades working in the broadcast industry—a very diverse range of roles in a fast-paced and challenging work environment. I believe that we have a responsibility as employers, and if we get it wrong, it’s more often our fault, not the employees. Did we provide the induction, orientation, and training and support required? Is the job we created on paper even plausible in reality?

Our team have also employed people, but, more than that, we’ve represented them, we’ve fought for them, and we don’t claim to own our workers, but we definitely respect them. Ninety-day trials do not respect workers, and 90-day trials won’t be fair for the working people of Christchurch East. Don’t take just my word for it; a rare thing in the House at the moment is a regulatory impact statement—so rare, I can’t even say it properly. It spells it out—spells it out—on page 1, “insecurity for employees”. Turn to page 7, paragraph 26, point 2: Pacific peoples; 26, point 4: people working in the construction, wholesale trade, retail trade, and hospitality industries; 26, point 5: people earning lower wages. These are the people of Christchurch East that I represent. These are the people who will not be served by this change.

No one I met during my time in the election campaigning asked for less job security. If this Government was a Christmas movie, it wouldn’t be Love, Actually; it would be The Grinch. But, jokes aside—jokes aside—it is disappointing to see the select committee process dodged for such an important decision. That’s not good governance and it doesn’t respect workers.

Before I finish, I’d like to ask that member to take a moment—take a moment to consider the 90-day trial. Do you really believe in it? Do you really believe in the 90-day trial? Because, if you do, live by it, and put yourselves as a Government on a 90-day trial. The election was on 14 October—that’s when you got your mandate, that’s when this Government was hired, so, on 12 January, that’ll be 90 days. I look forward to a referendum to their employers, the voters of Aotearoa New Zealand: do they think this Government is capable of doing the job they were hired for? Do they want to keep them? Would you give your employers, the voters of New Zealand, the chance to have that say on 12 January? Right now, I don’t think they would.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I understand the ideological need that maybe members opposite feel to oppose this out of principle—until there is 15 minutes until dinner!—but I actually believe in 90-day trials and am happy to stand by our 100-day plan. The people of New Zealand voted for it at the start. They’re getting what they voted for, and I can tell you what the people in the good Ōtaki electorate want: they want a go, they want to have a fair crack at it, they want an opportunity. Then you talk to employers in my electorate—talk to them across the country—it’s a risk; they’re putting their money upfront. They’re creating the opportunity. That’s how this economy is driven—it’s people like that giving someone a go. I’ve had family members that directly benefit from this. So we need to give people a go. That’s why I’m commending this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m just going to comment on the comments that I’ve just heard, which were that they create this and they give these people an opportunity—fairly paternalistic language.

I gave an example in my earlier speech of a woman who goes from a minimum wage job into a job at Starbucks. That person is contributing to the workforce as soon as she arrives, and she’s the very person that I’m worried about because of the vulnerability that she has inherently.

I have long experience as an employment lawyer, and I did that job because I was concerned about power imbalance. There is always a value in employment. It is a huge deal in our society, but both parties are valuable. It isn’t a case of people giving others an opportunity and nothing coming back; it’s reciprocal, and there’s no balance in this legislation.

A balance has been struck where smaller employers are allowed a different set of rules from big ones. The advantages that are being given today by the National Government are advantages to large employers. Large employers are the ones that we hope will have the best and most robust and most fair processes. What that will do is it will mean that lots of people in New Zealand—I think the amount quoted was 76 percent of New Zealanders—will be working in environments which are structured and are robust, and it is not a lot to ask that those businesses reflect our values and are fair businesses that treat people fairly. What this law is suggesting is that they no longer have to do that. I’d like to go back to the comments of my friend Willie Jackson, who talked about the actual precariousness and fear of those workers, because that’s what I have seen and that’s what I am concerned about.

If you can be dismissed in 90 days, it is an issue that if somebody makes a pass at you, if they say something inappropriate, or if they treat you badly, you are going to be fearful. You cannot afford, if you are like the woman that I described earlier, to actually go out on a limb in any way. You can’t afford to question the dynamic in the workplace. So it is a risky situation. It is precarious—you can’t afford to lose your job. Now, you might be able to afford to lose it if you’re on 180,000 bucks, but you really can’t afford to lose it if you’re on $70,000 a year and you’ve got three children to support, and you’re not going to be able to lose it next year—you’re not going to be able to afford that kind of risk because the costs that you will be suffering at that point are quite high.

I talked about the connection between this legislation and the other proposals of this Government which are to gut things like free childcare and half-price transport—all of which support our families and women like the one I described. These are a big deal. We have just fought an election on the basis of the cost of living, and I would ask for a little bit of empathy and reflection about who it is who most needs help in a cost of living crisis. It is the worker on those kinds of salaries. They’re the ones, and these are the very people that this law makes vulnerable as soon as they move jobs.

Now, there is a concept called portability of employment and there’s a concept called flexibility, and I want to draw a comparison. The concept of portability of employment is now being used in America, and it’s about making sure that workers can move. They can move up in the world and they can actually move around the workplace. That is an employee-centric, positive approach to getting some flexibility, but that’s not what this Government has focused on. It’s focused on a kind of flexibility that’s all about stripping workers of all their power. That, apparently, is supposed to miraculously help them. It’s supposed to help them, and we’ve heard that today, that workers are, apparently, begging for the opportunity to be exploited—to be in situations of vulnerability.

I have put up a challenge to you, and I will put it up again when we go into the committee stage. I will say to the Government: why don’t you have a look at some methods of portability? Why don’t you free up these employees that you are so freeing up to flexibility—why don’t you free them up from things like restraints of trade, which big corporations like Amazon and Starbucks are stopping people moving on with, and those sorts of things?

I want to see your money where your mouth is, in the Government. I want to see the Government look at those things that are constraining those workers from moving up in careers, rather than these kinds of forms of flexibility. What they, in fact, do is constrain employees and keep them in low-paid work, because, as I explained, a woman who has three children and who is working in her locality cannot afford to move to an employer who is going to put her on this kind of trial if the risk is that she will get fired for no good cause in 90 days. She cannot afford to take that risk, and that actually would be a pathway, usually, for her to increase her income.

I love the idea of a kind of response to the cost of living which is actually about letting people have a decent go and move up in a workforce. So I want to see that, and I challenge the Government to look much more broadly and creatively. Those members are not going to get the opportunity that, in fact, they should have had in a select committee to hear such ideas, to hear such stories, or to hear the stories of people who have been hurt when they’ve been vulnerable. There are so many stories out there because there are many forms of this vulnerability. The Government is not going to get to hear those stories, and the New Zealand public are not going to get to tell those stories, and there won’t be a lot of listening or learning going on.

But I challenge the Government to have a little bit of empathy and to put yourselves into the boots of the person who is the woman I’m talking about, who has the three kids, who’s on $70,000, who works in a minimum wage job, and who just wants to feed her kids and get ahead. Put yourself into her shoes and ask yourself whether, in fact, in that situation, it would be some job that you’re willing to do and what you would do in those circumstances. If you were in that role, what would you do? Would you move into another job which might pay a little bit more if, in fact, it’s risky?

So that’s my great concern, which is that this will be a movement backwards and that we will see people become more vulnerable and we will see the most vulnerable become more vulnerable as a consequence of this law. I don’t agree that there’s a need to rush this through or that there is nothing to discuss here. It’s a fundamentally different concept, bringing this kind of trial in when we are talking about big business, because, as I have said in my earlier speech, this is actually a situation where big business could put their big pants on, get a decent process together, and treat workers right. They could get a decent culture and they could do those things, and everyone would be better off. That’s a better way to handle that situation, rather than saying that they don’t have to have a process and they don’t have to have fairness, and taking down the standard in our whole society.

That is a very sad outcome indeed, and who’s going to pay the ultimate cost for this degrading of the culture to the point where somebody is dismissed? I take you back to this woman who was working in my community. Her kids go to the local schools. Who is going to pay the price if she takes the job at Starbucks and then she loses the job due to a trial period? Actually, it’s going to be all of us. All New Zealanders are going to have to pay the price, because that woman is going to be right on to the benefit. That’s what’s going to happen. We will be paying the price, and there is no reason for that to occur when, in fact—

The member’s time has expired. Thank you.

I rise in support of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. What’s become quite clear is it’s obvious what we’re starting to see from the outside of the House now is their pure hatred of big business. These are the people that actually employ people and run businesses, drive our economy—and they don’t care about them. That is what they’re, effectively, saying.

What we care about is giving all individuals an opportunity to have a good job—and good employers do that. Employers actually don’t wake up in the morning and say, “We’re just going to get rid of people for the heck of it.” When they employ someone, you advertise, you interview—it’s a real process and a cost. So big business, just like small business, doesn’t want to waste money. They want to employ good people, and this will help them do it. I commend this bill to the House.

The bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Clause 1 Title