Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to the debate on new clause 6 set out on the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment. This amendment seeks to enable an employee dismissed unfairly under a trial period to bring a personal grievance.

Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn’t going to interrupt the vote because you had gone to the vote. Not asking Madam Chair to reopen the vote for clause 5 and 6, but actually just a reflection as we go into one more amendment clause.

Even though the amendment clauses that have been tabled are quite small and narrow, the Minister has been saying she’s been repeating answers that she’s given to different clauses—clauses 4, 5, and 6. The concern that we have on this side of the House is that they are all still new amendments and, because we don’t have a select committee process, we need to be able to speak to the various amendments. Even though the Minister’s answer might be the same, they are relevant to previous clauses, not the new clauses.

So I just ask, Madam Chair, as we debate the next clause by Ginny Andersen, there are a couple of questions which I don’t believe have been addressed by the Minister, and I’m not going to reopen them, but they’re related to about four different questions that had not been addressed. But nevertheless, as we go into this new clause debate, I ask that Madam Chair just reflect on, even though the answer may be the same by the Minister for previous clauses, we are debating a new clause.

Thank you for that point of order. What I would say is that some of the debate over the course of this committee stage has been quite extended. The last two Amendment Papers were very narrow. This one appears to be a little bit broader, but I do want the conversation to be kept to what’s in the clause. I’d also say that it is up to the Minister as to whether she wants to take further responses. If she chooses not to, then that’s her choice. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this new clause. I think it’s really important. I’d like to highlight the importance of this addition to essentially enable an employee who has been dismissed unfairly under a trial period to be reinserted to provide that ability in the Employment Relations Act.

One of the main reasons that this is important is that those most vulnerable workers, which we know through the information we’ve received in the public domain, there was leaked Cabinet advice which specifically indicated that Māori, Pasifika, rangatahi, and disabled were made—that directly impacts in terms of workers’ rights. So we’ve seen two lots of legislation through this Chamber. In both instances, it is the most vulnerable workers that are actually impacted upon. So it’s really essential when we are making sure that we get this right—and I think it is most definitely not right—that we look at, if you are essentially taking away and removing the ability from an employee to have a personal grievance within the first three months of their employment, it is essential that we go through and look at all of the possibilities of where that can be taken advantage of.

This unfairly further tips the balance in favour of the employer and disadvantages employees. It will mean that those people will be discriminated against, whether they be working mothers, whether they be Maōri, whether they be Pasifika—it is those people who we know through research, through the analysis we’ve taken, that are those ones that are taken advantage of through the employment process. In order to protect the rights of those people who need it the most in New Zealand, it is fundamentally important that we take real consideration of my proposed amendment.

So in section 103 following (k) to insert a new (l) that employee has been dismissed unfairly under a trial period. That means you cannot legislate away workers’ rights. So by enabling that provision to be in place, if there is discrimination in the workplace under a 90-day period, it rightly reinstates workers’ rights to be able to stand up and say that that was an unfair dismissal.

It really bothers me. It gets to the core of the reason why a lot of the people are here today in politics and in this place, is because we stand up and fight for those people who don’t have a voice in this place—for those people who aren’t employers, who don’t own a business, who don’t run a company, and who are dependent upon a good, strong working relationship in order to put food on their table each week and to be able to pay the rent.

What concerns me most dearly is that the erosion of workers’ rights by taking away the very ability to bring a personal grievance after being dismissed will mean increased unemployment, will mean that children are in homes where there is not food. It will mean that it brings down our common standards of how we treat each other. And it fails to recognise that we are an interconnected community. We are part of the same country, and if we turn our backs on the workers then that will mean, in the long run, New Zealand is worse off.

So I think it is inherently important that we reinstate basic rights by enabling this new provision to be reinserted within the Employment Relations Act, to enable those people who are dismissed and feel that they have the right to bring a personal grievance against their employer, they should be able to do that. My question to the Minister is: how do you justify stripping away the most fundamental right, which is if someone has been discriminated against in their workplace and has been subsequently dismissed, then they—what is the reason or what is the benefit to New Zealand by nullifying those fundamental workers’ rights?

Thank you, Madam Chair. The personal grievance right is a basic human right. It’s something that we’ve taken for granted for many, many years. Sadly, these rights, as Ginny Andersen was saying, are being stripped away.

One of the anomalies when I was a union official for many years—one of the major problems we had—was not having the opportunity to enforce legislation, particularly when it came to kaupapa like redundancy. We don’t have that legal right to force redundancy payments through. But, really, we say—we’ve always said in the movements—that employers have a moral obligation to pay compensation to workers, and employers have a moral obligation to allow people to roll out and utilise the personal grievance provisions. It is a basic, basic right.

I said to the Minister earlier on that, when I was employment Minister, we had a number of strategies that addressed issues like this—that she chose to ignore, sadly. I talked to her about the Māori employment strategy that was embarked on and rolled out. My good friend Janice Panoho was the chair of that. If the Minister bothered to look at that, she would see how important the personal grievance—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is this about unfair dismissal?

Yeah, I’m coming back to the bill. I’m just giving some precedent, Madam Chair, in terms of how important the personal grievance provisions are. It is absolutely imperative that workers get an opportunity, Madam Chair, to access that provision. Anything can happen. What we’re saying here—what the Minister is, essentially, saying here—is that a worker does not have the right, has no right, to take an employer to court, and an employer can do anything to that worker. That’s what the Minister and the National Party are saying. Workers have rights whether they’re on trials or not. We’ve said this for many years: workers have a right.

We’ve heard tonight from some of our speakers, from some of our women—we heard this from Tamatha Paul and other speakers—what happens when some of these young women are sexually harassed within the workplace. They have no access to support. They’re not able to respond at all. What is this Government saying? “Get lost. You can’t use the provisions that should be there for everyone.” That’s why this is such an important provision that Ginny Andersen has put up. All workers should have opportunities to justice. They should not be prejudiced against just because they’re on a trial. Everybody should have rights, and that’s what this side of the House has been trying to say for the last few hours.

I’m really pleased—it doesn’t matter what the time is, Madam Chair—that we have to address a basic fundamental human right. Personal grievances are important, and if a worker doesn’t have that, a worker doesn’t have anything. So I’m asking the Minister tonight what she is going to do. Will she address some of the strategies that have been rolled out by the previous Government, where we had a women’s strategy that has been rolled out, a strategy for Māori, a strategy for Pacific Islanders, a strategy for disabled people? It’s all there.

Why have we got these strategies? Because there have been barriers put up against all these different groups of people, and all these people want are basic human rights. They want a proper wage. They want access to the personal grievance area. They want support. They want their disparities recognised. I want to know from this Minister: will she support this type of provision? And, given the background that we’ve heard from her party, where they are so concerned about human rights, surely this personal grievance provision would be attractive to her? So I ask her to address that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’d just like to quickly address both members who made a contribution—that this is actually quite a narrow bill. It’s taking a law that existed under the previous Labour-led Government for 90-day trials for small and medium sized businesses and extends it to all employers. From the contributions of both members, anybody listening may not be aware that we actually do still currently have 90-day trials in law and we’re simply extending them. It is not as controversial as some of the scaremongering that I’ve heard in these contributions. However, talking to this specific amendment, this would undermine the entire purpose of the bill, and so, therefore, we do not support it.

It’s a pleasure to take my first call on this very specific amendment, so I appreciate being able to make a contribution. I think this is a really important amendment to discuss because—and to add a new angle to the debate—I want to get the Minister’s view on why she doesn’t think the intent of this amendment actually marries with what she has previously described around enabling that good matching of employers and workers to actually happen in a way that happens in good faith.

If the Minister is so confident that she wants to make sure that there’s flexibility in finding good matches, then there won’t be those unjustifiable and unfair dismissals. If the Minister is so confident that her legislation will lead to a better matching of employers and workers, then she should allow for personal grievances to be put in place when there’s unfair dismissals, because otherwise what this tells me is that the Minister is not actually that confident that 90-day trials lead to fair outcomes. If the Minister is so confident that 90-day trials lead to fair outcomes, she would have nothing to fear about personal grievances being able to be in place.

So I’m really curious to unpack how her previous statements regarding good matching between employers and workers and particularly around flexibility in the workplace match. To me, it says a lot that the members to my left say that it’s not a new—because they seem to not be listening and just being snarky and making comments. For the ones that are new, I would invite them to pay more attention in the House and do more service to the communities that they are supposed to serve.

Returning to the amendment, I think that the key thing here is, if she doesn’t believe that this adds flexibility, I’m interested to know why. Then, how does she think that without this amendment we can still continue to protect workers from unscrupulous employers? Because this amendment presents one of the few last safeguards that could be introduced at a time where the Government is presenting a huge, huge concession when it comes to workers’ rights in the name of productivity, according to the Minister, and in the name of flexibility. So yeah, again, really keen to unpack how this amendment, in her view, contradicts her previous sentiments around making sure that employers and workers match.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on the new clause 6 amendment proposed by my colleague Ginny Andersen. I just want to pick up on some of the comments raised previously around the ability to take a personal grievance, and just speak to a little bit of experience around that but also what this new clause would achieve, which I think would be a very good addition to the bill.

Section 103 of the Employment Relations Act lists a series of claims that can be used to take a personal grievance, one of which is sexual harassment. There are a variety of different claims there, and the Act goes on to also provide the test for that. One of the questions I’ve got for the Minister is whether any analysis has been provided to her by officials, in particular, about the risks to employers with the reintroduction of 90-day trials through to employers with 20 or more employees. The reason I raise that is that when this law was introduced under the previous National Government, what we found in employment law was there were a number of employers who used the law and subsequently did end up with a personal grievance being taken. In some cases it was found, for a variety of reasons, for example, one would be that the person—I remember a good test case we had where somebody had actually technically started their employment before the employment agreement was signed and the 90-day trial agreed, and so they were allowed to therefore take a personal grievance.

So I would put a proposition there that this introduction of this law actually presents a risk to employers. This is why I’m specifically speaking to this clause, which is that it would be explicit that you could take a personal grievance. One of the things that we used to find a little bit when I took cases off into mediation and then sometimes a lawyer would step in and assist to the Employment Relations Authority: one of the things that would occur would be you would have this test out between process and outcome, and one of the things that would occur in those cases would be that an authority member or a judge, at times, would say, “Yes, this person has been unjustifiably dismissed because the process was poor, but, actually, there’s a contribution from that employee and therefore I”. There have even been judgments when the contribution from the employee was considered to be at 100 percent. So, ultimately, while they won the personal grievance case through a process, they ultimately received no financial remedy or reinstatement because they had contributed 100 percent.

One of the reasons why I raise that particular example, coming back to this clause, is that by actually being explicit about the right to take a personal grievance, it doesn’t actually mean that there is going to be a remedy for that employee. That’s the point I want to make here: it still allows that process to be followed. It allows the employee that’s been dismissed under a 90-day trial to be able to have the opportunity to test that using the legal remedies that are available to them. What it doesn’t mean is that they will necessarily win that argument in either the authority or the court or a higher court.

The reason I raise this again, and I’m particularly interested in hearing from the Minister, is whether any advice has been received as to whether the reintroduction of 90-day trials for larger employers presents a risk if they don’t follow the process properly because there is case law sitting there on the books that actually allows people to still take a personal grievance. I would say we then have a situation where we have case law in the statute in contradiction with each other. That actually presents a risk in terms of analysis, and there may be situations that present themselves in the coming months where people are employed under a 90-day trial, dismissed under a 90-day trial, then able to take a grievance, and the courts say, “Actually, you can.”, and that has happened.

I think the best option would be to put in place what is a very good amendment from Ginny Andersen because it would then actually be clear to employees and employers that under case law you can still take—and I think it’s important we get this on the Hansard for the Minister, actually: what is the intent? What is the advice received, because this will come up in the courts—the intent. So if it’s not in the Hansard from the Minister, I would suggest that there’s probably employment lawyers that would read this Hansard and say, “Actually, you know, we haven’t had that clarification from the Minister.” So I’d be very interested to hear from the Minister on this particular clause.

I thank the member for her concern, but I believe that the member may misinterpret the intention of this clause. It is actually quite possible with people who are currently under 90-day trials, as was the law under the previous Labour-led Government, where it is still the current law that we have 90-day trials, people can raise a personal grievance on other matters, such as sexual harassment, as the Hon Willie Jackson raised. So just to clarify for the member, that law exists now. We’re simply extending 90-day trials to all employers.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would just like to carry on the train of thought that the Minister raised in her contribution there.

Yes, it is correct that you’re able to take some personal grievances when you’re in a 90-day trial. That is, in fact, the entire purpose of the Hon Ginny Andersen’s amendment, because I heard the Minister respond to a previous speaker to say that she didn’t support this amendment because it goes contrary to the whole purpose of this bill, which is not to allow any employee in a trial period to take a personal grievance. Well, in fact, the substance—

Hon Brooke van Velden: That’s not what I said.

Well, I’m happy to hear a contribution from the Minister in due course. The substance of this provision is actually to allow the bill to exist with its purpose of not allowing unfair dismissal personal grievances to occur, but inserting another clause in clause 103(1), entitled “clause (l)”, which essentially creates a new type of personal grievance, which is a type of personal grievance that can only occur when an employee has been dismissed unfairly in a trial period.

So yes, an employee couldn’t take a personal grievance for unfair dismissal during a relevant trial period. But if this provision was to go ahead, there would be a new personal grievance that only applies to people who were dismissed unfairly—which is a different term to “unjustified”, which is the common term used in relation to personal grievances in this Act. So it would create a new personal grievance for those who’ve been treated unfairly under a trial period.

So I think it actually does two things. It doesn’t just insert that section; it also goes back. If you can see in the Act at (1)(a), it also includes the reference to (k) in the primary Act as well. So it would make, essentially, two changes: one to the bill; which would then allow the bill to amend the primary legislation, which is the Employment Relations Act, inserting another—there’s a whole list of personal grievances that are listed in section 103; it’s one of the most important sections of the Employment Relations Act and it would add another one in there as well.

So I think it’s a very good provision. I support the inclusion of that provision, and the reason that I do is I think it helps to mitigate some of the unfairness which has been discussed at length during this debate for individuals that are covered by a trial period. It would allow the trial periods to exist as the Minister intended with the introduction of this provision. But it would allow them, if they were treated unfairly, to take an additional personal grievance. And there are, as the Minister knows and she’s mentioned, several exceptions to the overall ban on taking personal grievances. So the only one that is actually not allowed under the under the bill—

Hon Brooke van Velden: Very glad you’ve discovered this since question time.

—is the unfair dismissal one, and this creates a new one there as well.

So I’m interested whether the Minister wants to reconsider her position in relation to this section. Given my professional opinion of this, I think that may be something that she wants to reconsider. I think that it’s very difficult to say to someone that you’ve got no recourse to justice—and this is about access to justice. Trial periods are serious in that they remove access to justice, and this provision goes some way to restoring the ability for individuals to gain justice.

I’m sure all members in this room, if they ever have a friend or loved one who is dismissed under a trial period, that feeling of frustration; that feeling of lack of justice; that feeling of unfairness that will just taint their entire life. I’m not overstating that. It is hugely serious and something that I think has been touched on a lot in this debate. Jobs are not simply a means of employment: they are self-esteem, they are about how you identify, they are about your place in the world.

If people are not allowed to take action where they’ve been treated unfairly in something that is so important to them, it is really important that we look at that, we take it seriously, and I think that this clause—as proposed by the Hon Ginny Andersen—goes some way into restoring dignity to those people covered by trial periods.

Point of order. Thank you for the point of order, Mr Chair. Mr Chair, there is a convention that, in committee, members in charge of legislation should not take unfair advantage of a live microphone by way of interjection. Mr Chair, I wonder if, given that we’re all a bit tired and I know the Minister is doing her best to observe those rules, whether you would allow my colleague Camilla Belich another five minutes to finish her points that I missed because the Minister was interjecting throughout her speech—three times. I wonder if that would be the right way to move forward with that.

I mean, I appreciate the point of order, but the member could also take another call. But I do want to bring back the focus to this very specific clause. I do want to acknowledge the energy in the committee tonight and the commitment from members right across the Chamber in this graveyard shift. But I would ask members opposite, in particular, to focus on this particular clause.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks to my colleague Arena Williams for the point of order. I do have some other thoughts on this particular provision, which I’m happy to elucidate for you, Mr Chair, and for the members still present in the Chamber. I think it’s actually interesting and I think it’s timely that we have a provision that focuses on section 103, because, although this section is not mentioned specifically in the bill, which is before the committee at the moment, the sections which the bill amends do mention section 103. It is fundamentally important to a lot of the points that the Minister has made around access to justice. I do commend the Minister for not getting rid of the access to personal grievance provisions that exist under this Act. There’s actually a significant number of them which are still included within this particular Act.

This particular section, (l), which is what the Hon Ginny Andersen’s amendment to the bill proposes to put in place, has a few different parts to it. In law, we would look at the different tests, in the particular provision, to make sure that we can prove them. So we would have to have an employee that has been dismissed for this to apply. So, obviously, anyone who had been dismissed from employment would be covered by that. That’s the first leg of the test.

The second part of the test that would apply would be “unfairly”. So there would have to be some kind of test. The Employment Relations Authority or Employment Court or the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court, which are all of the courts that could potentially look at this particular provision—and that, I think, underpins the seriousness of what we’re discussing today—could potentially look at that and they would have to say whether something had been done fairly or not. If that person was found to have been dismissed but that it was a fair dismissal, then that person would not be able to meet the second leg of the test. So I think that is very important.

The third leg of the test would be under a trial period. If the person was found to have been dismissed and it wasn’t a valid trial period—I mean, this is something that’s important to consider: often trial periods are found to be invalid. So it could be quite a likely situation that someone could think that they were dismissed under a trial period, and not actually be dismissed under a trial period because the employer did something wrong. I’ve advised a lot of people on these cases. Every single case that I’ve seen on trial periods, the employer has not done it correctly. They’ve given someone a contract where they’ve already started a shift—that is not a valid trial period. They’ve, for example, given it to someone who’s already worked for them before—that is not a valid trial period. So it could be that trial period, which would be the third leg of the test under this particular amendment that we’re discussing, would not be fulfilled.

So I think it’s important to go through that to truly, fully understand the provision that’s before us. The Minister does have the opportunity to change her mind and support this amendment—

💬 Hon Member: That’s right. Bishop did earlier.

—to allow access to justice. Yeah, exactly. It’s not unprecedented for Ministers in the chair to reflect on the legislation before them and say, “Actually, this is a reasonable amendment which actually might add to the bill that’s before the committee.”—which is made by Parliament. We have to think about that as well. The reason that we’re putting forward these amendments, and the reason Ginny Andersen has put forward this amendment, is because this is a parliamentary bill, and what Parliament intends is important. Obviously, the Minister has a huge role in determining the direction that Parliament goes, but I think it’s important that we reflect on that.

So I thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to fully go through that section. I actually think it was helpful for me in terms of understanding the applicability of this particular section, and I hope it assists the Minister in her consideration of the amendment.

Members, we are coming to the end of this discussion. People are starting to repeat. So the next call that is taken—it needs to be focused on this clause.

Mr Chair, I thank you for the opportunity, because I want to come back to the previous contribution I made. I have a specific question for the Minister that wasn’t addressed. So my specific question to the Minister about this clause asked what advice she had taken from officials, and that is what I actually want to hear from the Minister. So I need to raise it again, Mr Chair, because based on my earlier contribution it wasn’t answered. [Interruption] I’d love to hear from somebody on the other side, seeing they are so interested—maybe they could take some more fulsome calls.

The reason why I’m raising this again is that we have had circumstances under this law when it was in existence last time, where employers were subject to personal grievances. My colleague Camila Belich has outlined in a bit more detail than I did previously some of the examples of that. So I want to come back to this clause, because it’s very specific. What it says is that in section 103 it would insert that “the employee has been dismissed unfairly under a trial period.” I want to come to that part around “unfairly” because that comes back to process. It is the process that is critical here.

One of the things I am concerned about is that employers who might be listening to this debate will be becoming confused right now. There will be confusion out there amongst employers because the Minister has stated that employees can take a personal grievance, but we are being specific here around a personal grievance on the basis of an unfair dismissal.

I want to come back to the question I asked and didn’t get a thorough answer to from the Minister, which was about what advice officials have provided. Again, I bring it back to the point that the House is in urgency and we haven’t had the opportunity to test out these matters with officials. If I was sitting on a select committee now, I would be asking for this to get a thorough response in a departmental report, and we haven’t had that. So I really want to hear from the Minister what advice officials have given her about the risk that employers will still be subject to a personal grievance, based on both her comments in the committee stage tonight but also on what we know about case law.

I made that point in my earlier contribution and I haven’t had a response about the interaction between case law and what we put on the statute book. I note that my colleague Camilla Belich is a lawyer. I’ve had the opportunity to be an organiser; she’s been a lawyer so she does have a lot more knowledge on the legal complexities here. But my experience of working in this field is that there have been examples of people being put on trial periods and they’re found to not have followed a proper process. So the point I made in my earlier contribution—which, again, was not responded to by the Minister—is that actually putting that clause in would give clarity to employers about a personal grievance for an unfair dismissal.

I say again that it’s not coming back to the substance of the dismissal; it’s coming back to the process that’s been followed. I am very keen to hear if officials have provided that advice, if that advice has been sought, about what risks this presents to employers, because if I was an employer, I’d be quite nervous about going down a process of including a 90-day trial in an employment agreement. I’d be feeling nervous, because in the Hansard tonight we’re seeing some confusion in the responses.

Also, we know that there are good test cases out there, and so I think it’s actually in the Minister’s interest to make sure that this is clarified for the committee tonight. Otherwise, her intent is for employers to be able to use this clause—there may well be employers that wish to use this clause but elect not to because they are concerned that it would actually present them with a risk that they otherwise wouldn’t have exposed themselves to.

This is an important point because people like Camilla Belich, Helen White, and me have worked in this field for a number of years and have seen this happen in action, in reality. It’s not something we’re raising out of randomness. It’s a real issue, a live issue, that under that flaw that was brought in many years ago, it was unexpected but there were a number of cases that were put to the court and were won based on poor process. So I’m really keen to hear more from the Minister.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s a delight to take a call at this point in the evening. I just simply refer the member to paragraphs 3 to 5 of the regulatory impact statement that has been prepared for this bill.

It’s me!

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yes, the Hon Willie Jackson, it is you at 11.25!

I didn’t quite catch that, but I stand to support Ginny Andersen’s amendment: section 103 amended in terms of the personal grievances in section 103 following 103(1). As I said earlier, access to the personal grievance provisions is a basic human right that has sadly, in our view, been ignored. But here’s the point that we keep reiterating: vulnerable workers need this more than anyone. I spoke earlier about women workers—

💬 Hon Member: The other kinds of women workers.

Well, there’s lots of workers and I talked about the different strategies—I know the Government’s been enjoying this. We rolled out a number of strategies when I was employment Minister in terms of women, Pasifika, and Māori. We were very considerate—when the former Minister Robertson was leading us, we always had considerations for the Treaty. So I ask tonight, as a new point—because, again, we know that the Treaty is a very integral part of what Governments do and has been at the forefront of a lot of debates. [Interruption] Mr Chair, I can’t help it if someone down there is offended by the Treaty. I’m bringing another aspect—

💬 Dan Bidois: Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m just referring to Speaker’s ruling 124/6 about relevance being determined at committee stage: if it is a particularly broad-ranging bill, then a broad-ranging committee stage can be considered. But this is quite a narrow bill and the member is talking about Treaty stuff and there’s no thing in the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yes, I definitely take the member’s point and acknowledge the Minister who had an answer—I was expecting a question about the answer, or a contribution about the answer, and the Hon Willie Jackson has strayed, unfortunately. I will let him continue his contribution, but he needs to focus on clause 6.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m really disappointed to hear you say that. I would have thought that you may have been supportive of what—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Oh, I was totally supportive, but I would be more supportive if you at least mentioned clause 6.

—I was trying to say there, because—well, we’re talking about it, but, as you well know, Mr Chair, the Treaty is integral in just about every part of what we do, and we have had to attach it to most parts of legislation. So I’m surprised that it’s been ruled out here, because we’re talking about women workers—in an earlier amendment we were talking about women workers, we’re talking about Pacific workers, we’re talking about the disabled, and we’re talking about Māori workers.

Now, for Māori workers—and that’s why I’m saying this is relevant, Mr Chair, if you could think about this for a second. This is relevant and just because the other side and Mr Bidois over there—you know, I mean, he’s not understanding the relevance here for workers who want to bring their disputes through the personal grievance area but also bring a Treaty perspective to the table. So we’re talking about—

💬 Hon Members: Relevance?

Oh, absolutely. I was not a former union lawyer or academic; I was a freezing worker, as you well know. That’s a fact. I come from the shop floor. So I’m not like my flash colleagues over here, but I’ve been very lucky to be part of this team. And from the shop floor, when personal grievances came in, it was an area that gave people an opportunity. That’s why—here’s the point—in a trial period, workers need the opportunity to access this right, a basic human right that all workers should have access to. And Māori workers—as I said, I want you to think about this, Mr Chair—should have an opportunity to put forward arguments with regard to the Treaty partnership as an employer engaged in the partnership—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

You can laugh about this but New Zealand On Air made it very clear that there had to be a partnership. Just ask Winston Peters; he talks about it all the time. So that’s why I’m bringing this to the table. Has the Minister thought about the implications in terms of the partnership with Māori and the Treaty implications here? This is all connected, and personal grievances and the Treaty and the relationship are connected. Has the Minister thought about her response to the Treaty implications?

I call Grant McCallum. Let’s hope you read this out right.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

The committee has considered the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading