Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill

hich says, “My success is not mine alone, but it is the strength of many.” If this Government was to live by that saying, they would not continue trampling over workers’ rights, trampling over people’s ability to have secure employment, and introducing the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill, which will see generations of workers in precarious positions and being potentially fired for things like having the wrong hair colour, for things like having a bereavement, and for things like being sick.

The Minister should be ashamed, should be embarrassed, and should go back to her coalition document, which supposedly claims that they will be looking at data and evidence when it comes to decision making, because this bill has no evidential basis. It has no research to back it up and it is an attack on workers.

I want to reflect on the fact that many of the Government members keep talking about how the left doesn’t own workers. And as I’ve said before, this Government believes in employers owning workers’ ability to live, workers’ ability to remain in secure housing by giving employers the ability to get rid of people—to treat them as disposable economic units.

As we head into Christmas, what this Government is giving to employers is the ability—

Chlöe Swarbrick: To fire at will.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —to fire at will—that’s right—and we have to remember that our employment laws are already weighted to favour employers. That power imbalance already exists. It’s been decades in the making. It is how capitalism was designed, and this Government is simply worsening it and entrenching it.

There is research to show that 90-day trials do not work. They do not increase wages; they do not increase working conditions. There is evidence already to support this and let’s not pretend that the Government simply has not read the evidence. They’ve read it and they do not care. They do not care for workers and they do not care for the evidence that backs up that this piece of legislation is rubbish. This piece of legislation would lead to worsening pay and conditions for workers as well.

We do have, also, plenty of evidence from workers themselves, stories that they have generously provided to people in this Chamber when the previous Government was looking at changing how 90-day trials operated. I just want to touch on, for example, one of those stories from Jessica, who at the time talked about: “I called in sick to work one day. My employer wanted to have a disciplinary meeting about this.” These are the kinds of stories; this is the kind of situation that those 90-day trials create by creating that ability for employers to be able to get rid of workers for whatever reason they like, under the justification of being able to find a good match.

All that we are doing is creating a cycle where people will be thrown back into an income support system that was designed to keep people in poverty, back into low-wage employment, back into that same income support system. Employers will continue being able to pay workers poor wages and will be able to continue treating those workers as disposable labour units.

The Green Party understands that our society does not thrive when we treat workers as disposable. If we want to create a society where people are able to not just survive but to thrive, we need to strengthen the right of workers, not diminish them. So I look forward to the debate and exchanges with the Minister later in the committee of the whole House stages, to unpack what best available evidence she used, rather than the vibes she chose to carry throughout the election, rather than the vibes she’s now just speaking to—neo-liberal and cruel vibes at that.

The Green Party will be opposing this bill, and what we will be fighting for is to ensure that this Government does not last the test of time and that we are able to reintroduce protections for workers and go beyond what previous Governments have created.

I rise to speak on the first reading of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. I have managed a business under both models, and I can tell you the hesitance to employ without the use of 90-day trial is real. A good debate hears from both sides, and members opposite clearly have not. The 90-day trial is a tool that does not need to be used, and most often is not. But the help that it provides to employers to take a chance on workers that may have no experience, that may have a tough track record, is what makes the difference. This is reasonable, and I look forward to seeing it amended. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take the first call for New Zealand First on this bill, on the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

[Tākuta Ferris stands] You have to seek the call. Are you seeking the call?

Tākuta Ferris: Āe.

You have to ask the Speaker for the call.

Tākuta Ferris: Āe, I was seeking the call.

Tēnā tātou. Ka tū ahau ki te wāhi i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori e hāngai pū ana ki tēnei o ngā pire. Tēnei pire e tere kawea nei e tēnei Kāwanatanga, me te whai aronga kore ki tana hoa haere i roto i te Tiriti o Waitangi, me te mōhio ko te nuinga o ngā whānau Māori ka pā kinotia e tēnei pire, i runga anō i te āheinga o te hunga takatū i roto i te ao pakihi te tuku i a rātou kia whakakorengia tō rātou tū hei kaimahi i roto i te toru marama.

Kua mōhio kētia whānuitia, tēnā whakatipuranga, tēnā whakatipuranga, ko te iwi Māori te iwi ka ngaua kinotia e ēnei tūmomo pire. Nā, i roto i ngā wiki e rua kua taha ake nei kua whai whakaaro tēnei taha o te Whare kia kawea terehia ēnei pire me te whai aronga kore ki a Ngāi Māori, ki ngā iwi rānei, otirā ki te ōhanga Māori i roto o Aotearoa.

Nō reira e kore rawa mātou e whakaae ki te hanga o tēnei pire, me te mōhio iho he tūkinotanga ōna nō roto mai o te Tiriti o Waitangi, he patunga ōna ki runga i ngā mokopuna o te motu, he whai whakaaro kore ki ngā whānau Māori e noho nei i roto o Aotearoa.

[Greetings to us all. I stand to open the discussion on behalf of the Māori Party, directly relating to this bill. This bill that is being rushed through by this Government, without consideration for its partner in the Treaty of Waitangi, in the knowledge that the majority of Māori families will be adversely affected by this bill, due to the ability of those established in the business sector that allows them to dismiss their standing as an employee in three months.

It is already widely known, each successive generation, that it is Māori society that are the people that are adversely affected by these types of bills. So in the last two weeks this side of the House has thought to rush these bills through without any consideration of the Māori people, or of the various iwi, and indeed of the Māori economy within Aotearoa.

So we will never agree with the structure of this bill, in the knowledge that it has violations of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is an assault on the grandchildren of the nation, and it does not at all consider the Māori families that reside here in Aotearoa.]

So Te Pāti Māori vehemently opposes this bill. We understand that the age-old saying of Māori being the highly extendable shock absorber of the New Zealand economy over decades seems to be well in play with the current bill—the repeal of this bill. We know that young Māori families will be disadvantaged by this bill, their children will be disadvantaged, kaumātua will be disadvantaged, as will many other minority peoples in this country. We’ve heard a lot from this side of the House over the last two days and two weeks. We understand that it takes mobility and agility to grow an economy, but if that’s at the expense of the most vulnerable people in that society, then it’s not something that we could ever condone.

I’ll just remind this side of the House that they’ve paid no attention—given no regard—to their Tiriti partner, as described in my maiden speech as the principle in that agreement, and to do so in 2023 whilst the motu stands up to rally against it just defies explanation.

💬 Carl Bates: Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean that Māori aren’t in agreement.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, well, it’s not just me that doesn’t like it; there’s plenty of people that don’t like it. [Interruption] But I don’t think you have any bandwidth for garnering any sort of opinion from the Māori community, e hoa, so I wouldn’t pursue that line of argument if I was sitting in your seat.

But heoi anō ko te mōhio iho ko Ngāi Māori ka ngaua kinotia e tēnei pire. E kore mātou e whakaae.

[However, it is known that it will be the Māori people that will be greatly adversely affected by this bill. We will never agree.]

When I look across here to this side of the House, I don’t see leaders. I’m not seeing leadership. I’m not seeing the voice of the motu. I’m seeing the voice of a small segment of the motu who voted these people in. And, you know, the trouble—

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: 4 percent Māori—

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Ha, ha! Four percent, āe, 4 percent Māori. Over here I see lobbyists, I see people who prioritise profit over people. I see people who expect us to believe that all business owners are benevolent do-gooders and they’re going to look after everybody for ever. But the trouble with that idea is that unlike a business, when you can simply discard unproductive units, when you’re responsible for a society and the wellbeing of that society, simply discarding those people, or those units that you deem suboptimal, does nothing to improve that society.

Nō reira, Te Pāti Māori vehemently opposes this anti-worker, anti-whānau, and anti Te Tiriti o Waitangi bill.

Just before I take the next call, I will remind members that if you want to have a discussion and a chit-chat right across the House, there’s plenty of space out there in the hallways. I didn’t want to interrupt the previous speaker, but I would like people to keep that in mind. There’s plenty of spaces for us to have those debates as well, and it can make it difficult for people at home listening if folks start to get a bit rowdy.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. As I worked across the Whanganui electorate, visited businesses in Whanganui, in Waverley, in Pātea, in Hāwera, and in Stratford, I met many business owners who looked to this sort of opportunity to provide opportunities to employees across our electorate. I know my colleagues across the country who won their seats in the recent election had similar experiences. We also spoke to the employees, or the potential employees that wanted the opportunity that those employers could give and that this bill provides for that relationship to occur. So I’m pleased to support the Government’s 100-day plan to deliver on our commitments and what the voters wanted. I commend this bill to the House.

Oh, they would have been so proud of that speech, too, so well done. They would have thought, “What a long way they went with that fabulous, well-thought-out speech.”

It’s so sad; it’s such a sad time, this. We’ve got such an uncaring Government at the moment. [Laughter] They laugh away, but here we are. We’re—what are we?—five days from Christmas, and they’ve been attacking Māori, attacking workers, and they don’t even know what they’re doing. They’re so stupid, it’s just beyond belief. They sit there and they don’t realise what an arrogant Government they are, what a terrible start they’ve made. Here we are, with fair pay agreements thrown out. Now, we’re kicking the unions for the benefit of the boss. That’s what this is all about. It’s not about building equality in terms of this country. This is how you rip it down, with their ideas. It’s so sad.

I think that I was listening to Tākuta there—you know, no regard for Māori, no regard for partnership, no regard for the Treaty. It’s like it’s all been forgotten. We saw that this morning with the repeal of the Resource Management Act.

There’s no reason to extend the 90-day right-to-sack law beyond small businesses that employ less than 20 people. This is being rammed through, in terms of urgency, because, obviously, they have to tiptoe around Winston’s ego for almost two months. What’s being rammed through under urgency is a spiteful law. This is a spiteful law.

The Government talk like they’re the only people who’ve been involved in business. We know that this type of law can really hurt the vulnerable. They don’t know where they’re going—they can’t plan anything. They’re at the whim of some of these National Party and ACT Party bosses. You know, they’re at their whim. This is what worries us. We’re trying to work through how we can support our people productively, and this is the best way of doing it! They’ve been so badly hit in terms of the fair bargaining process, this is not legislation that helps workers, it only weakens their rights. That’s the danger here.

💬 Carl Bates: Strengthens the opportunity.

No, this is not opportunity. As we said earlier, you know, we’re going to get down to the point where you’re just going to get rid of people because you’re just sick of them. It’s not legislation that helps workers; it supresses wages. It’s not legislation that helps workers; it just strengthens bosses’ rights. That’s what the unions have been saying to us.

After six years in Opposition, all National is doing is tearing down what we’ve put in place. When’s it going to stop? We’ve got the smokefree laws. We’ve got fair bargaining. We’ve got Māori Health Authority. This will catch up with this Government. They’ve got no vision for New Zealand; it’s just about bashing the vulnerable, bashing workers, and bashing Māori.

I just cannot believe how the Government can’t see the type of damage that’s happening. Particularly, I look at the smokefree stuff—this is all connected. We’ve got world-recognised legislation in terms of smokefree—world-recognised legislation. England have embraced it. But this lot, here: throw it out—throw it out—so they can fund their rich mates with their stupid tax cuts. That’s what we’re talking about: they’re wreckers and destroyers. This is not how you build an economy or community or society. It’s an enormous step backwards, and this is happening and continuing all the time. The State should be against exploiting workers, not enabling it. [Assistant Speaker gestures for member to return to subject of bill] Well, I’m trying to keep it right in context. I think that’s what this is all about.

This is a bill that is exploiting the situation with regards to workers. They cannot plan, they cannot get a future in place, all because of the selfishness and the greediness of a National Government who don’t care at all about workers’ rights.

I speak in support of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. Businesses both large and small in our electorate, in Central Hawke’s Bay, Tararua, in the Wairarapa are facing tough times. Rising interest rates and unworkable legislation are making it difficult to do business. Returning 90-day trials will give them some confidence. The point that the other side of the House misses is that those seeking new employment but may have had a few speed bumps, those vulnerable people are often those that employers won’t take a chance on. What is wrong with an extended trial period where employers will give people a go? Nothing. I’m pleased to support this bill.

We’re sitting in the House today and I’ve got five minutes to explain to you why what you’re doing, what—sorry, Mr Speaker; explain to the Opposition or to the Government—

💬 Hon Members: That’s right!

—why what they are doing—yes, that’s right: you’re the Government, and I am so sad that you are taking this action today. I want to explain just why—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Direct your comments to the Speaker.

—this is going to hurt people out there. So I just want to take one worker and I don’t want to take a dramatic example; I want to take one worker who I think is a realistic representation of the kind of person that you’re going to impact on.

So let’s take a worker in my electorate of Mt Albert. That person has been working at a local cafe and they’ve learnt how to make a coffee. They’ve got three kids; their kids are 12 and 14 and two. By next Christmas, they’ve been offered a job—just before next Christmas and they’re going to be offered a job at Starbucks. Now, Starbucks is a multinational. It has well over 50 employees. By this time next year—in fact, quite soon—Starbucks will be able to offer that person work without any obligation to keep them employed after 90 days.

So this worker has got a dilemma. She’s got three kids. She’s on minimum wage and she might get a little bit more at Starbucks, so she might decide to go and work there. If she goes to work there, she’ll be subject to a restraint of trade. She probably doesn’t know that because it’s in the bulk of the collective agreement. It says that there’s a restraint of trade in there for six months. So she’ll be stuck in that job because that will be part of the contract.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why did the union agree to that?

Now, I’d appreciate if you’d listen to me, Judith Collins, Minister—I’d appreciate you listening to this because this is a real-life situation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): If the speaker could have the conversation with me.

Thank you. I’d appreciate a little bit of respect. Listen to this story, because it’s an interesting story because it fleshes out what’s actually happening here.

So this person has three children. They all get on a bus to go to school because there’s only one car in this family. They all are going to pay full price, so that worker is already going to have that issue. She’s going to start at her job—if she is daring to start at that job, because she may know that that makes her very precarious. She’s in a risky situation so she’s less likely to move from her minimum-wage job to one that pays slightly more. When she gets there, if her children get sick and she has to actually stop and look after them, she’s going to hesitate, isn’t she? Because she’s not going to be willing to take the risk that in those 90 days she does anything that might make her a target for an instant dismissal.

💬 Carl Bates: Hypothetical.

It’s not a hypothetical; it’s a reality. Because that will be the fear of the woman in this situation—that will be the fear. So she’s likely to come to work when her kids are sick. She’s already got one child, by the way, who’s two, and she won’t be getting any of the benefits that she would have got, which was the free childcare. So, again, she’s less likely to work.

Now, that person is sacked. They’re sacked and we’re held to a restraint of trade in that situation. They are sacked. It might be for a good reason; it might be for a bad reason. They’ve got no natural justice attached to it. We wouldn’t know, would we? We wouldn’t know whether it was a good reason or a bad reason.

That person is then without work, just before Christmas next year. Who will be picking up the tab? Will that be Starbucks, the multinational? No, it will be the taxpayer—the taxpayer will pick up the tab. So what we’ve actually effectively done is we’ve taken all the risk associated with that worker—who, by the way, was not the mythical take-a-chance person; they were, in fact, the worker who was just trying to get ahead, just trying to get above minimum wage. And we’re going to have them actually on the books next Christmas as a person that the taxpayer’s paying for, because that’s what we do. We subsidise Starbucks under this arrangement.

But, by all means, don’t have a submission process around this! Don’t try and glue some of the very important boundaries to this in place! No, just do it because why would you listen? I mean, you’ve been in Government for 6½ minutes and you’re already not listening to people. You don’t want to know what the reality of what you do is, because you’re stuck in an old-fashioned ideology that didn’t work and hasn’t for a long time.

I rise speak in support of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. After listening to some of the speakers on the other side of the House, you’d think employers were actually hiring people to sack them. Well, actually, that’s not the case. The process of going through to actually want to hire somebody is quite a process, and when you make those selections, then you do it for all the good reasons to support your business. As somebody who is a small-business owner and had the benefit to actually take advantage of this situation to employ some people that you might not actually normally have done, and given them a chance, then that gives you the confidence to do so, and that is why I commend this bill to the House.

This bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading