Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to clause 2. This is the debate on “Commencement”. The question is that clause 2 stand part. The question is—

Mr Chair—I had done it.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): You sneaked in there, Mr Bates.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No—if it’s about whether he’s entitled, I hadn’t actually started to close, so no—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, I certainly heard you say “The question”—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, no—I don’t care what you heard, I’ve given the call to Mr Bates.

CARL BATES: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for your generosity this evening. I think this sort of demonstrates my concern about the commencement date, that businesses have a lot going on—businesses that are trying to grow the salaries and the wages of their employees by becoming more productive, by growing the New Zealand economy, and by being able to do the stuff that actually puts money in the pockets of New Zealanders.

I’m concerned about the timing of the commencement. This date of commencement—the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent. This could be any given random day in the business week, or in the business month, or indeed, I suppose, in the business year. I think that there would be value in giving some consideration to a timing of a commencement date that more appropriately reflected the times or the business cycle of the business year—the life cycle, if you like, of business.

There are a number of dates that become the life cycle of business. One particular date is the start of the financial year. I wonder whether the member in charge of the bill, Camilla Belich, would be willing to give consideration to commencing the bill on the first day of a new financial year. That gives an opportunity for communication around this change to effectively go out to all employers so that they are clear on this additional burden to their job as employers that the Opposition has put on them. Let’s be clear, it will be the Opposition and friends—if this goes through this evening—that put this on. If it is the case that this bill goes through this evening, that timing aligns to a date that employers are going to be able to be communicated with. Effectively, that’s the start date.

Now, the first day of this financial year, being 1 April 2025, is probably too soon, given the time it will take for this to go through and get Royal assent and then actually go through the administrative process, and then we’ve got to communicate it out. In that regard, the supplementary question to my question would be: would the member consider aligning, if it was to pass, the commencement to be 1 April 2026 so that, first of all, it is aligned, as I’ve said, with the life cycle of the business year—that naturally sits at the start of the financial year, being 1 April—then, secondly, allowing sufficient time for not only the communication out of this House to get through to employers, through appropriate different channels, but also for HR practitioners to get the appropriate up-skilling and up-training?

The Opposition always go on about the importance of people being up-skilled— professional development—when there is a change. This is a change for HR practitioners to be aware of, and it’s important they have the opportunity for professional development so that they are clear on this change before it goes into action, into commencement.

As I say, aligning it both with the business life cycle at the start of the financial year, and ensuring sufficient time for employers to be made aware, and for the support that they have—because in this country right now, if you are trying to drive productivity up, you need all the support you can get. Many employers—small businesses and the like—across this nation use HR practitioners to support the implementation of their HR policies, so I would encourage the member to consider both of those commencement questions. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the member for his contributions. I just have some responses to that, and also some things that were not really part of the title section that he and his colleagues mentioned that I thought I could comment on briefly.

In terms of the drafting of the Education and Workforce Committee being deficient, he is a member of that select committee. He has the numbers by majority on that select committee, so if there’s any issue with the drafting, then he is, if not just as responsible as myself, more so. I would like maybe for him to reflect on his comments in relation to that. Additionally, the select committee changes were agreed unanimously with, in fact, his vote.

The issue that he reflected on with a mishap in banking is definitely not covered by this bill. This bill covers intentional theft—not mistakes, not mishaps, not people being forgetful: intentional theft—and that links to his suggestion that the commencement should be delayed. This is not an administrative burden additional to what employers already have to deal with. Employers should currently not be stealing from their employees. They should not be taking money from the people who work for them. This is already an obligation. What we are looking at with this bill is to simply make it an option for police or other prosecution services to, in cases where it meets the prosecution guidelines, take action against what I suspect would be the very worst employers in New Zealand.

Also, to reflect on some of the comments that this isn’t a widespread issue, unfortunately in some communities and for some people, this is a widespread issue. For our most vulnerable workers, they often have employers taking from their wages. We heard Ibrahim Omer—the first person who brought this bill to the House, in the 53rd Parliament—speak of two examples of wage theft that he had suffered himself. This is an insidious common problem in New Zealand and we shouldn’t tolerate it, so I reject the suggestion around the change to commencement. The day after Royal assent is a standard legislative format, and for this type of bill, which addresses an existing wrong and doesn’t require any additional thought by employers, who should already not be stealing, I don’t consider it’s justified.

Additionally, I commend the member Vanessa Weenink for her, well, her good Google search in relation to the word “theft”, but it is well understood and defined in the Crimes Act so I believe it’s the appropriate word to use in this instance.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to rise and talk about the commencement date actually from a rural point of view, because whilst my colleague Carl Bates previously discussed the impact on general business, I want to speak about the commencement date from a rural and a farming perspective.

Actually, there’s a number of organisations in the farming sector, and one of these is the dairy sector, so when would be a better commencement that would fit their financial year so that they’ve got time to understand the changes and to line up with it? That might be 1 June because the financial year—the people on the other side who’ve never run a business and don’t understand what the rural sector’s like, this is actually quite an important time. Being a farmer at that time of year is very stressful, so we’ve got to give ourselves time for people to understand what the change is, when the change is coming, and the education required.

The dairy sector are particularly busy in this period. They need to know for certain when it will come in and to give them time to learn so that we can go out to have professional consultation—give time for that to happen—which is why I would suggest 1 June 2026 might suit the dairy sector, because it gives them time to really understand that, actually, this is a potential criminal act that they could deal with. That, I think, is really important, but the other farming sector—

Helen White: Think we could have a delay on murder as well?

GRANT McCALLUM: Boy, they’re really getting wound up on the other side. She’s obviously concerned about what I’m saying.

Hon Member: Trigger word—farming’s a trigger word.

GRANT McCALLUM: Oh, clearly. The other area is the sheep and beef farming sector. Their balance date is slightly different, usually—it’s the end of June. Just maybe we could look at—we have to work out which date suits the farming sector.

In fact, we could have two commencement dates—one for each sector, possibly. One could be 1 July 2026. That may be more appropriate for that sector because it just takes a while to let people know and understand so they don’t get caught out by the word “intent”—the word “intent”. Proving that intention is a real thing. And “theft”—no one wants to be held up for a criminal situation—you’ve just got to be very careful about that. When you actually have to pay a lot of people and understand the stress of making sure you get it right, when you could potentially be had up for a criminal act, I think is really, really important. I would say to the member Camilla Belich, I would really appreciate it if she could consider those different types of businesses in the rural sector and when they may. Thank you, Mr Chair; I appreciate the opportunity.