Tuesday, 19 December 2023 (continued on Wednesday, 20 December 2023) - Volume 772

Metadata

Sitting date: 19 Haki 2023

This page displays your selected transcript. You may view the recorded PTV video using the "Video" tab. Please note that the video tab displays all available video for the sitting day of the transcript. A filter will be available to find the specific debate / speech you wish to view.

TUESDAY, 19 DECEMBER 2023
(continued on Wednesday, 20 December 2023)
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND SPATIAL PLANNING REPEAL AND INTERIM FAST-TRACK CONSENTING) BILL
In Committee
Debate resumed.
Part 2 Repeals and related provisions (continued)
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, when the committee suspended last night, we were debating Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 5 and 6, "Repeals and related provisions", and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It's my first opportunity to contribute to this part and I have 11 tabled amendments in my name that I hope the Minister in the chair will consider, because there are a few that do some things that this House has been discussing last night.
So the first ones that I'll speak to are the first three on this part—they are new clauses 5A. The effect of the clauses that I'm seeking some support around the House for would bring in a new section after section 5, which, essentially, referred to one of the committees of this House the pieces of legislation which are being repealed for a cross-partisan discussion about those clauses which have been removed from the new Act but still have cross-partisan support. So it would, effectively, be a six-week urgent inquiry by whichever committee it was referred to. I've left it open for discussion to consider those parts which are important.
Now, this is in the context of my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking sending a letter to the Minister about seeking a bipartisan solution here, because we all know around this House—and especially after the committee stage debates last night—that there are some things in the legislation which is being repealed which will inevitably need to be brought back in. We've already seen that there are provisions which have been saved by this repeal bill, including the fast-track provisions; those are a useful improvement to the 1991 regime. This tabled amendment to clause 5 is about identifying those other parts of the reforms which were recommended by the Randerson review panel that needed to be improved and that have cross-partisan support.
The Minister responsible for RMA Reform also said last night that he may well be back in the chair introducing more legislation which deals with bringing in some of those provisions which are being repealed today. So I think it's important that we all acknowledge in the primary legislation that there is a place for those select committees to do that work and to find common ground here, because that is the work of our Parliament. It is about finding the common ground and a way through in an area of law that has long been overcomplicated. Both major parties agree that there are too many opportunities under the 1991 Act for long plans that do not get used and do not inform our planning process in a way which is constructive and is quick and is nimble. So we all agree that we need to find a faster way through that also protects our natural resources and our natural environment.
Things like trees were something that the Environment Committee spent a long time on, and there was an eventual coalescence around the views of the committee members who dealt with that issue. Urban trees are something that has long vexed urban planners, and the protection of which, in Auckland at the moment, is a vexed issue. It's been put entirely on to local councils to determine notified trees. There were something like 600 applications outstanding when I last spoke with the local authority about a tree in my electorate of Manurewa which had not been dealt with, simply because of the capacity issues. That is something that there is a reasonable level of bipartisan support around and is something that the committee should consider if this legislation is referred back to those committees.
I'm not suggesting that this legislation would be referred to a new kind of committee, a bipartisan committee. It is still appropriate for the Government to have a majority on the committee that it would be sent to. It's useful, though, for experts in the room like my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking to be able to have the discussion in a forum which is a formal forum that we all know how it works, to hash through some of these ideas.
The three different tabled amendments also include the regulations. Though that is not one of the most substantive pieces of legislation that is being repealed now, it's also useful for a committee to consider the effect of the secondary legislation being repealed. The Regulations Review Committee will not have the opportunity to consider those regulations because they are being taken off the statute book, but usually there would be a power in this parliamentary cycle for the Regulations Review Committee to consider how those are operating. So this would give a committee the opportunity to do the work that would have usually been expected by that Regulations Review Committee.
These three tabled amendments are separate amendments. I have suggested them because I think there is a different case for sending the Spatial Planning Act back to a committee. Whatever we say about the bipartisanship around the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA), there is certainly coalescence of views around the need for spatial planning in the long term. That Act is a smaller Act, but it does a very different thing; it allows New Zealand to have a long-term framework around spatial—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member's time has expired.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's good to be back. I thank the member Arena Williams for her constructive amendments. In relation to new clause 5A around the fees and regulations, the Government's not of a mind to support that. The fees and regulations that have been passed, pursuant to the Natural and Built Environment Act are administrative, to do with forms, fees—
Arena Williams: I'd like to look at them.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'm sure you would like to look at them, but I'm not sure there'd be much point. In relation to the other new clause 5A, which asks a committee of the House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry in 28 days and report back within six weeks, I'm open to a conversation around that. I think the member is being ambitious with the dates, so, depending on progress of the committee this morning, the Act is scheduled to come into force the day after it receives Royal assent, which will be soon—again, depending on progress. So a committee conducting an inquiry within 28 days—let's do the math. What are we today? The 19th?
Hon Members: The 20th.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The 20th. Well, it's the 19th in parliamentary time. So the 20th—so 28 days is 16 or 18 January. Anyway, the point is I'm not sure a parliamentary select committee is going to sit between—
Arena Williams: I'll chair it. It'll be all good.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, really? The member is offering?
Arena Williams: Yep.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'm not sure how your whānau feels about that. You might want to text your whānau before you commit to that over the Christmas break. Anyway, the point is I'm not sure there's going to be an inquiry within a month and then report back within six weeks. That would take us through until March. I think the member's time frames are unrealistic. However, if the member wants to make a case, or other members—I see the Hon Rachel Brooking is smiling—we'd be prepared to consider something with a longer time frame, because I think the substantive point the member makes is that there are some things from the Natural and Built Environment Act which the Government is wishing to proceed. As I said yesterday during the debate on Part 1, we're taking advice on some useful and substantive amendments that we wish to advance, and I'm not opposed to the idea of a committee doing a bit of work on that. The Environment Committee is a very hard-working committee, with an excellent chair.
Darleen Tana: Fantastic chair.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, a very good chair. That's great—a bit of bipartisan love breaking out in the Parliament. But if the member would like to withdraw the amendment and have perhaps some more realistic time frames—
Arena Williams: I'll amend my amendment.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —you're amending it already; that's good—the Government is open to considering that amendment.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got a couple of issues I would like to traverse in this contribution with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, going back to comments that were made in the Chamber last night on Part 2. One of them is around my question around the amendment to section 80A of the Resource Management Act (RMA), and this is the time frame for when councils have to implement the national policy statement on freshwater.
I asked the Minister about what analysis there had been about where councils were at with their progress of that, and the answer was, "Well, we're going to change the national policy statement; that is the reason for changing the date."—a paraphrase somewhat there. But then that begs the question about what councils are to do. They have legal requirements, and there are requirements within the RMA to act as effectively and efficiently as possible. There's a requirement in section 55(2D) of the RMA to put a national policy statement into effect as soon as possible. What are councils to do now that they have had a letter from the Minister saying that it's going to change, but they don't know what the change is? And this is very important constitutionally, of course, because, as we all know, Parliament is sovereign, the laws and regulations are those that are on the Table, not ones that the Government intends to make at some future point. If the Minister wants to answer that—or I can go on? I'll go on.
I am interested in being able to jump back up and down with the Minister, as I think that's what the committee stage has been designed for. I do appreciate, though, that this Minister has been answering many of our questions. But, of course, there was some sadness last night when there were many questions and many amendments on the Table regarding Part 1, and we did not get to those.
On a different tack, then, you will see in Schedule 2 that there's a lot of grey highlighted bits, and we can ask questions on all of these. But it may be in the Minister's interests to go through them and to give some assurance to the committee that these are only technical changes and that there is nothing substantive in them. For instance, there are amendments around Auckland and the spatial planning. I know some members will have some specific questions on different changes. We have not had the time to cross-reference everything to see what these changes mean, because, of course, this is all coming through under urgency—all stages. And there's a big difference between urgency for different parts of a bill, where you've got some time, but this we saw in real time yesterday and in parliamentary time just today.
There's also questions around—well, last night we had a discussion on a different topic, about the need for reducing plans; I think there was some reference to the Spatial Planning Act. But, of course, it's the Natural and Built Environment Act that reduces the number of plans from over 100 to 16 regulatory plans. That just seems to be a whole lot more efficient, so how is it that the Minister thinks it's a good idea to go back to the RMA and the over 100 plans?
I'm also interested in the comments made by the Minister last night about the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act, which are both Acts, of course, that are being repealed in Part 2. So it's our opinion on this side that we can talk about those Acts, and I have some specific questions on them. The Minister was saying that everything that needs to be done in a coherent way—that we have three waters issues going on and there needs to be a structural coherence. Madam Chair, you know that there was a lot of thought that went into the coherence at the select committee stage of both the Finance and Expenditure Committee considering three waters, and the Environment Committee considering these pieces of legislation.
So what is the Minister imagining that there needs to be more coherence for that isn't already included in that Spatial Planning Act, which already enables central government involvement with the different councils within a region to do that long-term planning and thinking about infrastructure? I do have more contributions but I see the Minister is on his feet.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I thank the member for her questions and am happy to engage in a dialogue back and forth. I don't have her level of expertise on the Resource Management Act, but I'll do my best to answer the questions. I'll just go through them one by one.
In relation to the extension of the freshwater deadlines, the member asked what councils are meant to do. Councils are meant to follow the law. I am not Rob Muldoon. As I've said—
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Ha! The similarity has not gone unnoticed.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you. As I've said to Parliament many times, if members come to my office, as she's very welcome to do, on the way into the office you will find a printed copy of Fitzgerald v Muldoon, the entire judgment, framed, on the way into my office, to remind myself that Parliament is sovereign in this country and Governments can't suspend the law by press release. We are not purporting to do that. We have given councils an extra three years from 2024 through to 2027 in the development of their freshwater plans. Contemporaneously with that, the Government is advancing work that has started, that is under way now, led by Minister Simmonds, alongside other colleagues, to repeal, replace, and rebalance the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020. There's widespread consensus, at least on the Government benches, that the current hierarchy needs to be rebalanced, and so that work will flow in due course. This is just a simple amendment to extend the time frame.
In relation to the other question she had, which was the second question, which was all the bits in grey, as she put it—and she wanted an assurance that these are technical amendments—I'm advised that, yes, they are. They just go through that process of taking the law back to what it was, basically, and the only substantive amendment is the extension of the time frame that we've just been talking about.
In relation to her third question about the Spatial Planning Act, well, I think the member answered her question through her own comments, which is—look, reasonable people can agree to disagree about spatial planning but I think everyone would agree that it needs to be done in a structured and coherent way alongside local government and alongside any potential changes around water infrastructure, which the previous Government was advancing and the current Government remains committed to as well, in a different form.
I just think it's important we get that right, because one of the things we heard during the select committee process from local government was they just had an avalanche of stuff being thrown at them from central government. One of the points many councils made was, well, what is going to be the point of regional councils under the new Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act, because the Government was essentially rendering a lot of their powers and their abilities nugatory—because we were establishing these new regional planning committees—and what would regional councils do? It's a legitimate question. There were unanswered questions around that.
We are interested in spatial planning, and the member, and other members too, have raised good points around the ability to lower long-term infrastructure costs to better plan our cities and our regions. The member knows I'm very deeply interested in infrastructure planning and housing, and I'd say it's the biggest problem facing this country, and social planning's a part of that, but it's important we do it in a structured and coherent way.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. So following on from that answer by the Minister—and I thank him for getting to his feet so quickly—can he explain what he means by "Regional councils would have nothing to do under the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act"? It's important to understand that those are two different pieces of legislation. The Spatial Planning Act is one that involves central government and the councils—the regional council, the district councils, the unitary authorities, whatever you want to call them; all the councils. Regional councils, under the Resource Management Act (RMA), under the Natural and Built Environment Act, under the Spatial Planning Act, continue to do what regional councils have done since they were created, and that is their focus on the environment—their focus on water quality and air quality, in particular. That is why it's so important that we have good water plans, which should be delivered well before 2027, in my opinion.
So I honestly do not know what the Minister means when he says, "Well, what would regional councils be doing?" Regional councils would remain having those functions around air and water quality, biodiversity—there's hazards, there's other elements as well—but the fundamental is that they are environmental regulators. Why is that a reason to repeal the Spatial Planning Act, which largely doesn't have very much to do with the ins and outs of environmental bottom lines? That's in the Natural and Built Environment Act; that makes little sense. Also, though, again—the Minister said I answered my own question about why spatial planning needs to be done in a coherent way, but this was done in a coherent way; this does enable spatial plans to look at water infrastructure.
So I'm interested in those questions, and then some different questions—and I thank the Minister for his comment on the grey areas as well. Why is it that so many parts of the RMA that have been widely regarded as wildly inefficient are being gone back to, rather than using the provisions that could have been rolled over from the Natural and Built Environment Act or the Spatial—well, the Natural and Built Environment Act in particular, because, obviously, that is the one that directly refers to the RMA?
You can think of the Natural and Built Environment Act as a replacement RMA. The Spatial Planning Act—that is new. The idea of a climate adaptation Act—that is new as well. These are both different functions. The Natural and Built Environment Act is the one that has the regulatory plans under it, where you have to go to get consents. In my mind, you could have the Spatial Planning Act with the RMA—they could still work quite easily. There's no reason to be repealing the Spatial Planning Act. You could easily—I mean, of course you'd need to do some amendments to it so it referred to different legislation, but obviously the Parliamentary Counsel Office is well versed in this, and I have faith that they could do that very easily.
So I say to the Minister: (1) there is no need to repeal the Spatial Planning Act at all; (2) has there been any consideration of, for instance, not reverting to section 32 of the RMA? Section 32 is a very long analysis process that takes a lot of time. It is normally done after decisions have been made, which is unfortunate, and just adds a whole lot of inefficiency into the process.
Then there's other changes that were made in the Natural and Built Environment Act, including reducing the number of consent categories, and this was to make the system simpler. At the moment, under the RMA, you have non-complying resource consent categories, and non-complying resource consents have a convoluted test, at section 104D of the RMA, that requires a lot of decision making from the councils that just seems unnecessary if you can already have a plan that specifies what the considerations can be. So I'm seeking an answer on those questions.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Just as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform is considering his answers, let me take the committee back. I've now written an amendment to my amendment that the Minister was considering whether or not to support. Because it's not on the Table yet, I will just take the committee through it.
My amendment to Part 2—new clause 5A—if amended would read: "Subject to section 5, a committee of the House of Representatives must initiate an inquiry within 90 days of the Act coming into force and report to the House of Representatives within 12 weeks on those parts of the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 and the Spatial Planning Act 2023 that should be reinstated or given effect in policy." This amendment now lengthens out the time frames available to the Minister not only to refer it to the committee but also for that committee to report back. It would fold in both of those two pieces of legislation into the committee's inquiry; however, that wouldn't prohibit or exclude the Minister from directing the committee to focus on the Spatial Planning Act if that was the Act that it was deemed there was more cross-partisan interest in improving and putting back in some form on to the statute book. I won't use all of my time discussing that amendment, because there are a number of other amendments—six, actually—that I haven't spoken to yet.
Let me deal with the fourth; it's a replacement of clause 6 with an amendment that would, essentially, hold off on the consequential amendments in Part 2 to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and Taumata Arowai, the Water Services Regulator Act 2020. The reason for holding off on those, and it's only suggested in this clause that it would be a nine-month hold-off, is that for Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to be amended—that's on page 67 of my copy of the amendment bill—it requires a number of amendments to how things like subdivision consents would be considered. The issue that I'm raising here for the committee's consideration is that, with a nine-month period to consider how the Act that is being repealed—the Natural and Build Environment hierarchy of how concepts in Te Ao Māori should be taken into account—when in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act you're giving effect to the powers of communal owners, and going back to the 1991 provisions should be taken into account, because they're not the same; they create a different kind of hierarchy.
In the 1991 Act, we have a hierarchy where kaitiakitanga is meant to be given effect in those decisions. In the new Natural and Built Environment Act, we have a new way of giving effect to those values that are important to Te Ao Māori, with concepts like Te Mana o te Wai. Now, whatever you think about those considerations, on any side of the House, they are different, but we're requiring an immediate whiplash in decisions that are made under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to go back to the 1991 system that have been being made under the new provisions—particularly things like subdivision consents and the powers under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act for communal Māori land owners to move their land from general freehold land to reserves, or what are called whenua tōpū; these trust ownership models that own what was freehold land now in a trust environment where they do not pay rates and they are held in reserve for the good of not only the owners but also of the wider public.
That's a move that you can see in other kinds of corporate law as going from privately held assets to publicly held ones, which is like a move to a charity. When you give consideration to that kind of decision which is given power by Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, you have a situation where people are doing something which is generally for the public good, and we allow them those powers that are different from any other situation where, say, directors of a company move to a charitable context, because we think that there is good for the public but there is also good for kaitiakitanga and for those values. But the values are different here. The new legislation proposes a different sort of values system that the decision makers, which may be the Māori Land Court or it may be those owners who hold it in trust for the good of their descendants, should take into account.
So those decisions will be different. We need some time to work through how those decisions are different, and I want the Minister to consider giving nine months to be able to consider how the hierarchy is different, given that a number of these decisions will be in train within the Māori Land Court setting and within trust boardrooms around the country right now. Giving it more time will allow us to make sure that those decisions are done in a way which gives effect to the law as it is proposed by the Minister.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought that contribution from my colleague Arena Williams was outstanding, and it's in that vein where we are coming up to this anomaly when we look towards the repeal bill here. I want to bring the Minister responsible for RMA Reform's attention to the amendments to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.
Ngāti Apa took a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal and actually ended up in the High Court, where the High Court decided the customary rights of Ngāti Apa in Te Tau Ihu o te Waka. The rest is history, really—that sparked the foreshore hikoi, and what it did was it forced the Government of the day to look towards bits of legislation that allowed tribes to have the ability to apply for customary rights through the courts. Actually, it was our former colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson who I thought did a very inspired job there to tidy up something to allow Māori the avenue towards application for customary rights on Takutai Moana.
My question to the Minister: in repealing the coastal permit—and it's slightly in the vein of my colleague Arena Williams—what we're effectively doing here is reverting the coastal permit laws back to 1991, which gave rise to the Ngāti Apa claim which ended up in the High Court and forced the High Court decision which led to the foreshore and seabed and, ultimately, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. So that's the first question: in doing so, are we diluting Māori's ability to be able to take these particular claims of coastal permit into the legal realm, to apply for customary title?
The second question, just very quickly, is with respect to the customary title right, for those under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, there have been quite a large number of iwi who are already involved in a process to try and achieve a customary title right. I'm curious if the Minister knows what will happen with those cases. We know—and I may be corrected by some of the members in the House here—that there's only been one application that's got across the line that resulted in the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou legislation. But there are no less than seven others who are already going through this particular process, and whether or not this repeal of the definition of "coastal permit" will affect those particular members or tribes who are pushing through their coastal claim. I think these are important questions. I know, as I said already, Mr Finlayson, I thought, through legal instruments, actually provided a really good way of getting through the customary title argument and debate on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. So I'd really like to hear from the Minister on those matters.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with the member who resumed his seat, the Hon Peeni Henare, around the elegant solution that Parliament came to with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. Although, as the member will be aware, we do have concerns around one of the more recent judgments in relation to that Act. Parliament has made its intention clear and it's not clear to us that the courts are taking the right approach to it. But in a general sense, I accept the member's point.
This repeal bill has nothing to do with that. So any existing claims that are before the courts or going through the process remain so; they will work their way through the process. The Ngāti Apa decision of the Court of Appeal in 2003—I respect the member's knowledge of the matter, but that's not going to happen, so I wouldn't be too worried about that. All it does, as I've said many times, is take out the last three months and go back to what we had under the 1991 Act. There is no intention to upturn or overturn any existing processes or settlements or anything like that.
That also, I think, deals with Ms Williams' point around changes to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Again, in the sense that changes around that that were seen as an advancement are being undone: yes, that is true—reasonable people can disagree or agree on that. But we are just going back to what the law was up until three months ago. So that's the easiest way to think about the bill. Parliament is essentially rejecting the changes made just three or four months ago.
In relation to her select committee referral motion, which she's had another go at, I see she's moderated her demands—demand's probably a bit strong—moderated her inquiry request a little bit; 90 days. The House must conduct an inquiry within 90 days.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: It's a 90-day trial.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Ha, ha! Yep, yep. Well, 28 days of that time, people will be at the beach; cute Mr McAnulty will be playing cricket and Ms Williams will be at those beautiful North Shore beaches. So I think that might be a little bit ambitious. I am prepared to consider it.
The other option, of course, is that Ministers or the Government write to a parliamentary select committee and ask them to do a short, sharp, targeted piece of work around what bits of the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA) the Government may wish to advance. Because, as I have said to the House previously, it's inevitable that we will keep some of the more sensible technical amendments in relation to the Resource Management Act (RMA). Because, although it's sort of been advertised that the NBA repeals the RMA, it doesn't—actually, David Parker is partly to blame for that, because David Parker stood up in Parliament on many occasions and said, "We're repealing the RMA; National's opposed to it," and, actually, it doesn't. The RMA continues in its existence for quite some time.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: You've been waiting a long time to make that point, haven't you?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What was that?
Hon Kieran McAnulty: You've been waiting a long time to make that point.
Arena Williams: Yeah, which is why we don't need to be here today.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, we could finish up right now, vote, and get out of here. But, you know, it's entirely over to you guys.
Arena Williams: No, you remove it.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'm happy to keep answering your questions. So that deals with that issue.
Just going back to what Rachel Brooking said in relation to the Spatial Planning Act, the member's very exercised about why the Government's keen to get rid of this. I think I've given a few reasons already, which is that we want a structurally coherent way around spatial planning. The other bit is that it is not possible to unpick the changes made through the Spatial Planning Act (SPA) from the NBA. So, for example, clause 5 of the SPA inserts a strengthened Treaty clause around giving effect to the Treaty. Our preference is for "have regard to" the Treaty, as is in the current RMA. Clause 6 contains the language around te Oranga o te Taiao, which we've canvassed in Part 1 and the first and second reading. The SPA purpose clause makes it clear that the purpose of the SPA is to uphold commitments made through the NBA. So, yes, they're separate Acts, but they're clearly interlinked and it's impossible to unpick them.
The other thing, of course, is that the SPA—and the NBA, for that matter—kicks off a 10-year transition time frame. The Government's taken the view that rather than councils and decision makers starting to apply the law and get started on it, we've taken a decision that it's best to get it off the statute books—[Bell rung] Madam Chair, I'll just answer this briefly.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Chris Bishop.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'll just take a couple more seconds. We've taken the view that it's best to get it off the statute books so that everyone has certainty. I actually think we're doing everyone a favour. It's no longer going to be the law if Parliament passes it.
The other point I would make is something that I don't think I've mentioned before, which is that I've decided to retain the Spatial Planning Board, which is not actually set up through the NBA or SPA; it's set up through the Public Service Act. I have decided to retain the Spatial Planning Board while we work out our own approach to spatial planning. But the idea of getting agencies together into a room—as the member knows from her time as a Minister—is very, very useful. So the Spatial Planning Board will continue, and in due course we will work out exactly what the Government's approach to spatial planning is.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to make my first call in this contribution. It will be, I hope, one of many. There was an instance last night where, in raising a point of order, the presiding officer conceded that there were relevant spokespeople on this side of the Chamber that didn't get an opportunity to speak. The presiding officer said that was a fair point. So just registering now that there is, through my portfolios of local government, housing, and, to some degree, regional development, a desire to touch on those.
There is also a desire from the finance spokesperson to speak to this Part. However, the Opposition showed, I think, the sort of collegiality that we expect in Parliament at Business Committee last night, and agreed to allow the Government to release their financial details today, which wouldn't normally occur under urgency. But because we were quite happy to agree to that, he is now working on that. So just registering our desire for him to contribute as well.
The reason I've said that is because last night we also got an assurance from the presiding officer that now that we're in Part 2, we can speak specifically to the parts of the Acts that are being proposed to be repealed. Specifically, within the Spatial Planning Act 2023, there is clear reference to the Water Services Entities Act 2022. So the first question that I have in regards to the local government portfolio and the proposal to repeal the Spatial Planning Act is: how does that then align with what is currently in the Act around the Water Services Entities Act? Because we do know it is the Government's intention to repeal that also, but that hasn't happened. We don't know when that will happen, and we don't know details about that. So, in repealing the Spatial Planning Act, that then puts local authorities in difficult positions when it comes to water services. We know what the intention is, but we also know another provision will be put in place. We don't know the details yet, and I don't intend to ask that today. I don't think that will be relevant. But what is relevant is what local councils do in the interim.
We do know that local councils as a whole made it very clear that they were unable to do what was expected of them in their local areas under the old Resource Management Act situation. But by repealing this, we go back to that. What is different, however, is that we have, currently anyway, a situation where councils are preparing for the establishment of water entities, and, in the case of Northland and Auckland, that is very well advanced. So what happens to those councils in the interim, when they are put back to the old planning structure, whilst also being required, for the time being, to prepare for the establishment of water entities? We know that councils are in a dire financial situation. We recognise that they have indicated concern about how their financial situation could get more difficult if this is put back. In the context of water services, I think it is important and relevant to get an understanding of the Minister's thinking.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to pick up, specifically, on the aspect of the bill that seeks to extend the deadline for regional councils to notify plans. As was so accurately pointed out by 50 freshwater experts and leaders in their letter to the Prime Minister just on Monday, the health of the country's waterways are already under immense pressure, and I'm sure the Minister responsible for RMA Reform is aware of that. In light of this, I've tabled an amendment that specifically deletes section 80A from Schedule 2 of the bill, which seeks to extend the deadline of regional councils to notify plans. Currently, it's at 31 December 2024, but the proposal that the Government have on the table is to extend that to December 2027.
Just for some context as to why I've put down this amendment—and I really invite the Minister to respond to this—before entering politics, I worked as a freshwater ecologist, and it would be remiss of me not to highlight the issue to members of this committee, who may not be aware of the current state of freshwater in this country, which would be directly impacted by the proposed section. I just want to paint a really brief snapshot of that, from our latest freshwater report that the Ministry for the Environment put out. That's things like the fact that 76 percent of our native freshwater fish are endangered; over 40 percent, and specifically 46 percent, of our lakes are in poor or very poor health; and ecosystem health—and this relates to both the freshwater invertebrates or the bugs that live in our freshwater environments—56 percent of freshwater sites are worsening; and E. coli contamination is worsening at 41 percent of freshwater sites.
Through my time, again, before entering this House, I was a councillor for two terms on Environment Canterbury and I heard just the surface of the immeasurable losses that ngā rūnanga and whānau of Ngāi Tahu suffered as mana whenua, particularly hearing from those across Waitaha Canterbury but also the wider Te Waipounamu area. I also heard a lot about the heartbreak of tangata Tiriti or non-Māori communities who have experienced the damage and degradation of their local freshwater ways, just over the last few decades. For these people, they have had over a decade of community processes—planning processes—without national direction that upholds ecological integrity and Te Mana o te Wai. Ultimately, when it comes to environmental outcomes, this has simply resulted in a lot of talking, a lot of money spent, but, ultimately, ongoing environmental decline.
So I would really like to hear from the Minister how he would justify his Government's proposed delay of another three years of this deadline for regional councils, for communities who really want to see this timely, measurable improvement in their freshwater environment and see Te Mana o te Wai enacted in their local areas. I really want to encourage the Minister to consider this amendment that would actually keep freshwater improvement back on track like his Government intends.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before I take the next call, I just want to let the committee know that I'm just waiting for some work that's being done, so I'm not intending to take some closure motions at this point because we're having a bit of a constructive debate going on here.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have five questions about my Amendment Paper 9 for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform. I hope we can have a back and forth discussion about these questions, and I will be very quick on my feet.
The first two questions about Amendment Paper 9, which is to delete all amendments to the Urban Development Act 2020—that's in Part 2, on page 68. These are about the Treaty of Waitangi clause that has changed, and there are a number of Treaty of Waitangi clauses in the consequential amendments that do change, but it would be helpful to just examine this one amendment here so that the House can get some comfort about all of those Treaty of Waitangi amendments. I hope we can use this as an exemplar.
My first question to the Minister is: does the amendment that he proposes create a hierarchy where the purpose of the Urban Development Act subordinates the Treaty of Waitangi principles? My question here is because the amendment that the Minister is proposing inserts the words first "in achieving the purpose of this Act", which is new as compared to the Urban Development Act, where it simply says all persons performing a function under this Act. So there's a first reference there to the purpose of the Urban Development Act, and I want to know whether the amendment that he proposes creates a hierarchy whereby the purpose of the Act comes first in the decision maker's mind, and then the effect of the Treaty principles comes in next.
As he's considering that, I will ask my second question, which is about the practical effect of the change that he is proposing, and bear in mind that this is a change all throughout the section; it's not just about the Urban Development Act. So, this is a major change. The second question to the Minister is: is he aware of any incidences where this provision has had a practical effect, in this circumstance in Kāinga Ora's decision making, but in the context of other Government decision making? So what I'm asking here is: is there any incidence where, after the change was made in 2022-23 where decision makers were not subject to a hierarchy, where they were considering the purpose of an Act first before considering the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, is the Minister aware of any incidences where they made a different sort of decision or any incidences where their policy or procedures were impacted because they had to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi first before considering the purposes of the Act? Those are two questions of five.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I can answer this very simply: the change made through the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA) strengthened the Treaty provision of the Urban Development Act. The change we are making through this bill goes back to what the law was prior to the passage of the NBA. As I have said multiple times now, it is actually quite a simple piece of legislation, notwithstanding the saving of the fast track. We are going back to what the law was—with some exceptions—prior to the passage of the NBA. So, in answer to the member's second question about practical effect, there is, essentially, no practical effect. Nothing has happened in the last three months because of the changed Treaty provision in the Urban Development Act.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to ask my next questions in light of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform's answer that there is no practical effect. My suggestion here is that the House should certainly consider my Amendment Paper 9 to delete all amendments to the Urban Development Act 2020 in light of that answer, given that there is no practical effect. The symbolic nature of the change that happened in 2023 is important for the way that the public servants can conduct their affairs. It is simpler for the public servants to have one indication, not this couched, hierarchical way of considering their decisions. It cuts down the litigation risk because it means that the policy decisions made at a Kāinga Ora level are easier and more straightforward.
But, given that, I want to ask my third and fourth and fifth questions to the Minister. In the context of the Urban Development Act, is the urban development purpose of the Act at odds with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Is there any balancing there that is being required by the new wording that the Minister proposes?
My fourth question is: does the difference between the new amendment words which are "take into account the principles", and the old wording, which was "give effect to the principles"—in the Minister's mind, is there a difference in those two things? Would he expect, as the Minister responsible for Kāinga Ora, for decision makers within Kāinga Ora to treat those two things differently? He said that there is no practical difference. I want him to clarify for the House, then, what the difference is between those words: "take into account the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi", which is the new amendment that he proposes, and the old words, "give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi", which is what this side of the House would prefer.
The fifth question is that—if, in fact, there is a difference, then this provision does not belong in the consequential amendments. This House will get itself into trouble if we make this kind of decision in a consequential amendment to Part 2 of an amendment bill which is buried on page 68. Because if there is a difference to the way that decision makers give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which is a part of our constitutional law in New Zealand, then it should not be a consequential amendment.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): As I've said about five times now, we are going back to what the law was—it's as simple as that. I know the member's trying to create something that isn't there. It's really quite simple: the Act used to say "take into account"—
Arena Williams: Dean's going to tweet about you.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I mean, he tweets a lot about me. But, you know—good luck to him. So the member is really grasping at straws.
MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for giving me but a moment of his time. Suffice it to say, there's a few issues in the freshwater space, and I know the Hon Rachel Brooking alluded to it earlier on. I'm cognisant of the settings in and around the national policy statement (NPS) for 2020, and what he expects the councils to do in the interim—if he could give some clarity for those that may have tuned in—prior to the extension that he alluded to. I'm sure he's got some offerings and words he might want to share with the committee for certainty.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to have this robust conversation about this, because this is a substantial change. The Minister responsible for RMA Reform refers to it just going back to three months ago, but, of course, what we have achieved in long-fought struggles to achieve environmental outcomes have taken years.
One of those struggles has been the return of general tree protection. Now, if you want to take it back to the 1990s, in fact, we had general tree protection in the original version of the Resource Management Act (RMA). We had it there. So that is one instance where the RMA was better than what we've had since the amendments were made in 2009 and 2012 to the RMA. Up until three months ago, we had no general tree protection, and then we got it back. We're not just going back three months; we're going back over 10 years, to 2009.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Great leaps backwards.
STEVE ABEL: These big steps backwards in that environmental space, that ecological space, as my colleague Lan Pham talks about in terms of the water space—these are things that people in the community have argued for and fought for, for many, many years, to finally get them recognised in the legislative frameworks that protect the collective commons, which is our environment.
I want to speak to a very specific amendment regarding general tree protection. It's an amendment to Part 4 of Schedule 2, after the amendment to section 58H, at page 105, after line 6. We want to bring back the right of councils to protect trees. This was brought back in the Natural and Built Environment Act. It was in the original Resource Management Act 1991. If you want to take it back to the 1990s, bring back this as well.
I feel that in my town where I come from—in Auckland—there is a heartbreak on a weekly basis. When people go to work and the tree that they pass at the end of their street that's been there for a hundred years—they come back from work and it's gone, and there's no by or leave, there's no say, and there's no input from the community on it. I was part of a campaign in Avondale to save a magnificent arboretum of native trees at Canal Road. The community spent 245 days trying to save that stand and it is gone, and that is the consequence of us not having general tree protection.
I took great heart from the select committee this year that you were sitting on, Mr Bishop, and in your comments at that select committee, and this is why I am hopeful that you will support this amendment. You said—and I paraphrase—"I am fast coming to the view that we need some sort of general tree protection in this country, not just for livable cities and for the climate", and you are absolutely correct about that. For us to have livable cities, trees provide extraordinary amenity. They absorb moisture, they hold the land together, they provide urban cooling—they're like magnificent outdoor air-conditioning units. I invite you this summer to sit under a big tree and find out just how incredible their services are. They sequester carbon. They take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and turn it into wood. It's not magic; it's real—it's called nature.
They do incredible things in our cities and they make our cities more livable. They make density done well a good thing, when you retain those mature trees. If you allow those trees to have no status and no protection, they will be gone, and that is what we've seen. We've seen a third of our urban ngahere lost in the last decade in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, and it's awful for Aucklanders. It's magnificent to come here to Wellington and see how you've got this incredible green belt still intact. It needs a legal status, it needs protection, and I urge you to seriously consider this amendment.
This is a very reasonable thing that most people across our community agree we need. We need general tree protection. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me deal with a few of the questions. Just on the freshwater stuff in the questions asked by Ms Pham and also Mark Cameron, the Government has made its position clear on that: we are extending the deadline for notification of council instruments through to 2027. That allows enough time for the Government to go through the process of repeal, replace, and rebalance, and there'll be further information to come about that in due course. It'll be led by the Hon Penny Simmonds, the Hon Andrew Hoggard, and the Hon Todd McClay—
Chlöe Swarbrick: What are you balancing towards, Bish?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —to work through that process. Well, we're rebalancing, and you will have to wait and see. All Christmases don't come at once, Ms Swarbrick—you'll just have to wait.
On the issue of water services, just to deal with Mr McAnulty's point from, I think, a few minutes ago, this bill doesn't really have anything to do with it, to be honest.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: I disagree.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, OK, you feel free. But the Government is working through a process around three waters reform, which is being led by Simeon Brown, the Minister of Local Government, and we are going through a process which the Minister will talk more about in due course. But the Government's policy position is very clear, which is: council ownership, council control, and remove mandatory co-governance provisions. But it is important that we fix the water infrastructure crisis that is afflicting our councils and our communities. We've got to go through a proper process to get that right and repeal three waters. Simeon Brown will have more to say about that in due course.
In relation to Mr Abel's point about urban tree protection, it's good to see you picked up on my comments to the select committee from a few months ago. We're not going to support his amendment, but I am happy to have a conversation around how we can do better as a country with doing density—and our cities are going to become more dense in the future. It's an inevitable by-product of urbanisation and the growing population, and—
Scott Willis: The conversation is nice, but a rule is good.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, you know—all good things take time, Mr Willis. [Interruption] Well, if you'd just listen to me, I'm saying—
Hon Member: You're delaying it another three years.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I'm happy to have the conversation around it. We're not going to support the amendment, but I think there is a balance to be struck around how you can do better density and get more trees in our cities to encourage denser living but, at the same time, balance that against property rights, because, by definition, urban tree protection that protects trees on private property has an impact on people's land but also the way in which we plan our cities.
So I'm happy to have a conversation about it. I take the member's point, but we won't be accepting the amendment.
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. The difficulty with not having a select committee process and this bill going through under urgency is that the committee has to put a lot of trust in the drafters of this bill and the proof-checking of the bill to ensure that it meets the policy intent of the Government of the day.
I have only in the last hour been able to go through Part 1 of Schedule 2, through the Airport Authorities Act, the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act—these are all the consequential amendments as a result of this bill—the Auckland Improvement Trust Act, the Biosecurity Act. Now, I had to stop at the Biosecurity Act because this is where I think there has been an omission, and I want to get a clarification from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that it is an intentional omission from this bill. So under the heading "Biosecurity Act" it states, "In section 7A(1) and (4), replace "Part 2 of the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023" with "Part 3 of the Resource Management Act 1991" in each place."
So if you look at Part 2 of the Natural and Built Environment Act, you see that Part 2 is in relation to the duties, responsibilities, and the restrictions in that particular Act, which this bill is repealing. Section 17 of the Act, which this bill is repealing, has a requirement around environmental responsibility, and, again, I tie this back to the Biosecurity Act, and that has the purpose of protecting New Zealand's borders from biosecurity threats—it's really serious stuff. It has serious penalties, and for anybody who's in the primary industries or has an interest in the primary industries in New Zealand, it's really important that this is made really clear.
So Part 2 of the Natural and Built Environment Act has section 17, "Environmental responsibility". It states, "(1) Consistently with the ethic of stewardship, every person has a responsibility to protect and sustain the health and well-being of the natural environment for the benefit of both present and future generations, including as required by .", and it goes on in subsection (2). My question is in relation to the fact that this is a brand new provision that was brought in. Now, obviously, when you translate this to Part 3 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), which is what that part in the bill wants to do—which is basically to replace Part 2 with Part 3—this section 17, around environmental responsibility, is actually missing from Part 3 of the RMA. And the reason why it's missing is because it was an intentional new provision that was put in during the drafting of the Natural and Built Environment Act—it's a brand new provision.
So after a bill is passed, officials will provide some guidance to the rest of the country as to how you interpret the law. Under that guidance that's been provided by the Ministry for the Environment, it says that clearly this is a new duty and responsibility. It says the purpose must be achieved in ways that first and foremost protect the health of the natural environment.
The second thing that's most important about it is that it futureproofs it. It futureproofs the environmental responsibility so that, basically, the decision makers of today have to ensure that they take into account how they can futureproof the protection—again, I go back to the Biosecurity Act—of the biosecurity of the country. So, basically, when you make decisions, take into account the duties and responsibilities in those provisions.
My concern is that by replacing this just squarely with Part 3 of the RMA, there is no duty and responsibility because that is within the Natural and Built Environment Act. So I'm just wanting to make really clear: is it the Minister's intention that there is no longer this very specific duty, which is set out in the Natural and Built Environment Act, "Consistently with the ethic of stewardship, every person has a responsibility to protect and sustain the health and well-being of the natural environment for the benefit of both present and future generations, including as required by ."?
So I just want to ask the Minister that. Because he is transferring this straight from Part 2 and going straight to Part 3, is it an intentional omission not to have that environmental responsibility duty on decision makers?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): As I have said about eight, nine, maybe 10 times now, we are going back to the Resource Management Act 1991—it's pretty simple.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before I take—I've been watching this debate carefully for the last hour; I'm aware that most, in fact all of the amendments have been spoken to by those proposing the amendments. Also conscious that we are, sort of, even when we are speaking to amendments, while we allow some context, it can't turn into a general debate speech. So it will now be getting to the stage where we will be looking for fairly specific ideas and questions on this.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister Bishop, congratulations on your role. First of all, I'd like to add to the comments of my friend Steve Abel, who talked about tree protection, and I'd like to ask—I saw a little glimmer of hope there that you had some sympathy with this issue—is there an amendment we could put up on tree protection that might bridge the gap here? Because this is an issue that's really significant out there at the moment, and every time we delay it, trees get cut down.
My other request is that you tell us what kind of economic analysis has been done of the delay itself, because my understanding is there was an analysis done by the Ministry for the Environment which looked at this whole scheme which we are repealing in Part 2—all of the Acts—and it looked at the cost and the benefit of the new regime versus the old one. My understanding is that we were looking at, over 30 years, the system was expected to deliver $2.58 and $4.90 in benefits for every dollar spent—between those numbers—and that it was a 19 percent reduction in costs associated with it, or $150 million a year.
So we are, effectively, as I understand it—and I'd like to know if you agree—losing $150 million a year as we delay this process, even if the scheme that you develop is in some ways better. So I'd like to know, has that analysis been done? I appreciate that you have carved out one part of it, which is your fast-tracking process, and I wondered what has been attributed in terms of value to that part of it, because I do know that the Government has committed to cost-benefit analysis in this area.
I also wondered what role the Minister for Regulation will have in the reshaping of this, given that you are getting rid of this whole scheme of Acts that's been very laboriously considered by submitters. I was listening to you yesterday, in the answers to one of the questions, talk about how submitters had made certain criticisms and that you had taken them on board in your decision. But one of the things that I noted was that those submitters had been listened to and the eventual shape after the select committee process had actually reflected a lot of the criticism. So this had been quite a—yeah, I'd be very keen—I can see you nodding your head. I'd be very keen to know how you respond to that.
Do you think that there was something that wasn't listened to in that submission process that was of particular concern to you that means that you are now repealing what is a scheme that would save the country over $150 million per year, on the estimates of the Ministry for the Environment, and have you looked at that issue? Because it does seem that, even on your own account, Minister, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, and that we are going to, in a time of cost of living crisis, cost people a lot of real hard money. I'm concerned that the kind of cost that we're talking about is adding particularly to the cost of housing in an area like Mount Albert, and that we have schemes under way in that area that will be subject to this change, and that actually might be complicated.
My last question to you is the value of certainty, because I've been concerned by the signals that we've been sending out there that every time a Government changes, everything gets chucked out and replaced by things very quickly, and that that is actually destabilising people's capacity to invest in some things that we need long term: infrastructure and particularly housing, which I know we're concerned about. So I wondered if you could give me a comment on your weighing up of the issue of really undermining the certainty we need to get for investors in areas like housing.
Finally, Minister, I have recently been talking to somebody who's a developer, who develops around—[Time expired]
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Catherine Wedd. Did I get the wrong—Katie Nimon, sorry.
Hon Chris Bishop: Am I allowed to say something?
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Oh, sorry. The honourable Minister.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Can I answer the member's question. Sorry to colleagues across the Chamber, I just thought I'd deal with Helen White's questions. It's meant to be a back and forth.
So, lots to that. Let me deal with them with some conciseness. Firstly, to answer the question honestly, no, there's not an amendment you could put up around urban trees that we would consider. As I've said to your friend Steve Abel, the Government's interested in that issue. We'll have a look at it in due course. Happy to have conversations around that.
In relation to the economic analysis, we don't accept the economic cost-benefit analysis that was done by the previous Government. We do not accept the idea that it would save money. In fact, I think the opposite is the case, to be honest.
In relation to the third question around the role of the Minister for Regulation, well, he's a member of the Cabinet—a very senior one. He will play a role in that, and the future role as to how the Minister for Regulation may interface with the new Resource Management Act (RMA) reform process that I'll be leading as Minister Responsible for RMA Reform is yet to be determined. No doubt the member will find out in due course.
In relation to the other comments she made, I think her comment about throwing the baby out with the bath water is, essentially, emblematic of a recurrent theme from members opposite, which is that because a lot of time and money was spent on this, we should just charge on ahead, and it's the classic sunk cost fallacy. I accept a lot of time and money's been spent on it. That's regrettable. But if something is going to lead to worse outcomes for both the environment and the construction of infrastructure and agriculture—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Which it won't.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, I know you say that, but we have a different view. This is the debate, right? So, you know, welcome to Parliament. If something is not going to lead to the outcomes you want, then you've got to throw it out, and, by definition, repealing it is a progressive and sensible way forward.
In relation to the member's final point about certainty, yep, there's a value in certainty, and her colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has written to me around trying to get some sort of bipartisanship when it comes to planning. I mean, I don't want to get too political about it, because this is a committee stage debate and we'll go through part by part, but the National, now Government, has been up for RMA reform for a long time. We could never assemble a parliamentary majority in the period between 2008 and 2017, largely because every attempt to assemble a majority was rebuffed by the Labour Opposition at the time, who said that every change proposed to the RMA, including around making renewable energy more available and things like that—the Labour Opposition at the time, and I accept the member who asked the question wasn't around at the time—every attempt was met with cries of "You guys just want to destroy the environment, you're environmental vandals, blah, blah, blah." No doubt there'll be a lot more of that over the next few years. So that's the history.
Then, when the Government changed in 2017, the outgoing last Labour Government parked the issue up for a few years while the Randerson report was under way. Judith Collins—
Hon Member: Well, that's not called parking up.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, OK. Judith Collins wrote to David Parker and offered the National Party's support for a bipartisan reform effort. David Parker never even wrote back to her. I'll write back to Rachel Brooking, but David Parker didn't even bother.
So, yep, I mean, we can go back and forth about this. Is there a value in certainty? Yes, there is. But I'll tell you what there is a greater value in, and that's not doing dumb law, and that's what this is, because it would make it harder to get things done and harder to protect the environment, and it does not make things simpler. Members keep saying, "Oh, it's a simplification." The Acts that we are repealing are just as long as the RMA that preceded it—900 pages—and in particular, in relation to uncertainty, it introduces entirely new legal concepts that everyone will have to grapple with over the next decade. That reduces the value of certainty.
The RMA has many critics. I am one of them. But at least with the RMA there is well-established case law and jurisprudence around how section 6 and 7 interact, around the Treaty clause in the Act, around what the purpose of the Act is. So at least there is a value in the case law, and we've had 30 years of jurisprudence under it. That exists. That is not something to be easily done away with to go to an amorphous and ambiguous new legal regime, which, people to the select committee made clear when they turned up, will lead to endless litigation and cost that gets passed on to infrastructure consumers.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I move, That debate on this question now close.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I've been reflecting on the answers that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has been giving to the varied and wide-ranging questions that my colleagues have been putting forward, and I'm not sure it is satisfactory for the Minister to respond by simply saying, "the intent of the bill". We know the intent of the bill. It is quite clear; it is in the title. But there have been some considered contributions from my colleagues here wanting to know specific things that have not been answered. It certainly doesn't wash when parts are being kept, and if some parts are being kept, then surely the Government should be open to proposals to keep other parts, especially if it is going to improve the Resource Management Act 1991, which we no doubt will eventually get to.
I'll give the Chamber an example. This bill proposes, under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Act 2023, in section 4, providing a new definition of "natural hazard", going from the definition that is provided in the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023, to the Resource Management Act 1991.
Now, we get what is intended to happen here. We understand that the Government wants to go back to the Resource Management Act 1991. I get it. Everyone gets that. There's no need to provide that rationale as an answer to a question. But, when we consider that the definition of a "natural hazard" in the Resource Management Act 1991 is: "any atmospheric or earth or water related occurrence"—and then it gives examples—"the action of which adversely affects or may adversely affect human life", the definition of "natural hazard" in the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 specifically includes the effects of climate change on any of those occurrences. That is crucially important to the understanding of a natural hazard.
Now local government, which is the perspective that I am speaking from now—one of the major issues that they are facing is how to deal with natural hazards. If we are moving back from this to the Resource Management Act 1991, with the clear definition of "natural hazard" that doesn't include climate change, local government will be working within criteria that is no longer relevant.
Presumably, that is the definition that was provided in 1991. Things have changed. We only need to look back in the last 12 months to see the impact of natural hazards that has happened in the local government sphere. We think back to the Nelson and Marlborough floods, and what those councils have had to deal with in terms of the re-build there. We think back to the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. It is clear in anyone's mind that climate change was a massive driving factor for those unprecedented events. If we are then going to bring in a planning regime that doesn't take into account climate change in the definition of "natural hazards", I believe that could hamstring local governments and their ability to build back.
This is a genuine point, one that I make in good faith, and I just simply do not understand why the Government wouldn't consider maintaining the exact same definition of a "natural hazard" as is outlined in the Natural and Build Environment Act 2023. They can still achieve what they want to achieve, they can still get back to the Resource Management Act 1991, but we can have a definition of "natural hazard" that is actually up to date and relevant for 2023. The reason I propose this is, further on down, the Government is proposing to include a whole new section in section A.
It is quite clear that they are open to leaving some things as they currently sit or improving them compared to what they were. I think the committee deserves an answer as to why the Government is proposing to go back to a decades-old definition of "natural hazard" instead of one that is fit for purpose in the context of today.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e te Whare. Mr Chair, thank you very much for the call. I just wanted to reflect on some of those points, as made by the Hon Kieran McAnulty, particularly about climate adaptation, but also about climate mitigation, because it is the Green's very strong view—and, in fact, the science and the evidence bears out—that good climate adaptation is also climate mitigation. This kōrero is happening not in isolation, nor in a vacuum, but in the context of our largest city in this country being hit by a climate-change charged weather event at the beginning of this year, in the form of the Auckland Anniversary flooding. As a result of that, we have seen Auckland Council start to move itself and shape its policies and regulations in such a way to provide for greater green infrastructure and that climate adaptation point.
The Minister responsible for RMA Reform will be amply aware, given that he is aware of the complexity in this area, of the fact that Auckland's future development strategy, as recently signed off by Auckland Council, has substantive consideration for green infrastructure, particularly the utilisation of public spaces such as berms. There could have been a great synthesis and opportunity for cohesiveness across local and central government policy were we to see the Minister utilising the opportunity to direct, through the national policy statement—which the natural and built environment legislation and spatial planning legislation enabled—for greater utilisation of green infrastructure, in turn creating that environment of certainty for local government to move ahead with its plans. Yet what we're seeing right now, and what I'm hearing from the Minister, is that we're in a bit of a holding pattern of wait and see. We're not going to have all of our Christmases come at once. We don't really know what's going to happen.
We've also heard the Minister say that it's really important for the sake of the investment environment for there to be certainty for developers and otherwise. Yet what we're seeing—and I know that he didn't like this statement—is the throwing out of the baby with the bath water, and no indication of where it is that we're going to go next.
So my question to the Minister is: in lieu of issuing that national policy statement and direction—particularly pertinent to those of us in Tāmaki-makau-rau, but also those on the East Coast, on the West Coast, those in Northland as well, actually, at the top of the South Island too, who have all been hammered by climate-change charged weather events over the past several months, over the past several years—what is he going to put in its place so that there is that certainty for local government to undertake the requisite planning not only to do density well but also to take inherent account of the inherent valuable nature of our natural environment?
This is something, particularly on the point of tree protection, that I think is really important to continue underlining here. In my first term in Parliament, two terms ago, in the 52nd Parliament, I sat on the Environment Committee when we were going through a process of another Resource Management Act amendment. I was sitting with members, obviously, of the Labour Party, of New Zealand First, and the National Party, and I sought to put up an amendment, through that select committee process, to reinstate urban tree protection, which the Minister will know was actually first removed by the former National Government and only recently reinstated, in watered-down form, by the outgoing Labour-led Government of the last term. To that effect, it ended up being voted down on the basis that we apparently had to deal with that complexity. I then had a whole lot of engagement with our then-mayor, at the time, Phil Goff. I actually, for the sake of debate and discussion here, need to make the point that I will later seek leave of the committee to table that correspondence, between former Minister Parker and Mayor Goff and myself, about the fact that Auckland Council, as one of our largest councils, as the super-city, simply does not have the resources—
Hon Member: The best council.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The best council, the best city in this country, does not have the resources to be able to work through the process of notable trees. Again, we're seeing this lack of cohesion between local and central government policy.
Just to kind of summarise all of those points, we are engaging in this debate not in a vacuum but in the context of a climate-changed world, in the context of climate-change charged weather events which have devastated our communities, both rural and urban, over the past several months and years. One of the best tools that we have to mitigate against that climate-change charged ravaging is the utilisation of trees, which are both climate adaptation in the form of green infrastructure but also climate mitigation too, in terms of their capacity to sequester carbon. My question to the Minister is whether he will, and what he will be doing to, provide that certain environment for local government but also for the sake of investment, in lieu of pursuing the national planning framework as would have been enabled under the natural and built environment legislation and that national planning legislation as well?
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'll just indicate that that last speech is the sort of general points being made that have been made a lot, and that do lead to a closure, so I'll just be warning those now—very, very specific. Hon Megan Woods.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. This is my first chance to make a contribution on Part 2 of this bill, and I do have some very specific questions. They do pertain to clause 5(1) of Part 2, the repeal of the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023. Of course, that takes with it section 58 of the Natural and Built Environment Act. Section 58 of that Act provides some enabling provisions in some very important areas.
There are a number of areas that I wish to ask the Minister about, but specifically my question to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform is around what will be done to ensure that we can continue to see momentum with the repeal of section 58(b), which is the enabling provision for papakāinga on Māori land. Of course, with the Resource Management Act that will be coming in to replace it, with the repeal of section 58(b) in respect of papakāinga land, it was possible to build papakāinga housing, but I think it's fair to say it was incredibly difficult to build papakāinga housing. The intent with the national planning framework legislation was actually to have an enabling environment so we could see more of it.
Our Government had an incredibly aggressive programme around the provision of papakāinga housing, and obviously that can take many forms. In those forms, we managed to build around 500 houses on papakāinga land when we were in Government, with another 200 in the pipeline, but this is not nearly enough and why it was that this enabling provision was put into the Natural and Build Environment Act. With that going and reverting back to the provision, which we do not consider is anywhere near permissive enough when it comes to papakāinga housing, what advice has the Minister received on this, if any? What are the Minister's plans to ensure we can have a more permissive environment around papakāinga housing? I do have some more specific questions, but I'll give the Minister an opportunity to answer that one.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): In relation to the member's question, I haven't received any specific advice about papakāinga housing. I agree with the member that it's a very important part of the housing mix as we go forward—a very important part of solving our housing crisis. Papakāinga housing in my own electorate of Hutt South has been very successful. I think there is a real role for Government, and my good colleague the Hon Tama Potaka, as Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing) with responsibility for Māori housing, will be doing some work on that. There's a wider issue around Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and land law reform, which Parliament—
Arena Williams: Accept my amendment.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —well, not—
Arena Williams: It's good.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —has struggled with for many years, including the last Government and the Government before that, and maybe in the next three to six years we'll make some progress on it. I won't hold my breath, but let's hope we can get some progress on it, because we do need iwi in particular to be able to make better use of land, and also various Māori entities out there.
So I'm very interested in the role that papakāinga housing can play in relation to solving our housing crisis. I haven't received any specific advice in relation to this; however, there's a fast-track bill coming—the Government's own fast-track piece of legislation—in the new year. I'm happy to consider papakāinga housing as part of that fast-track, but I haven't received any specific advice.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. That gives me great heart, and thank you to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for answering that question. I have two specific questions, both relating to section 58 of the Natural and Built Environment Act. One is: will the Minister countenance an amendment to this bill to enable a more enabling and permissive regime around papakāinga housing than the old Resource Management Act that we're bringing back would allow? And I'm sure I'll have colleagues that would like to speak, if there are any proposed amendments. I know that Arena Williams will certainly be keen to speak to a specific amendment in that, so I'd be keen to hear from the Minister if that is an amendment that he would countenance.
My second question is also in relation to section 58, and that is around the removing of the enabling renewable electricity generation and transmission provisions in the Natural and Built Environment Bill—it pertains particularly to water usage—and whether the Minister has given any thought to what it will be replaced with or whether he has received any specific advice on whether it will be around both consumptive and non-consumptive uses of water in relation to electricity.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I said earlier in the House that I had 11 amendments in my name to this part. I have spoken to six of them, so I will take you through, quickly, those other amendments. There's also an opportunity here, I think, for some bipartisan work on the amendment—which I have written now and will table shortly—which amends Part 1 of Schedule 2, and that is specifically around papakāinga housing. For the benefit of the Chamber, I will read it out: it would amend Part 1 of Schedule 2 to delete all amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, the Urban Development Act 2020, and any other Acts which would reverse those changes made to the enablement of papakāinga housing.
There's particular reference in those two Acts that would be amended by the Minister's amendment that would set back the development of papakāinga housing. Given that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has an interest in the enablement of papakāinga housing that is not only on community-held Māori land but also on other forms of freehold land which are owned by other organisations—like marae, like urban authorities—this would allow those practical changes which the Government of the last term introduced to enable papakāinga housing to continue. I do want the Minister to tell the Chamber whether he will consider my amendment, which I will table shortly. Given that he hasn't had time to consider it now, I will run off some copies in a minute so he can consider it.
Speaking to the other amendments in my name, I am proposing a number of deletions from Part 1 to Schedule 2, and they are amendments 5 through 11. They are deleting the amendments to the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020, the Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011, the Crown Minerals Act 1991, the Conservation Act 1987, the Climate Change Response Act 2002, and the Water Services Act 2021. I have spoken already to the deletions of the Urban Development Act, so I won't use the Chamber's time to discuss those, but these are all Acts that make amendments that I have already explained to the Chamber are not consequential and do not belong in Part 2 that amends this Schedule.
These are not consequential, because the amendments to these Acts all include things that are moving to a system where there is some change for the way that decision makers within Government departments or decision makers within our court system would have to make a decision based on a new—well, an old—hierarchy of values. If the Minister's answer that he gave me in relation to the Urban Development Act stands in this Chamber—that "Oh, well, the difference is only three months."—then it would make sense that it would be fine to pass, through committee stages and through urgency in Parliament, any kind of amendment that went back to a system which was time-limited. That cannot be the answer. We need answers about how the decision-making framework that is now in our law will be different in the future, and that is why I have proposed to amend just six of the Acts that are amended by this amendment here.
I haven't chosen everything, I've just chosen those things which make amendments which are more than consequential, and I'd like the Minister to tell me how he proposes to deal with that and my new amendment, which I will run off now.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): It's hard for me to comment on an amendment I haven't seen, so—
Arena Williams: Oh, I'll go and do it.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, well, that's good—very good. So I'm happy to have a look at it. In relation to papakāinga housing, just further to the Hon Megan Woods' point—she was talking about clause 58; I think that's the wrong section.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: The enabling provisions.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, I'm advised that section 129 is the relevant one in relation to the national planning framework which would have enabled papakāinga housing—
Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, no. It's one, but so is 58.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I'm advised that there is no 58B in the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 (NBEA). The correct section is 129. Anyway, regardless, I think we're both talking about the same thing. The national planning framework (NPF) would have sent the filter through the system to make papakāinga more enabling. I'm also advised that the initial national planning framework which was being advanced under the previous Government didn't actually include the papakāinga housing changes to it. That was going to be in phase 2, so I think it's fair to say we were a wee way off under the NBEA track from enabling more papakāinga anyway. That was going to be part of the phase 2 NPF reforms; it wasn't actually in the initial draft that's been publicly released, or at least available. I'd just repeat what I said before, which is that I'm very supportive of papakāinga. I think there's more we need to do there, so I'm interested as to ways we can advance that—just to repeat that.
In relation to Arena Williams' amendment, as I think I've said now for the 12th or 13th time, we are just going back to what the law was. Ms Williams says, "Well, it's very important when Parliament does that, we need to know what the law will be." Well, we do: the law will be what it was. It's as simple as that. Parliament recently passed this. There was a long and convoluted debate about it. I spent a lot of time in this House and a lot of time in the select committee—we made it really clear relatively early on from the get-go that National in Opposition did not support the NBEA. ACT said the same thing, New Zealand First—coalition partner—said the same thing from outside the Parliament, and we are now proceeding to implement our policies and our promises. It's really as simple as that.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, I would like to go back to some questions that weren't answered, and I'll just reflect on those very quickly. That is, what the Minister responsible for RMA Reform thinks that the regional council's role would be under the Natural and Built Environment Act. Also, whether or not there was any consideration of keeping bits of the Natural and Built Environment Act that are clearly much more efficient than the Resource Management Act (RMA). So that's regarding section 32 of the RMA and the consent categories were what I referred to earlier.
I'm interested also—we've had some discussion about good urban density and phrases like "sponge city" may have come up, and, of course, one of the changes in the Natural and Built Environment Act that came quite late in the process was in response to a lot of the hazard events that occurred at the start of the year, and this real focus on green infrastructure. Now my colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods has been referring to section 58 of the Natural and Built Environment Act—apologies if that is the wrong section, we're working off my copy of the bill as it was reported back from the select committee stage. But clearly the Minister realises that we're talking about the "National planning framework must provide direction on certain matters". This is a catch-all section.
Another question that goes to the efficiencies that could be gained by doing some of the things in the Natural and Built Environment Act—I would say all of the things, but being specific here—is that a lot of national policy directions at the moment can be inconsistent with each other. So on the one hand, you might have the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry saying, basically, grow pine trees wherever you like, but then you will have other national policy directions—there's the Essential Freshwater package which is saying no, we need to be really careful about what is going into our waterways. So having one national planning framework that puts all of those different national instruments together and makes sure that they are not inconsistent goes a long way in terms of efficiency. So I asked the Minister if he had considered that; had the Minister also said that he is going to keep the Spatial Planning Board, and given that there will be no Spatial Planning Act or no Natural and Built Environment Act, I wonder what that Spatial Planning Board will be doing?
Also, we have the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. They are much more strengthened in the Natural and Built Environment Act than they are in the Resource Management Act, and if there was any consideration to keeping those strengthened provisions, they could have stood alone as well. That's one series of questions.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I'll just answer those questions briefly. I mean, we've been through this. Yes, the Government went through a process about what changes made through the Natural and Built Environment Act they wish to keep as part of this. Time pressures meant we couldn't go through all of it.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Self-inflicted time pressures.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, but—yeah, sure. But also, unless we just wait another year, everyone subject to this 900-page monster—councils and all the rest of it have to go through that, start a 10-year transition—everyone knows the law is going to be repealed anyway. It introduces even more uncertainty, so we took the view—and I think it's a legitimate and reasonable view—better to get it off the statute books as quickly as possible so that people know where they stand. So that's what we're doing.
As I've said—again, for the third or fourth time—we are going to go through a process in the new year about some of the more sensible technical changes that were advanced through the Natural and Built Environment Act. Ms Williams has made a spirited case for allowing a select committee to do that through legislative amendment to this legislative amendment.
Arena Williams: Give me one amendment, come on!
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'll have a look at that. I'm more minded to just instruct a select committee chaired by my good colleague David MacLeod—potentially the Environment Committee, a very hard-working committee—but we can have a look at the tabled amendment.
On the Spatial Planning Board, the Spatial Planning Board is staying. In relation to what it will do, well, we'll be working our way through that but as the member knows, as a former Minister, getting departments to work together is going to be a good thing.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): There has been very little new material in the last several presentations, so I will give the call to Mr McAnulty but it will be new material.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. The issue with including new material here is that I still haven't got an answer to the previous question I asked, a genuine question, about the definition of a natural hazard. I would like an answer to that because I'm considering putting forward an amendment for the consideration of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform so that we could do that. If he could give an indication as to whether he'd be willing to consider the current definition of "natural hazard" under the Natural and Built Environment Act and simply state, in this bill, that that is the definition that local councils will continue to be able to refer to in their operations under the new planning model.
It's not about opposing what's happening here: we know what the Government wants to do; we know they want to move back to the Resource Management Act 1991. But a genuine plea: let's at least have an up-to-date definition of "natural hazard" that considers, takes into account, not only climate change but also contaminated land—a point that I wasn't able to make last time—as a result of climate change and natural disasters.
It is important that the definition that local government operates with, with specific reference to natural hazard, is up to date. Times have changed. We now know that climate change and natural hazards are linked, without question. The definition should reflect that. I'm in the process of drafting an amendment to that—at least an answer to my question would be good, but an indication from the Minister as to whether he'd be willing to consider that.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Happy to look at it. Sorry, I meant to answer it before, and I take your point. I'm advised that there is, basically—the only thing that has changed is the Natural and Built Environment Act clarified that the activities that are covered had to be caused by climate change. So it's just literally a clarificatory statement, but all of the activities that were covered are still covered; it's just by dint of the passage of time, the Resource Management Act 1991—I don't know, I mean, we're 30 years on; it's just a minor clarificatory statement. So I don't think anything substantive turns on the wording. All of the activities that you'd want to be covered through natural hazards are covered. But I'm happy to look at the wording if the member wants to—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: I'll print it now.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, very good.
MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on the question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment inserting new clause 5A to require an inquiry into parts of the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 that should be reinstated or given effect be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment inserting new clause 5A to require an inquiry into parts of the Spatial Planning Act 2023 should be reinstated or given effect be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' third tabled amendment inserting new clause 5A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 6 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Part 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 Transitional, savings, and related provisions
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come to Schedule 1. The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking's tabled amendment inserting new clause 7A in Schedule 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking's tabled amendment inserting new clause 7B in Schedule 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking's tabled amendment inserting new clause 7C in Schedule 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment replacing clause 11 of Schedule 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 19 of Schedule 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come to Schedule 2. Arena Williams' tabled amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 2 deleting amendments to various Acts are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Steve Abel's amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 4 is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.
The question is that Lan Pham's tabled amendment to Part 4 of Schedule 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking's tabled amendment to Part 4 of Schedule 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to the debate on clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on the title and commencement.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this part, Mr Chair. It has been a lively debate and I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his discursive approach to it—
Chlöe Swarbrick: Discursive!
ARENA WILLIAMS: —and in answering questions. I love a discursive approach, Chlöe. I encourage you to take a call, Chlöe Swarbrick.
Clause 1 has an amendment in my name that has been tabled. I hope the Minister will give it some consideration. The amendment is to change the name of the bill from the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill to the "Resource Management Return to the 2022 Position Bill." This is a serious amendment; it is not a silly name. What I am trying to highlight here, for the record, is that how we name this Act is important, and to give some of indication to the decision makers who rely upon the statutes to make decisions about what resource management regime they're following, because the difference between the 1991 Resource Management Act and our current position in law is significant. We've traversed that well in the committee but what I'm wanting from the Minister is an indication of whether he will accept my amendment to the name or—
Hon Chris Bishop: Just read it out again.
ARENA WILLIAMS: —I can read it out again for him in a second—whether he will consider this name change or make it clear to the committee in an answer to my question what time period he is seeking for decision makers, under these Acts, to use because it's certainly not 1991. We've had conversations in this committee about what we are returning to here. The law has moved on and it would be useful for the Minister to give us an indication on that.
There is a second clause amendment in this part with an amendment in my name. It would amend clause 5 of Schedule 1, coming into force on the day that is 18 months after the rest of this Act, but allow clauses 6 and 7 of Schedule 1 to come into force on a day that is nine months after the rest of the Act. So the change there is that the Minister's repeal bill would come into effect mostly with that nine-month period; this is allowing the operative part—the clause 5 part—to repeal the whole Act at a later date.
I think what I'm really getting to here and what I'd like the Minister to consider in my amendment is whether there is any reason, given that he has some interest in allowing select committees to inquire into which parts of the three Acts that are being amended by this bill—you know, those parts that it is worth building bipartisan support for and keeping on the statute book and whether there is any reason why there shouldn't be a time extension of the operative parts of those Acts, to remain in effect while we make that consideration. I've heard the Minister say that he wants to return to the old system now, but it would be useful, I think, for the House and the way that we make law in this House to be able to consider what should be kept, in a select committee setting, while those parts remain in force.
So my questions are really about the period of time, and there were some good contributions by my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking about the difference between the 1991 regime and the 2023 regime that we find ourselves in, and that includes not only the law as it stands on the statute book but also those changes that have been made by the courts since then. There were also some contributions that the Hon Peeni Henare made, particularly about those changes that the courts have made in the way that we would consider the hierarchy of values when we take those into account around things like kaitiakitanga and the role of iwi and hapū in things like consenting decisions. So it would be really useful for the Minister to consider my two amendments. I hope he will give me one amendment. I've been trying for three hours now.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you, Madam Chair. I've been pondering the member's suggestion. It has a certain logic to it, but just because the Act is the 1991 Act doesn't mean that people think the law is as it was in 1991. As the member knows, the Resource Management Act has been amended probably hundreds of times in the last 30 years, which might speak to fundamental design problems in the first place—
Hon Rachel Brooking: That's right; that's why we fixed it.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, we're on a very narrow part of the debate now; you're not going to get me back on that but good try, and there are many other Acts that have been amended hundreds of times. So I think we'll stick with the wording as it is, but not a bad idea.
In relation to the second question, I don't think we need to alter the commencement provisions to do a process of working out what we want, the additional things we want to keep from the Natural and Built Environment Act. We'll work through that in due course. I'm attracted to the idea proposed by the member previously about getting a select committee to do a bit of the heavy lifting on that. If the member wants to be—I don't know, is the member part of the Environment Committee?
Arena Williams: Draft me in; you're on the Business Committee.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, you know, there's 123 MPs; I don't know what every committee MPs are on. I'm still getting to know the new members. There's not so many on the Opposition benches but there's quite a few on the cross benches from the Greens.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: So no interest; hasn't got to know his colleagues.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh no, there's 123. I hesitate to make this point but I wonder if you know the name of every MP in the Parliament?
Hon Kieran McAnulty: I do.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, righty-o, OK. It's big talk for a Wednesday morning. Anyway, so good ideas but I think I've answered the questions.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the invitation from the Minister to name every member—I can do that. I won't, because that wouldn't be relevant—and nice try, that was a good little trap you set for me there, Minister, but I'm not going to fall for it.
I've a genuine question about the commencement here, it's not going to take long. I do want the Minister to answer it because I think the Chamber deserves to know. As you know, as it says, clauses 5 to 7 in Schedule 1 come into force on the day that is nine months after the rest of the Act. Is nine months enough? That's what I want to know. Is nine months enough to do all the things that the Minister has said they want to do, which is the justification for having these delays. They're going to get things in place, they're going to tidy things up, they're going to line it up—plus the amendments, get things ready, and they've given themselves nine months.
If he can come back and say, "Yes, nine months is enough and this is why", fair enough; good as gold. But I think it's worth considering an amendment to this, a genuine one, if the Minister can't come back and explain why nine months, the reason being that nine months isn't long when it comes into force after Royal assent—presumably that's going to be pretty quick, then the public sector is going to be off for six weeks, pretty much, and fair enough too, the way things have been going. It's certainly going to be on a slowdown. But the point is that nine months seems like an unusual period of time and if we are to consider amending that, an explanation is due to the committee.
If we do amend that, it would be nice to have enough time to actually get it in. I note that before the last closure, the Minister said "Yes, we will consider your amendment", and I said "I'll just have to go and print it", and he said "OK", then it got closed. So that was an unusual and disappointing outcome, particularly when the Minister and I get on well, we work together constructively—we were about to, didn't get the opportunity, and we have the opportunity now. So just a quick explanation please: why nine months? And is that long enough?
Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, and thank you very much. To the nine months, I see that the commencement date is nine months after the rest of this Act comes into force. The question I have for the Minister is pretty simple and I raised a little bit of it earlier. We were talking about report backs and the time that the Minister will take to enable the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Act. You'll see in the bill that it says here, "use the Crown's best endeavours to promote the enactment of the Bill not later than 18 months after the commencement of this clause."
So by my Mōtatau maths, and I got 54 in School C. maths so please just—it's a pass but bear with me here. The 18 months plus the nine months—27 months, leading into another election. My very simple question to the Minister is: does that mean that Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou are in limbo for 27 months with respect to their piece of legislation? As well as ngā Mana Whakahono, and if I recall correctly there is three months to report back to those iwi who look towards making an attempt to be recognised as an iwi authority. So just a very simple question on the nine months plus the 18 months: is the Minister suggesting to Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou that they'll need to wait 27 months in order to get any progress on their particular legislation?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I'm not allowed to refer to a member who's not here, but he isn't. Mr McAnulty asked about clause—
Camilla Belich: He's here now.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, he's here. Welcome back.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: You're not supposed to say I wasn't here.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I know, I know, I know. I just said that, but I got away with it. It's all in the spirit of good faith. In relation to clause 2, subclause (2)—sorry it's clause 1, actually. Clauses 5 to 7 are there basically to allow the 100-day fast track, so to allow the Government's own fast-track legislation to be progressed, which is part of our 100-day commitments. The provision is to give comfort to particularly post-settlement governance entities in the unlikely event that it takes longer. I think the member was proposing a longer window. If the member wants to put a reasonable piece of time on the table beyond nine months, we would be prepared to consider that. If it would make everyone feel better about life, I think it would be a reasonable and constructive way forward.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Chair. Could I seek the Chair's assurance that I will have enough time to actually submit this amendment, given that the last time we had an agreement with the Minister that I could submit an amendment, it was then closed and that opportunity was lost.
CHRIS BISHOP: Speaking to the point of order—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Not sure you're supposed to—
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Hon Chris Bishop, speaking to the point of order.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: From the chair? Are you supposed to? Someone else could—don't know if you can.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, I believe he can.
CHRIS BISHOP: It's fine—yes.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity. I have five questions for the Minister about the Royal assent. The first question is about the nature of Royal assent. For the committee's benefit, Royal assent is granted by usually the Governor-General, and so my questions are around the legal risks which this legislation creates at every point of decision making and in exercise of the Crown's powers, and that includes the point about Royal assent. This is separate from the point about the commencement date and particularly about the date of Royal assent.
So my first question to the Minister is: what legal risk should the people giving Royal assent consider when making the decision to grant this bill Royal assent? And the second question: what rights are extinguished upon Royal assent? This is in the context of this bill having a relatively unusual provision, which is to exclude compensation for the effect of the repeals. That is a big part of the Act, which I was not able to traverse with the Minister in Part 1 of this debate, but it is still relevant to the Royal assent given that it creates a legal risk that that body takes on when giving Royal assent.
My third question about that, which I'll ask now, as the Minister is considering his thoughts: has the Government ever extinguished legal rights of this nature, in urgency, without an impact assessment, as a consequential amendment? The reason why the committee was not able to traverse this point about the extinguishment of legal rights and the unusual provision that excludes any remedy because of these repeals is because it was part of a schedule and we were unable to get to that part in the committee of the whole House. It was also not included in the impact assessment for reasons we have already traversed. But it is something that is wholly new to this committee's discussion of this bill. So I'd like an answer from the Minister, and then I have two more questions on it.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm trying my best to understand what the member is saying, but I'm struggling a touch. I'd like her to take another call to maybe—
Arena Williams: Absolutely.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, just hang on a minute. I'll make a couple of remarks. In answer to the question around whether the Government has ever extinguished legal rights in this way through a consequential amendment, the short answer is I don't know. But the more broad point is that we're not extinguishing legal rights. The bill is at some pains to preserve existing legal rights that people have. It upholds Treaty settlements as well. It's a core commitment of the Government, on behalf of the Crown, which is very important.
We had an extensive back and forth last night about Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, and also we had some engagement this morning with former Minister Henare about Takutai Moana and customary rights and customary title. It would be a brave Parliament and Government that decided to unpick that hard-fought-for piece of legislation, which, of course, codified in some respects common law rights around customary title, which go back, as the member knows from her days at law school, many, many, many decades.
I'm time-filling somewhat while we wait for Mr McAnulty to scurry around, around the amendments, but I didn't quite get the first question from the member in the last call. So maybe she can come back on that one.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. The first question was about the context of this—if the Minister could tell the committee what legal risk those people giving Royal assent to this amendment bill should be considering when they are making that decision. It's a question, really, about what part they play in our constitutional arrangements when exercising Government power to enact legislation which would potentially extinguish the rights of parties to proceedings which are on foot or might be entered into.
I'm really glad that the Minister has drawn the committee's attention to clause 11 of Schedule 1, which is the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements. The reason I'm talking about that is that it is an example I presented the committee with last night where rights are extinguished. So there exists now an agreement between Poutini Ngāi Tahu, who have applied as a hapū for a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement with those councils that are active within their region, which is the West Coast. They are different from those iwi authority agreements which exist under the old regime. Clause 11 does try to fit the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement back into the old system, but where there are new rights which exist—those examples where hapū or, in this case, a rūnaka that is subordinate to an iwi organisation has entered into a regional agreement with their regional council—there are different rights which exist under those agreements than there are under the old system.
The Minister told the committee last night that clause 11 is worded in such a way as to preserve those existing arrangements and that there are no new arrangements. But, actually, we should have amended that clause last night, because that's not what clause 11 says. So I want the Minister to tell us how, in Part 1, when those people giving Royal assent to this bill, they should consider examples like Poutini Ngāi Tahu, who have rights under the new regime that will be extinguished moving back to the old regime, given that they have a role in preserving those rights or at least helping this Parliament to be very, very clear when it is extinguishing the right of parties to proceedings now.
My fourth and fifth questions are: who will be giving Royal assent, given that there are special rules to consider when the Governor-General is overseas? We're in a period of summer holidays because the Government is sitting in urgency, and we are using the House's time in this way. There are special rules around who may give Royal assent and if it's not the Governor-General, it will be a senior officer of the court. That puts a senior officer of the court—say a Supreme Court Justice—in a really difficult position when they're extinguishing the rights of parties in this way.
The last question is: does the Minister know about those arrangements? When will that Royal assent be given? What are his intentions around this?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, Madam Chair, we're into the realm of legal fantasy now. Maybe it was just a good filibuster attempt, but not a great one. The Royal assent is the Royal assent process. The member knows that Parliament passes a piece of legislation. It makes its way to Her Excellency the Governor-General, who signs it. And if the Governor-General refused to sign something by Parliament, I suspect we would have bigger issues to deal with as a country. But so far in the long constitutional history of New Zealand that hasn't happened—at least while we've had responsible government. So that is what will happen, and it doesn't place the Supreme Court Justice or the administrator of the Government, or the Chief Justice acting as the Governor-General, in a position. The Parliament passes a law and the Governor-General signs it. That's the law, and it's pretty simple.
In relation to her more substantive point about the extinguishment, I'm advised that there are no parties that have proceedings under the relevant bits of the legislation she's talking about. There's no extinguishment of legal rights, because there are no—she's talked about parties to proceedings having their rights extinguished. There are no parties to proceedings. No applications have been made. If one was to be made, clause 11 is pretty clear: it just goes back to the Resource Management Act 1991 provisions as if the hapū was an iwi authority under that Act, and then things can proceed from there. It's pretty simple, and we're now straying well away from the commencement. I'm hoping Mr McAnulty has got his amendment under way and we're good to go.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I think it might be helpful in this discussion if we go to clauses 5, 6, and 7 of Schedule 1, because these are the only three clauses in the bill that have a different commencement date to the day after Royal assent. So I would ask the Minister if he would like to take us through clauses 5, 6, and 7 and give the rationale for why they are different from the rest of the bill and why it is that nine months is the necessary time frame. Just looking at the Minister; he's not going to answer.
I will also go, then, to my amendment to the title clause as well, and that is to, in clause 1, replace Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill with "Resource Management (Retrograde for the Environment and Efficiency) Bill."
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for allowing me the opportunity to propose an alternative time. I do understand that my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare may have something to say about this amendment also, but we are proposing that the commencement of nine months is changed to 18 months. The reason is it would make sense, we think, for there to be some consistency, given that under clause 5(2)(b) it mentions 18 months: "use the Crown's best endeavours to promote the enactment of the Bill not later than 18 months after the commencement of this clause." We think that it would make sense to have some level of consistency there.
I take on board the Minister's point that it is the Government's intention to fulfil their 100-day plan. But as the last couple of days have shown, things can move slower than expected in Parliament, and what if the Government doesn't meet that deadline? They have unnecessarily cut themselves short. So we think that it would make sense to give the Government a little bit more time. Not everything's going to go through Parliament under urgency. And, hey, look, if the Government gets it done within nine months, so what? All good. But at least they've built themselves a little bit of a buffer. In the spirit of trying to be constructive at a committee of the whole House stage, hopefully the Minister would consider that amendment.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): In the spirit of Christmas, the Government will accept that amendment proposed by Mr McAnulty. He has some—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is that it? Where's the other presents?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That's pretty good. When was the last time the Government accepted an Opposition amendment on the floor of the House? [Interruption] Well, yours should have been worded better. But I'm struggling to recall the last—
Hon Chris Penk: I remember one.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, one. That's frustrating.
Hon Chris Penk: It was a drafting thing, raised by me.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, OK. As I say, I remember sitting over where the Labour members are sitting and putting up very, very sensible substantive amendments, including some quite minor ones—minor but important—and the Labour Minister sitting here. So, anyway, it's all good. We're not going to support the amendment around the name—nice try—and we're not going to support Arena Williams' amendment around the date, although I think that was a better effort. The bill is going to be called what it's going to be called, but we'll go with the 18 months, if that makes sense. Thank you.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's not like the Chamber to fall silent, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to thank the Minister for his consideration of the 18 months, and it was to my point around iwi and, in particular, the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou being in limbo. So bringing it into alignment here, I think, is actually quite a smart move.
I will also, though, pick up on the point made by the Minister in the chair—how Cabinet makes a decision, the House passes a bill, and then the Governor-General signs it into law. Well, an Order in Council is just a little bit more complex than that. An Order in Council isn't simply a, "Let's just sign the paper and done deal." For members across the Chamber, having sat in an Executive Council with the former Governor-General, it was quite a daunting task to sit there and explain your legislation to somebody who'd served on the High Court and served as a Justice, to make sure that it was quite clear to them, because if the rationale wasn't clear, then they weren't obliged to sign it.
So it's really just a point of clarification for the Minister in the chair. But I come back to the point around the accepting of the amendment. There are going to be questions about whether or not any of the amendments that the Minister might bring back in between now and that 18 months might continue to impact the time. So we are looking for a reassurance here and for any amendments that will come forward, we will be looking towards making sure we stick to that 18 months.
From the feedback and the emails and the messages I've had from iwi around the country as they watch this bill progress through the House, there are two words that became obviously clear, in all of the correspondence from them, and they were "Lawyer up". Because what I'm suspecting is that the Government can receive—and will be receiving—significant claims, legal action from iwi right across the country. And I think the 18 months will actually serve them well while they look towards how they might be able to deep dive into this particular repeal bill to make sure that they can cover off all of the bases to know that their rights are protected in this repeal bill.
That's going to be really important from Ngā Mana Whakahono, also to Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou, to those who have current arrangements, and I'm heartened by the Minister in the chair's comments about protecting Te Tiriti o Waitangi settlements, making sure that we continue to honour those as we have done in this House. But I suspect that the 18 months will be a good opportunity to allow iwi to come on board and make sure that they can protect their interests through the right legal mechanisms.
That's a thank you to the Minister for accepting the 18 months, and we look forward to his return to make sure that we do get these things right, which is how this process should have been done in the first place anyway. If we had gone through the select committee, we wouldn't have to have pushed out the time; we wouldn't have to be using words like "lawyer up" in this House. But I know that iwi and hapū are already looking towards doing that to make sure that their rights are protected moving forward.
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Rachel Brooking's tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as being not an objective description of the bill.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Clause 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Rachel Brooking's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that clause 2 as amended be agreed to.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Third Reading
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I move, That the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill be now read a third time.
I want to start by saying thank you to members from all sides of the House for the constructive way in which we went through the select committee—sorry, no select committee on this one; the committee of the whole House. Sorry, it's been a tiring three or four weeks. In fact, it's been a tiring year. I want to thank all the members. I think it was a constructive way through.
All of the issues have been well canvassed, I think, in the first reading, the second reading, and the committee of the whole House. The Government remains committed to sensible changes to our planning regime that make it easier to get houses built, get aquaculture under way, and get infrastructure built whilst protecting the environment. I think there is a widespread consensus that that is not the case at the moment.
The replacement regime that we are repealing today—the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act—was a well-intentioned but unfortunate and misguided attempt at fixing our planning regime, and many people consider it would not have worked. The select committee heard submission after submission from people, from councils, from developers of infrastructure, from renewable energy providers—and the member who is the Labour Party environment spokesperson, whom I like a lot and have a lot of time for, needs to be aware of her conflict. The Hon Rachel Brooking was a member of the Randerson panel that begat this nonsense, so it's fair enough that she's now in the position she's in. She became the Associate Minister for the Environment but she was a member of Randerson panel, so, to use an equity term, she does not come at this with clean hands. And I don't say that in a particularly pejorative way.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Are you suggesting an honourable member is not honourable?
CHRIS BISHOP: No, no, no. I was just making a law joke. Chris Penk found it funny, even if others didn't. The Government's accepted an amendment to the legislation on the floor of the House, so I thought we'd get more joie de vivre from the Opposition, but anyway.
Hon Scott Simpson: Where's the Christmas joy?
CHRIS BISHOP: Christmas spirit and Christmas joy. I'm proud of this legislation. I'm not proud that we had to do it under urgency.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Proud of what you've repealed.
CHRIS BISHOP: Well, yeah, I'm proud of all the stuff we're repealing. As I've said multiple times, including in public, when something is not a good piece of legislation, by definition repealing it is good. If it was good, it would stay on the statute book.
The members opposite have this really quite odd attitude that everything the Government must do has to be constructive, and we have to pass elaborate pieces of legislation and we have to—
Hon Dr Megan Woods: So you've got to be destructive. That's all right; we get it.
CHRIS BISHOP: If repealing something that is destructive by definition, actually, is positive in the sense that it will grow the economy and make it easier to do things, by definition that is constructive. So that's my point—the binary is a false one. Repealing things can take the country forward. To take an example that the Labour Party members opposite might have some sympathy for, the Labour Party spent most of the 1990s saying the Employment Contracts Act was a disaster. They then repealed the Employment Contracts Act, and the Labour Party back then didn't go around saying, "Oh, well, we're repealing it. Oh, no, this is not good." They were proud of the repeal. This is what Governments do. Governments change, the political cycle goes, things come and go.
We came to Government with a mandate to go through systematically and repeal stupid pieces of legislation passed by the last Parliament, by the last Government, and that is what we're doing. We had fair pay agreements last week, 90-day trials once we get through this; we've got the Resource Management Act, we've got the clean car/ute tax, and, trust me, there's more coming in the new year, and I'm looking forward to it. Getting stuff off the statute book is, by definition, positive, right, if it reduces the size of Government and takes the country forward.
Parliament legislates too much stuff, and one of the problems with the last Government was they just legislated all the time—elaborate, complicated, complex regimes that stuff the statute book with complexity. Actually, we need a smaller Government that reduces down the size of the statute book.
Anyway, I somewhat digress.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: I look forward to it.
CHRIS BISHOP: Megan says she's looking forward to it.
As I've sort of advertised, we're keeping the fast-track consenting regime which was developed by the last Government. We're developing our own regime, and work is under way at pace. Simon Court, my Parliamentary Under-Secretary for infrastructure and Resource Management Act reform, is working on that alongside our coalition Government parties.
We are, as I've said to the member Rachel Brooking, interested in spatial planning and how we get that more properly equipped. I've decided to keep the Spatial Planning Board, and we'll work through the roles and functionality of that in due course. I do agree with the member, the point she made at various points, that spatial planning does have a real role to play, but I think it is really important, as I said during the committee of the whole House stage, that we do that in a coherent and structured way that sits alongside other Government priorities alongside water reform. And at some point, in due course, we will have to consider the future of local government reform as well, and, of course, it sits alongside our reforms in infrastructure funding and financing, which, as the member knows and the member sitting next to her knows, is fundamental to getting more houses built in New Zealand.
I think of the housing challenge as like a trifecta. You've got to get the land-use policy done in a comprehensive way. You've got to get competitive urban land markets. You've got to get the infrastructure funding and financing arrangements right, and you've got to get the council incentives lined up so that councils don't just see growth as something to be ambivalent about or—frankly, many times—hostile to.
They've got to see growth as something that's a good thing because housing growth is in all of our interests, not least the Government's, and in 20 or so minutes the Minister of Finance will present the mini-Budget and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. I'm not breaking any Budget secrets when I say that the previous Government spent an enormous sum of money every year on housing subsidies—around $4 billion a year once you add up income-related rent, the accommodation supplement, and the tragedy that is emergency housing—and in due course we will have to do what we can to sort that out.
Our planning laws affect almost every aspect of our lives, and it is really important that we get them right. I acknowledge the contribution from Rachel Brooking—the letter, which I will ponder and consider over the summer break, and we'll come back to her around our sheer desire to create a better New Zealand and a better planning regime. But for now, we have come to the view that the regime put in place by the last Government would have been a retrograde step. We sought at the election a mandate to get it off the statute book.
I regret the use of urgency. I'm not a fan of urgency in a general sense, but I think it is justified in this case because there's a 10-year transition window, and if we hadn't got it off the statute book by Christmas, people would spend an enormous amount of time and money over the Christmas period and the new year—spending time and money on a regime that the Government made clear wasn't going to exist at some point in the future.
So it's better to get it off the statute book now and start again, and that's what we're going to do, and that's what the Government is seeking a mandate for from the Parliament, and, with that, thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A lot to respond to in that contribution from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about me. So I'll start with that. I don't normally—
Simon Court: Show us your hands.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yeah—yes, I know. It was an interesting comment—something about my hands not being clean.
I'm very proud to have been a member of that Randerson review group. It did make me just so interested and motivated in becoming a politician, because I knew that the Resource Management Act (RMA) wasn't working and that it did need changing. I'm happy to say that I came to that review group with a very open mind about some things which were then decided in that review report and became the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act. So I came to that with an open mind about whether we needed separate environmental-type regulations from urban planning. The experts that we consulted with and people that we talked with were very clear that it's very difficult to separate those two issues and leads to more complications. So that is why the Randerson review said no to that idea.
I also came to that group with a very open mind about whether or not the RMA could simply be amended, or whether new legislation was required. I've listened to Sir Geoffrey Palmer many times at many conferences and his arguments that the RMA wasn't broken, that it was the implementation around it that was the problem. So I came to that group with that in mind. However, again, we heard time and time again that, fundamentally, the RMA was broken. This is to do with it being so focused on effects, and the whole regime being driven down to that consenting decision-making process. That is expensive. That kept me employed for almost 20 years. That's not a job I want to go back to. I'll put that on record here—that's my conflict: I don't want to become a resource management lawyer again. I think there shouldn't be so much GDP in our system at that consenting end.
I'm also, obviously, very interested in the environmental outcomes of the legislation. Of course, they weren't working under the RMA, and we need clear direction and clear environmental bottom-lines. But my professional interest in this has been always focused on the efficiency of the system and trying to take people—like old Rachel—out of the system, because, really, we should be having clear debates within the community about those planning trade-offs that are always made. As the Minister said, planning is always difficult. People are going to have different views. I said in one of the other speeches, somebody loves a highly modified landscape; somebody else wants to put what I think is a very beautiful wind turbine on it. There's a debate to be had. Those debates should be higher up the food chain, not at the consenting level.
That is what these two Acts that have been repealed today did, because it is a complicated system. So rather than everything being at the regulatory stage, there was the Spatial Planning Act. That was to say, "Let's look—let's look—into the future. Let's look about where we want to put growth."—but also, very importantly, where we don't want it. We just heard the Minister say that there's a housing trifecta of some sort. I don't particularly disagree with the issues that he raised, but he missed a really important one, and that is hazards, climate change, and climate change adaptation. We know that there are areas that don't have houses on them at the moment, where we don't want to ever put houses—that that would be the wrong place to put houses, because we know that there will be sea-level rise, we know that there will be higher-intensity winds, and we know that there's going to be higher-intensity rainfall. So there are areas of the country that we don't want to put more houses. So it's very important that we have that all mapped out in spatial plans.
Of course, I was very pleased that my contribution to the Spatial Planning Act was to get the word "map" into that Act—eventually. We want to able to see—see what's going to happen, see that different things happen over different time frames as well. But we also want to know where that infrastructure is—where that existing infrastructure is—that the Minister was talking about in terms of those efficiencies of where you put houses. Obviously, there's a lot of infrastructure that needs to go with them. If you can intensify areas, then there will already be some existing infrastructure. Some of it might not be big enough, though, so to be able to have those considerations in that spatial planning exercise is very important.
The Minister's spoken a lot of times about how, "Oh, well, it wasn't coherent. We've got other things going on." He keeps talking about local government reform. I don't think that's something I heard in the Speech from the Throne—I welcome one of the National speakers to correct me on that if I'm wrong—or, particularly, in manifestos either, about major local government reform. So if the reason for repealing the Spatial Planning Act is that there is going to be local government reform, I think that is a very interesting idea, and it's certainly not one that I've heard mentioned before this, until this debate today.
I also heard, again, from the Minister, talking about his involvement, when he was on the Environment Committee, about hearing various submissions. I remind everyone that that was a very fulsome select committee process. It had an exposure bill for the Natural and Built Environment Bill—for the first part of that, for the purpose clauses; that went through its own submission process. The select committee reported back to the House, and then we went through the process of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill as well. There were many, many submissions on those bills. A lot of those submissions had very useful amendments suggested. They were picked up by the select committee. So what came into the House in the first reading was very different to what came into the House at second reading, and then, again, there were changes made in the committee of the whole House stage as well. All of these things were done to improve the bill.
As I said in one of my speeches on this bill that we're looking at today, the repeal bill, the importance of renewable energy was not at issue. Everybody agrees about the importance of renewable energy. There were some sections around the time frames for renewal consents, and they were changed in the process. We had debate in the committee of the whole House stage today about what was clause 58 of the Natural and Built Environment Bill—I think it might have become a different numbered section in the Act—and what that was going to do with the planning framework. That included many useful things that would be in that national planning framework, including on hazards, including on papakāinga housing, which we're hearing about today.
So it's a great shame that we are not going to have all of that national direction combined into one so it's not in conflict with each other. Of course, at the moment, it is in conflict with each other. There was a process there, in the Natural and Built Environment Act, to make it coherent. This is really important for users of planning legislation. It is very difficult to be going around, if you are either a council, if you're trying to draft up your plans, and you have one national instrument telling you do one thing, like build those—grow; you don't build pine trees—grow the pine trees, and look after that water quality. What are those councils supposed to do? You get lots of lawyers involved, and I go back to where I started: that they just shouldn't be in the system when the Government could be making clear national direction, and doing that national direction to deal with issues that we haven't spoken about much in the past, and that is the likes of the sponge cities and the importance of green infrastructure—all things that really came out strongly through the select committee submission process and that were embraced by the select committee. My recollection was that all of the select committee was very interested in what we are doing about hazards and how we are planning for the future. So it's a very sad day indeed, today, and I condemn this bill.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. We have so many opportunities to do things better. We have so many opportunities in Aotearoa to live more in harmony with nature—to use energy more efficiently, to produce more green, fully renewable electricity that is low cost, and to ensure that our towns and cities are places where people love to live; where our children have the freedom to get around under their own steam, to get to school by walking or cycling or scootering, if that's what they wish. That benefits everyone.
They could have the freedom to do this, but it requires doing things differently. And for many decades, we had harmful planning rules that came in after the Town and Country Planning Act that made it more difficult for our kids to walk and cycle to school. So in the last 30 to 40 years, kids stopped walking and cycling to school. Parents, rightly, are concerned about the safety of their kids when there's fast-moving vehicles, larger vehicles, big SUVs, and utes. And then, when parents have to drive their kids everywhere, that actually reduces the freedom and independence the kids have, but it also makes traffic worse. It makes our transport costs higher.
It's not just pollution. I mean, people do have a right to live free from pollution, but it's not just climate change that's the issue. Fundamentally, our transport system is inefficient and it limits the freedom and ability of people to move around.
We have the ability, and the responsibility, to do the right thing, to do things better. Our planning rules aren't just around urban development—that's my big focus: the opportunity to do urban development better—it's also about environmental bottom lines. I have had many colleagues speak in this debate on this bill during the committee of the whole House stage and during the prior stages of this debate. Lan Pham, freshwater ecologist and two-term regional councillor, spoke to the absolute passion communities have had, and the evidence that supports it, with over 50 experts, to have clean water. We could have clean, healthy water, and we don't have it now.
My colleague Steve Abel was talking about tree protection. Urban trees make so much sense. They reduce the pressure on our reticulated water system, they make our towns and cities healthier and happier places to be, and they're just so vitally important. But if we don't have blanket tree protection, then what happens is we lose that tree cover, and with it we lose the water management that it brings, we lose the native birds, we lose the shade and the climate control—we lose all of that. That's why tree protection is so important. Scott Willis, who for many years worked in renewable electricity and tried to get a community wind farm up and faced the barriers—I know the old planning regime to get renewable electricity up at a community scale. So the Green Party is full of people who have been passionately working to solve some of these problems, to deliver better outcomes for the community, and to be responsible.
The legislation that's being repealed today wasn't perfect, but it went through an incredibly thorough process, with two select committees. That second one attracted 3,000 submissions. Now, I heard the Minister—I asked this question to the Minister during the committee of the whole House stage: I asked what experts said that this Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act were worse than going back to the Resource Management Act, and he couldn't name a single person. He referred to the select committee process, where there were literally thousands of submissions. One of the most disturbing things—to me, I think—was that he didn't seem to understand that when people came to the select committee process and raised their issues, the Government then responded and there were further stages of the bill before it was passed through to being an Act. I spoke to some of the people who were concerned about things that were in the bill at select committee, like Manawa Energy, like people who were concerned about Te Mana o te Wai. Well, the Government actually responded to all of those concerns and so the final Act didn't represent what was at the select committee. So all of this really just exposes how shallow the people in the new Government are, how shallow their knowledge is, how poor their respect is for the democratic process. They went out there, didn't pay much attention to what was actually happening, or any constructive improvements to it; instead, they mindlessly opposed, in Opposition, everything the Government was doing.
They have no clue. The Minister doesn't even understand the difference between the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act. He's repealing both of them, even though the Spatial Planning Act is fundamentally a different piece of legislation that was making improvements. But he doesn't know, because he didn't do the work in Opposition. All they did was shallowly oppose everything in a bid to get more votes, in a bid to get into Government. But I think the people of New Zealand would have reasonably expected people elected to Government to take a fulsome approach, a robust approach, and not to throw everything out when a bunch of it was actually really useful—a bunch of it was actually useful.
So here we are: the one thing being kept is fast-tracked consenting. Now, that's not really a surprise. The truth is that the current people who are in Government, who found themselves in a position of responsibility, are not going to exercise that responsibility on behalf of all the people of New Zealand, our future generations, or our environment. Oh no, no, no, no—they are here to represent the existing power structure of people who currently have all the money and power, and they're going to maintain that and make sure that they can make more money, that they can continue to exploit workers and our environment.
Now, I don't doubt that there are some people sitting over there who don't realise that that's what their Government is doing—they truly think they believe in efficiency and better outcomes and good value for money and protecting the environment in a responsible way. But when you look at the reality of what is in this bill, there was an alternative scenario. The Minister Chris Bishop could have not rushed through urgency to repeal six years of work, where thousands of people submitted, where we spent a quarter of a billion dollars getting the advice and doing the work to come up with a new system. We could see how it was working and make adjustments to it. But instead, they've decided to repeal it all within three weeks of Parliament starting—throw out all of that effort.
Personally, I hate waste. And what breaks my heart is coming to this House and seeing the wasted time and effort that could have gone into good legislation, that could have produced better outcomes for our people, for our planet. The current Government throws it all away because they haven't bothered to try and understand. They don't actually believe in democracy—they're here to preserve the existing power structure. The people with the most power and money want to keep on exploiting the environment, want to keep on exploiting workers, and it suits those people.
They need to think long and hard: if you came to this place because you truly believe in solutions, how do the people sitting opposite feel about watching such a shoddy approach to lawmaking, to watching $250 million of taxpayers' resources, public resources, being wasted and thrown down the drain? And how do they feel—how do they feel—about knowing that over 50 percent of our freshwater waterways are at threat? What is their answer? What is their constructive solution? Why are they delaying the clear national direction that is needed for regional councils to be able to bring in the rules that will actually protect our fresh waterways now and into the future? Because if we don't act very soon, extinction is for ever—extinction is for ever.
The members opposite clearly believe that they're in the born to rule class, that they're the responsible ones, that they're somehow going to come up with solutions that are going to look after not just the people who are currently the most powerful but the long-term benefit of our natural environment. Because what is happening today is a mindless oppositional repeal from a Minister who's not across the detail, who doesn't actually know what's being repealed, and is going to have to start over the work from scratch. But what they are going to do, and I have no doubt about this—and people watching at home need to know this—is they're going to use this fast-track consenting to ride roughshod over environmental bottom lines and communities in order to help vested interests achieve the outcomes they want, and ultimately it's all about conserving the status quo: doing more of what we already know.
You know, the definition of insanity—we've heard it many times—is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. When it comes to protecting our natural environment, when it comes to futureproofing climate-resilient communities and building cities that welcome and work with nature, that enable freedom and a future for our children, the current National - New Zealand First - ACT Government has no vision, they have no ideas, and they're going to be here to maintain the status quo and the existing power structure. The Green Party will continue putting up positive solutions—this bill is not one.
SIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party is proud to support the repeal of the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act and the maintenance of a fast-track opportunity for businesses and organisations that want to get on, get a consent, and start building things that produce value. Because unless we do that in New Zealand, we will continue the economic and social decline that the previous Labour Government perpetuated. There's nothing that signals more clearly the confusion between the need for economic and social growth and environmental protection—the failure to identify a suitable balance—than the Acts we're repealing here today.
It's true that resource management reform is long overdue and much delayed. In the early 1990s, I studied resource management law. I proposed to a lecturer that a property development model's consent conditions would fly through a hearing, and that my development would be given a tick by the commissioners, and that my contractors would be able to start work within a few short weeks. Well, my lecturer told me back in the 1990s, "That's not how it works, Sonny Jim. You'll just have to spend a bit more time spending money on resource management lawyers and arguing with commissioners about consent conditions."
But it turns out all the things that we've learnt how to do well, whether it's erosion and sediment control, whether it's identifying where threatened bat species are roosting in trees and when is the best time to fell the trees because the bats have moved on—we know all that information. We don't need the Natural and Built Environment Act or the Spatial Planning Act to send us back 30 years to have a bit of a navel-gazing exercise for further decades on how to resolve the conflict between developing land, economic growth, and environmental protection.
Now, I've heard from some members of the Opposition that because the former Minister David Parker spent a quarter of a billion dollars in developing the Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act, we should just let it go and we should just accept that. Well, the ACT Party does not believe in the sunk cost fallacy that has led to the sinking of the Interislander proposal and will no doubt lead to the sinking of many more Labour sunk cost fallacies. Time to pull the handbrake on. Let's turn this four-wheel drive, New Zealand, around.
Now, I want to describe what a future resource management reform might look like. There was a gentleman who participated in founding one of the world's modern and greatest States, George Washington. He said that freedom and property rights are inseparable. You can't have one without the other. Freedom to build means reducing the number of people who can object to the things you want to build, whether you're a land developer, whether you're a public asset owner, or whether you're somebody who just wants to build a distribution warehouse so that your goods can find their way to customers and not have to argue about the colour of it or whether it sticks up a little bit higher than your neighbour's building.
We need to focus on trade-offs. Land development and economic development lead to social development and social uplift. Protecting things just for the sake of it or because some members of this House, some political parties, believe we can return to some kind of year zero pre-human environmental state—completely unrealistic—completely unrealistic. Future resource management reform must focus on the benefits of development while protecting the places that New Zealanders value and regard as special.
That is what this coalition Government will be bringing in 2024. ACT supports this bill. I commend it to the House. Let's go, New Zealand.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the third reading of this bill, the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Amendment Bill. As I do that, I say that it was interesting hearing through the readings of this bill, especially from our coalition partners. Some of us, probably, on this side of the House have worked very much with the Resource Management Act (RMA), and I am one of those people, and it is ironic that today I stand in support of going back to the RMA. But it is actually this complexity that we have in front of us with the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA) and the Spatial Planning Act that has put us into this situation.
It was always ironic to me. With the NBA, it almost sounds like a basketball game. Basically, what we are dealing with here today is a basketball player with the wrong ball going down a court, and we're actually going to throw that ball out of court and get the right one back on there.
In section 5 in Part 2 of the RMA, the purpose of the Act is really what we should be concentrating on, and the RMA and the purpose of this new NBA is something that we haven't really explored in this House in this debate. But as we got wider in the NBA proposal, the complexity that that would have brought into the resource management planning would have just been so much and so complex. To me, also adding in the issues around the Treaty and putting the principles of the Treaty into the NBA would just cause that much complexity for users, and it gives people uncertainty.
The fast tracking—we look forward to that. The New Zealand First Party also looks forward to other changes to fast tracking as we go ahead, but having that interim fast tracking retained is something we definitely support. It is also giving certainty to people outside of this House, going forward, of what we are actually doing.
So New Zealand First commends this bill to the House today, and I am proud to stand up for New Zealand First and to actually see that legislation put into the bin.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I guess I've got to start by, first, commending the Government. You went out to change the course of history, and indeed that is what you have started and achieved. You are going to go down in history as being one of the most destructive and backward-thinking Governments we've ever seen in Te Ao Māori.
I get why you're comfortable picking a fight with Māori, and I'll say it again: you have parties, like ACT, that got 1 percent of the Māori vote; you've got New Zealand First, who got 4 percent of the Māori vote; and National, who got 5 percent. Together, collectively, you got 10 percent of the Māori vote.
Hon Member: A lot more than that—a lot more than that.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: And I hear you say, "We had an election", which indeed you did. But you did not get a strong mandate from Māori, and as the party that got 30 percent—in fact, seven times more than some of you—and who got six of the seven Māori electorate seats, I can confidently say that you are not supported by Māori at all, and especially in this legislation.
We had before us the opportunity to make things better and, unlike everyone in the House today, I'm speaking from the fact that Te Pāti Māori did not support it with Labour. We did not support the Resource Management Act (RMA) changes with Labour, because they weren't enough. When we look at what it is you're proposing, I have never seen anything so backward in my life. And I have worked in the RMA space for years and years. You are a Government that prided itself with the National Iwi Chairs. You were part and parcel of working with the iwi in technical aspects of the regulations for the Environmental Protection Authority and for Ministry for the Environment. You were part and parcel of working with iwi on the best practice guidelines—you'll remember this, David—between iwi and oil companies. You had a record that showed your true intent with the Māori communities.
Te Mana o te Wai, te Oranga o te Taiao—those were kaupapa you supported. And in good will those in Whanganui, Te Awa Tupua; those in Taranaki, Te Maunga Kāhui; those in all our electorates were really supportive of what it is that you were proposing to do. The truth is that what you are doing is you have done some of the most offensive exclusions and amendments that we've ever seen. So we question why you replaced—why you deliberately replaced—"Te Tiriti" with "the Treaty of Waitangi", knowing only 50 rangatira—only 50 rangatira—signed the Treaty. Five hundred rangatira signed Te Tiriti. Why would you convert to the English version, knowing that—
David MacLeod: Point of order. I'm hearing the word "you" throughout the speech here, and I understand that's not actually appropriate. It should be via the Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you to the member for that point of order. It was something I was going to mention at the end of the speech. I wasn't going to interrupt the speaker, but now that you've brought it up, yes, saying "you" is bringing the Speaker into the debate. So perhaps if the member could talk about "the Government members".
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: My apologies for that offensiveness. I guess it's really hard—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not offended, by the way. I'm just trying to upkeep the rules.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Thank you—appreciate it. We have questioned why it is that we have reverted to the English version, which we all know. I guess it's probably like your "Te Papa" moment—that you accept that Māori ceded sovereignty. Māori did not cede sovereignty. We are watching this Government erode our rights and interests, under urgency, without so much as engaging with a single iwi and hapū. I look at some members of the Government who have been out in communities asking to support these communities in their wind farms and their ocean, asking to support these communities and their iwi with their economic aspirations, and I really look forward to the conversations that this Government is going to have going forward.
We also questioned the Minister—on the same page, 83—about why "hapū" has been removed. We understand that we've got iwi still included, but for some reason hapū have been removed from the bill. This is an erosion of rights and interests of those who make up Aotearoa. Again, I totally understand that this Government doesn't have a Māori mandate, but the Government must—must—respect hapū and iwi rights and interests. You cannot wipe us out. You can remove hapū from the bill, you can remove our reo from your agencies, but we will not, as tangata whenua, go away.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The word "you"—just remember. I know it's hard.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: I appreciate it. So, hiding in urgency—this is a party that is all about bottom lines. As long as it's just above dead, this Government is about right. Mauri ora is a top line kaupapa. Te Awa Tupua, Te Maunga Kāhui, all these kaupapa have been about—te Oranga o te Taiao. They are about mauri ora and about keeping up with the top line of what we require, aspirationally and, most importantly, for our future generations. We have a Government that has absolutely provided certainty: it has provided certainty to mana whenua, tangata whenua, iwi, hapū, whānau across Aotearoa, and you have set the tone for your next three years. We do not support the changes and the repeal that this Government has put to us. Kia ora rā.
LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. This Government's gone-by-Christmas approach is a recipe for continuing with short-term, ad hoc development, determined by the whims of individual property developers and companies instead of true community consensus, where tangata whenua had a stronger voice in an integrated ki uta ki tai or mountains to sea planning framework—one that, while imperfect, actually had a chance of delivering positive outcomes for all New Zealanders.
And I do want to reflect that with all the huff and puff of the debate of this repeal, it can be really easy to lose sight of what everyone's really even talking about and why it all even matters. But I want to assure the Government that the repeal of this bill matters. It matters to the 3,000 submitters who gave their time, energy, and expertise, contributing to this fit for purpose environmental management system that—although it went nowhere far enough in recognition of the tino rangatiratanga of tangata whenua—was a step in the right direction. It matters to every New Zealander—tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti—who has ever turned up to their usual swimming, fishing, or mahinga kai spot to find themselves risking their own or their loved ones' health from simply drinking, swimming, or coming into contact with contaminated rivers, lakes, and oceans, and will have to wait years longer for any improvements.
It matters to ratepayers who welcomed the ability of their councils to actually claim the costs of monitoring, investigation, or prosecution from the person or company responsible for any non-compliance instead of this coming from ratepayer funds. It matters to those growers—and, actually, literally anyone who consumes food who wanted better protection of high-quality rural land and elite soils from urban sprawl; improvements to ensure our environmental laws were better monitored, enforced, and complied with; and a built environment that actually reduces the risks from natural hazards and climate change. It matters to the thousands of consent holders who are already going above and beyond to protect and restore the environment and meet their consent conditions, when the few individuals that we see letting the majority down through serious environmental and resource consent breaches are met with pitiful and ineffective fines that were substantially increased through these Acts as critical deterrents to unacceptable environmental damage.
It matters to councils—it matters because their ability to suspend or end the consent if there was ongoing or repeated failure to implement the consent conditions is now removed. It matters to all the consent applicants: iwi, hapū, councils, courts, and the public, who will now need to continue to wrestle with interpreting the plethora of over 100 different Resource Management Act (RMA) plans and policy statements when the Acts would have reduced this number to 16. It matters to any and every person in Aotearoa who wants to leave a healthy, thriving environment to our kids, our grandkids, and future generations, because that is what true prosperity looks like. In fact, there is so much about this bill that it is repealing that matters—that it reveals that this Government's action in repealing these acts amounts to nothing more than costly political pettiness.
But the ultimate disappointment in all of this is the short-sightedness. It's the lack of understanding that the very real limits to our vulnerable environment need to be respected, and it's the immeasurable value of ecological integrity and upholding Te Tiriti that this Government does not seem to understand. But I appreciate that that may all be a bit of a down buzz, because 'tis the season to be jolly. So I guess from this Government to all New Zealanders, it's a Merry back-to-the-RMA-death-by-a-thousand-cuts Christmas for them and our precious te taiao; environment—again, leaving our kids, grandkids, and future generations to pick up the pieces and ultimately pay the tab. And that is something the Greens will never support. Kia ora.
DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): New Zealand's economy inextricably relies on the use of our natural environment, and it needs to remain healthy for all people's wellbeing—ngā tāngata katoa. The art is to get the tension between both the economy and the environment balanced. A regime that allows the use of the environment while protecting it, a regime that achieves this outcome as efficiently and effectively as practically achievable—that is what this bill seeks to realise, and I commend the bill to the House.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): All good policy starts with the problem definition. What we've heard from the Government is that the reason why they are taking New Zealand backwards, back to 1991, into a piece of legislation that is no longer fit for purpose is because the legislation put in place by the previous Government was difficult and it made it difficult to get things done and was bad for the environment. What we've had is the Minister in charge of this legislation, the Hon Chris Bishop, and indeed the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, going around trumpeting as one of the key examples of why this needed to be taken back is because it was so difficult to get renewable energy projects over the line.
Wind farms was something that was often touted. Their case in point was West Wind farm here in Wellington, where both Chris Bishop and the Prime Minister would claim that that project took anywhere between seven to 10 years to get consented. This is a fallacy. This is incorrect, and it is wrong. That project took six months from the time of lodging that consent with the Wellington City Council. There was 18 months in the Environment Court. So from consent to the decision coming out of the Environment Court, it was three years, not the seven, eight, or 10 years that we've had the Minister in charge, and indeed the Prime Minister, running around telling New Zealanders that it took.
And that is a problem, not just because they are wrong and have been misleading with the information that they've been giving out, but it speaks to the problem of putting this legislation through urgency. That is the point of select committee. That is the point of scrutiny. That is what our legislative process in New Zealand is based on, and the ability for submitters to have a say and to be heard. When we have a Government that doesn't even understand its own problem definition and is intent on rushing through legislation by Christmas, that is where we are running into a huge amount of problems.
The legislation that is being repealed is legislation that is about getting that balance between protecting our environment and making sure that we can enable activity in our economy that needs to be enabled. This was not rushed legislation; this was legislation that went through scrutiny after scrutiny after scrutiny. And were there problems that were identified through that process? Of course there were. I know, sitting on the ministerial advisory group, that in the areas I was responsible for, an issue was highlighted that the legislation, as it was in the bill, was not permissive enough in terms of reconsenting of hydroelectricity assets. So we changed it. We listened to the submitters, and we made the change to the bill before it was passed into the Act that is being repealed today. And that is what good legislation looks like, not something that is being pushed through by a Government that can't even understand its own problem definition.
And then what we have is that we have the Government still saying it's so hard to get things consented, but they're going to keep the fast-track provisions that our Government put in. No wonder, because if you want to look at how you actually get that balance right, how you can see the progress that needs to be made, you need to look no further than the fast-track consenting provisions that our Government put in place after COVID as a means of stimulating activity in the economy but that actually work so well that they were carried over to be a permanent feature of the new planning framework in the legislation that we're repealing today.
So if I have a look at what was achieved there, nine solar panel projects were approved through that. That was nearly 1.9 million panels that were approved to go through the fast-track process. That is 1,147 megawatts of renewable electricity generation through those projects. To put that in context, the Clyde Dam is 432 megawatts. What we are talking about is something that was nearly three times the output of the Clyde Dam, and that was only solar panels, because there were also wind farms that went through that. Three major wind farm projects were also approved to go through fast-track consenting—again, equal to the Clyde Dam. Of the, I think it was, 108 projects that were referred through the fast-track process that we had—15 of them being green and renewable energy projects—was four times the capacity of the Clyde Dam.
Show me the problem definition, members on the Government side. We are not hearing it. You're saying—sorry, not you, Madam Speaker; you would never say such a thing, but the Government is saying that it is too difficult to get things done. We are talking about four times the capacity of the Clyde Dam in electricity generation being approved to go through a process in a matter of months, and we are told that that is somehow broken.
We've also had Chris Bishop come and say that he is truly a progressor for going backwards, that he is somehow putting forward constructive solutions. Well, I'm sorry, Mr Bishop. All he is presiding over as a Minister is taking New Zealand backwards and showing the lack of vision that this Government holds. All that could be campaigned on was to repeal, not even the replacement of it. The replacement—I might not agree with it, but I could have some respect for it if there was an idea and a vision of what it was going to be replaced with.
But we have a party and parties that are forming this Government that failed in the nine years they were in Government to get Resource Management Act (RMA) reform over the line—they tried and tried and failed and failed again—now coming back, repealing, and saying, "Trust us. Magically we will be able to do something." Well, we look forward to that, because the track record isn't great, and instead, we're going to be going round and round in circles, stuck in 1991 land with a set of planning and environmental provisions that do not understand climate change, do not understand the modern Treaty relationship as has evolved today, does not understand the issues around water shortages, even the multiple amendments to the RMA. Everyone was in agreement. The RMA was broken and needed fixing.
We had the Minister, Chris Bishop, come down and say, "Well, you did it. A previous Labour Government, when they've come in, they repealed things too." And he gave the example of us repealing the Employment Contracts Act. We certainly did, but we just didn't repeal that stain on our statute books; in our time in Opposition we had come up with an alternative, and that is what this Government is failing to do.
What was put in place—I just have to have a little something I prepared earlier—is the Employment Relations Act of 2000, a comprehensive piece of legislation that was put in place with ideas, vision, and thinking of what we thought a modern employment environment would look like. Are we seeing that from the Government in terms of a comprehensive piece of legislation that shows vision for what they want to do instead? I might not agree with it. I might agree with parts of it. I might disagree with parts of it. More likely than not we would hold different views on bits of it. But I would have more respect if there were parties that could front up to this Parliament and put through something substantive that showed what they wanted to do, not where they wanted to take New Zealand backwards to.
So if we look at the Employment Relations Act—the Minister brought it up as the great comparator that he was bringing in there—this legislation that we replaced it with and the thinking we had done in Opposition promoted concepts of good faith and fair bargaining. It brought in mediation, it brought in personal grievances, it established the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court, and it promoted collective bargaining. There was substance with what was being replaced.
This is a Government that has no ideas. This is a Government that has no momentum to take New Zealand forward. All it can do is go backwards to the future, and what we will see is New Zealand worse off for it. This is a Government that has no plan to how it's going to cut emissions and meet our emissions reduction budget. It has no plans how it is going to have constructive 21st century Treaty relationships, and that is what has been shown in every contribution in this House.
I look forward to a day when we have a Government on those benches actually proposing what they are going to do rather than what they are going to undo, because someday they will need to front up and share what their vision for New Zealand is.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There's no doubt that Labour's new Acts will just simply make it harder to get things done. We'll be developing our own Resource Management Act reform programme to make it easier, not harder, to do things. We'll build a new planning system to make it easier to consent new infrastructure. And importantly, in my electorate—central Hawke's Bay, Tararua, Wairarapa—and across New Zealand, farmers must be allowed to farm, growers to grow, and builders to build so our economy can actually maintain its viability in the world markets. I look forward to the repeal of this legislation today.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I wish to begin by just reflecting on a quote which was offered to this House by the member from the ACT Party, a quote which he attributed to George Washington, asserting that freedom and property rights are inseparable: you can't have one without the other. I looked at the language of that quote, and I thought, that language doesn't seem right for someone who is speaking in the 18th century. It just doesn't seem right. So I googled. I googled some more and hunted around. That particular quote is often attributed to George Washington, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he actually ever said it. In fact, it was an evidence-free quote from the member for the ACT Party.
There's a couple of things that come out of that. First of all, this happens to be an evidence-free repeal from the National Government. It stems from nowhere but a desire to undo everything that the previous Government has done. That's despite the fact that the National Party itself, when it was last in power, tried for nine years to get reform of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) through, and couldn't do it. Everyone recognised that there was a problem with the RMA.
Now, these Acts that we put through when we were in Government—the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023, the Spatial Planning Act 2023—were evidence-based legislation. It was a long and evidence-based process, starting with the Randerson committee going through an exposure draft of the legislation, an exposure draft that the Environment Committee spent months—years—looking at it in order to make sure the legislation was good legislation.
Going on from that exposure draft, it went into the actual select committee process. So there was a very long select committee process during which the legislation was improved, which is exactly the purpose of a select committee process. There was a whole lot of evidence that sat behind this legislation. It was good legislation, and it is being taken away to replace with what? Diddly-squat. Just nothing, absolutely nothing.
I want to talk about that again, because one of the fascinating things about the era in which George Washington was operating, in which the founders of the American republic were operating, was one of negotiation, of consideration, of debate, of considering issues back and forth. The American Constitution didn't come out of nowhere, and it is a document that encourages conversation and negotiation. This is exactly the process that we went through with the legislation establishing the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act—it was a process of negotiation and discussion.
Indeed, that is the characteristic of most of the legislation that goes through this House—negotiation, discussion, reflection, evidence, consideration, often done by the incredible officials we have working for us in the various Government departments, and expressed in a regulatory impact statement, expressed in various ways. But even that was done away with by this Government over here.
So the process behind this bill is flawed. There is no conversation about it. It was a simple "Let's get rid of it". It's a process that overturns the evidence, the hard work, the negotiation that went on for nearly six years in order to get it right. We took our time, we got it right, and we worked on it to improve it as we went through—tossed in the bin by this Government, which, so far, has not introduced any legislation of its own. All it has done is introduce repeal bill after repeal bill after repeal bill after repeal bill, undo, destroy, destruct things, completely refuse to negotiate, do not engage in a long process that we have established in this Parliament and in this country for ensuring that there is good legislation that governs us, governs our property rights, governs the way we interact with each other. It is a disgrace, and the National Party should be ashamed.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to support Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill. I stand as a representative of the National Party and I'm proud of my team members who, before coming into this House, have done many great things in their lives, from farming through to agriculture to horticulture. They have been at the brunt of this and they will tell you that the last thing the country needs is this unworkable legislation, holding up the construction of renewable energy, farming, and many other productive things that this country needs. So I commend this bill to the House.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Madam Speaker—reo Māori. Ā, tēnā tātou e te Whare. Kua tae tātou ki te wāhanga tuatoru o te haerenga o tēnei pire me taku hiahia kia whakaatu atu ki tēnei Kāwanatanga i te ngako o ngā nawe e pākau atu ana ki tō tātou iwi Māori, ngā whakaaro o te iwi Māori e pākau atu ana ki tēnei pire, me te hiahia kia mōhio pū ai ēnei hunga i te hōhonutanga o ngā whakaaro me te reo Māori, tā te meakua rongo atu ahau i ētahi kei tērā taha o te Whare e kōrero Māori ana, e whakahua ana i ngā kupu Māori.
Tēnā pea anei te tauira kia whakaatuhia atu ki a rātou te hōhonutanga o tōku reo Māori. Mai i anamata, ka kōrerohia e ōku tūpuna o Ngāpuhi mō te ao i tupu nei rātou, mō te taiao i tupu nei rātou, mō tā rātou tirohanga ki te ao me te whenua ka nohoaia e rātou. Anā, me pēnei te tauira.
"Ka hanga nei i tōku whare: ko Papatūānuku te paparahi, ko ngā maunga ngā poupou, ko Ranginui e titiro iho nei te tuanui". Ka whakarāpopoto ake ahau i tērā whakataukī. Nā e kōrero atu ana te whakataukī mō te nohoanga o Ngāpuhi ki roto o tōna ake whenua, ki roto anō hoki i tōna ake rohe.
Nā ka tae ki te taima o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Mō ngā mema kei tērā taha o te Whare, me kī pēnei au ki te Whare: ki roto i te wāhanga tuarua o te Tiriti o Waitangi, ka kī atu te Tiriti o Waitangi ki ngā rangatira o te whakaminenga te tino rangatiratanga o ō rātou whenua, ō rātou kāinga, ō rātou taonga katoa.
Ka kōrero anō au i tērā kōrero: ka hoatu ki ngā rangatiratanga o te w'akaminenga te tino rangatiratanga o ō rātou whenua, ō rātou kāinga, me ō rātou taonga katoa. Ka taea e tētahi te kī atu, "āe, he pātai kei roto". Engari ko tāku e mea atu ana, ki tā te Māori, horekau he pātai. He mea māmā noa te kite atu i ngā kupu me ngā ngako o aua kupu ki roto i te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Nā ka tae mai ki ngā taima o tōku oranga. Ka kapohia ake e ahau ētahi kōrero mai i tōku iwi, o Ngāti Hine. Anei te kōrero a tōku matua, a Tohe Ashby, tohunga o Ngāti Hine: "Kua roa rawa a Ngāti Hine e whakapaipai ana, e whakarauora ana i ngā mahi taiao ki roto i te rohe. Ko tā mātou mahere tuatahi e pā ana ki te taiao i tukuna ki te tari kāwanatanga i te tau 1990. Koinei te mahere ā-iwi tuatahi i tukuna atu ki te Kāwanatanga. Kei roto i te mahere e kōrero ana i ngā mahi rangatira a Ngāti Hine, me ngā kaupapa i mahia e Ngāti Hine ki te tiaki i te taiao, anā, kia tāmatahia ngā repo o te taiao, anā ki te whakarauora anō hoki i ngā momo taonga pēnei i te kūkupa, pēnei i te tuna.
I tēnei wā, he wāhanga poto ki roto i te reo Pākehā e ai ki a Tohe Ashby.
[Well, greetings to all of us in the House. We have arrived at the third stage of the passage of this bill, and I would like to show this Government the thrust of the issues that our Māori people are shouldering, the opinions of the Māori people that they are carrying about this bill, and I want these people to truly understand the depth of the opinions and of the Māori language, because I have heard some people on that side of the House speaking Māori, and uttering Māori words.
Perhaps this is the example to demonstrate to them the depth of my Māori language. Since former times, my ancestors from Ngāpuhi spoke about the world in which they grew up, the environment within which they grew, and about their perceptions of the world and the land that they lived in. And so, the example should go like this.
"I will build my own house: Papatūānuku is the floor, the mountains are the supporting pillars, the roof is Ranginui that is looking down upon us". I will summarise that proverb. So the proverb speaks about how Ngāpuhi lived on their own land, and in their own region.
And then we get to the time of the Treaty of Waitangi. For the members on that side of the House, I should say to the House: in the second article of the Treaty of Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi guarantees the leaders of the assembly the sovereignty over their lands, their homes, and all of their taonga.
I will repeat that statement: it gives the leaders of the assembly the sovereignty over their lands, their homes, and all of their taonga. Someone can say, "Yes, there are questions in there". But what I am saying is that, according to Māori, there is no question. It is perfectly simple to see the words and the substance of those words in the Treaty of Waitangi.
And then we come to the times of my life. I will grab some of the statements of my people, of Ngāti Hine. This is the statement of my patriarch, of Tohe Ashby, expert of Ngāti Hine: "For a long time, Ngāti Hine has been improving and revitalising the environmental work within the region. Our first plan regarding the environment was submitted to the Government. Within the plan, it speaks about the noble efforts of Ngāti Hine, and the initiatives that were conducted by Ngāti Hine to protect the environment, you see, to restore the wetlands of the environment, and also to revitalise particular kinds of taonga like the wood pigeon, and like the eel."
At this time, a short section in the English language according to Tohe Ashby.]
To be a good kaitiaki is a responsibility not a right. It is a responsibility that we as Ngāti Hine are born with and one where the right answers for the future are the best found by the first understanding and the knowledge and wisdom left to us by our tūpuna.
Anei ngā kōrero a ōku mātua, a ōku tūpuna e pā ana ki te taiao. Ko tāku e mea atu ana ki tēnei Whare, e hoa, ki roto i tēnei pire ka haukoti i te mana i kōrerohia ai e te Tiriti o Waitangi, i mahingia ai e ōku mātua tūpuna ki roto i ngā tau tekau tata kua pahure ake nei, me te whakaaro ake he aha te take e pēnei ana te Kāwanatanga? Ahakoa tā rātou tohetohe ki roto i te Whare e mea nei, "oh, kei konei mātou mō te katoa o Aotearoa", e hoa ki roto i tēnei pire me wā rātou mahi kua kite atu kua kaupare ake i ngā mana tūāhua, anā i te mana o tōku iwi, o te iwi Māori.
Ka tīkina ake e ahau tētahi atu kōrero. E 35 tau ki muri, i tukuna atu e tōku tupuna, e Tā Hēmi Henare, tāna kerēme ki mua i te aroaro o te Taraipiunara. E mea nei te kōrero ko Wai 49. Anā ko te tikanga o tēnei kerēme ki mua i te aroaro o te Taraipiunara kia werohia te Kāwanatanga i taua taima nā te mea i tūkinohia e te Kāwanatanga tōna awa o Taumārere, anā me te wāhi ataahua rawa atu i Pipiri, arā ko te Moana i Pikopiko-i-whiti.
Ā te Pēpuere e tae mai nei, ka haere atu ngā mema katoa o tēnei Whare, anā, ki te Moana i Pikopiko-i-whiti, arā ko te Bay of Islands. Kei reira i hainatia ai te Tiriti o Waitangi, ko taku tono ki tēnei Kāwanatanga, tēnā, haere mai ki runga i a au, ki runga o Waitangi. Ko reira totohe ai tātou i ngā kaupapa ki roto i tēnei pire.
E hoa, tīkina mai te mea hei whakapākehā ake i taku kōrero, whakapākehā ake i taku kōrero.
[These are the statements of my forebears, of my ancestors, regarding the environment. What I am saying to this House, my friend, in this bill the authority that was spoken about in the Treaty of Waitangi is cut off, the efforts of my ancestors over the last 10 years, and the thought occurs why is the Government behaving like this? Despite their contention in the House that says, "Oh, we are here for all of New Zealand", my friend, in this bill and their actions it can be seen that they are averting situational mana—i.e., the mana of my people, the Māori people.
I will take another quote. Thirty-five years ago, my ancestor, Sir James Henare, submitted his claim before the tribunal. It is known as Wai 49. And the purpose of this claim before the tribunal was to challenge the Government of the time because the Government had abused his river, the Taumārere, and that exceptionally beautifully place in Pipiri, i.e., Te Moana i Pikopiko-i-whiti.
In the coming February, all the members of this House will go, you see, to te Moana i Pikopiko-i-whiti, i.e., to the Bay of Islands. That is where the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. My appeal to the Government: come to me and my people, come to Waitangi. There we will debate the topics within this bill.
My friend, grab the device to translate my speech, to translate my speech.]
Simon Court: It's on the screen—I'm reading it.
Hon PEENI HENARE: Āe, ka kite engari kīhai koe i kite; ka rongo engari kīhai koe i rongo. Koinā hoki tāku e mea atu ana me tiki atu te mea ki tō taringa.
Ka kī mai taku tupuna i tūkinohia e te Karauna tōna awa o Taumārere, i tūkinohia e te Karauna tōna moana, te Moana i Pikopiko-i-whiti.
Nā ki roto i ngā tau tekau kua pahure ake nei, i tarai mātou o Ngāti Hine, o te ao Māori, te mahi ngātahi ki te Kāwanatanga kia whakatutukihia ngā kōrero kei roto i te pire i whakamanahia e te Rōpū Reipā i nāini tata ake nei. Anā ko te oranga o te taiao; anā ko Te Mana o te Wai; anā ko ngā mana whakahono ā-iwi. I rongo atu ahau i ngā kōrero a te Minita, kīhai au e whakapono ki wāna kōrero ka whakamanahia aua tūāhuatanga ki roto i ngā mahi kei mua i a tātou.
Kua kōrero mai ōku hoamahi mō te korenga o tētahi matakitetanga mai i tēnei Kāwanatanga ka pēhea ina ka whakakorengia tēnei o ngā pire. Nō reira e te Māngai o te Whare, kua rongo atu ahau i ngā amuamu a wētahi me te hōhā ki tōku reo Māori. E hoa, ka kī atu ahau ki tērā tangata i tupu mai taku reo Māori i tōku whenua. Nō te whenua pū tōku reo Māori. Kia kaua tētahi e haukoti nei i tōku reo Māori ki roto i tēnei whenua, ki runga anō hoki i tēnei o ngā whenua taurikura o te wā kāinga nei.
Koinā te take o tērā o ngā pāti, he kūare. He kūare ki ngā kōrero tuku iho o tēnei whenua, o ōku mātua, o ōku tūpuna. Ko te tono atu ki tērā mema me ngā mema katoa o tērā taha o te Whare, haere mai ki runga i a au, ki runga o Waitangi ki reira kōrero ai tātou i te take. Haere mai ki te hui o Rātana. Kāore e kore ka tae mai. Haere mai, ko reira ka werohia anō e te ao Māori tēnei Kāwanatanga me wā rātou mahi haukoti i te mana motuhake a te Māori.
E tino whakahē nei mātou i tēnei pire. E whakakorengia te pire i pahure ai tō mātou Kāwanatanga. Tirohia ki ngā kupu, e te mema, tirohia ki ngā kupu "mana whakahono", tirohia ki ngā kupu "te oranga o te taiao", tirohia ki ngā kupu "Te Mana o te Wai".
Koinā te mate ki roto i tēnei pire, ka mutu e te Māngai o te Whare, kua tohua nei e tēnei Kāwanatanga tā rātou mahere ki roto i ngā tau e toru kei mua i a tātou. Anā ko tāku e mea atu ana ki tō tātou iwi Māori: kia mataara mai, kia rite mai; he pakanga kei te haere. Kua kite atu i ngā mahi kaupapa here a tēnei Kāwanatanga, me tāku e mea atu ana kei konei mātou te ao Māori e whakakorengia, e tū ana ki runga i tō mātou ake mana motuhake, he mana motuhake nō tua whakarere, ka kore tētahi e haukotingia.
Kīhai au i tautoko i tēnei pire.
[Yes, you see but you do not see; you hear but you do not hear. That is what I am saying, grab the device and put it to your ear.
My ancestor said that the Crown abused his river of Taumārere, and the Crown abused his sea, Te Moana i Pikopiko-i-whiti.
So in the last 10 years, we, Ngāti Hine, and the entire Māori society, attempted to work together with the Government to bring to fruition the statements within the bill that was enacted by the Labour Party recently. That is, the health of the environment; that is, the power of water; that is, the iwi participation arrangements. I heard the statements of the Minister. I do not believe his statements that those features will be enacted in the activities that are before us.
My colleagues have spoken about the lack of a single prediction from this Government about how things will go if this particular bill is repealed. So I have heard the complaints of some and their irritation with my Māori language. My friend, I say to that person that my Māori language grew out of my land. My Māori language is from right in the land. Let no one cut off my Māori language in this land, and also on this prosperous land of this home.
We absolutely oppose this bill. It repeals the bill that our Government passed. To the member, look to the words, look to the words "iwi participation agreement", look to the words "the health of the environment", look to the words "the power of water".
That is the issue of that party—they are ignorant. They are ignorant of the history of this land, of my forebears, of my ancestors. The appeal to that member and all the members on that side of the House is come to me—and my people—come to Waitangi where we will discuss the issue. Come to the meeting at Rātana. There is no doubt that you will come. Welcome, and there this Government will again be challenged by the Māori people, and also their actions to cut off the self-determination of the Māori.
That is the problem with this bill, and furthermore, this Government has signalled their plan for the three years that are before us. And so what I am saying to our Māori people: be vigilant, be ready; a battle is coming. We've seen the policy activities of this Government, and what I am saying is that we are here, Māori society that is being dispensed with. We stand on our special authority, a special authority passed down to us from former times. It will never be cut off.
I do not commend this bill.]
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I am thrilled to be speaking in the third reading of the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill. This bill, in its 1,300 pages, just added to the storm of reform on local government. Local government have lost their democracy in the Resource Management Act reform that the previous Government put forward. We must not waste a moment of time in getting this bill repealed. So with that, I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (TRIAL PERIODS) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I present to the House a legislative statement on the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I move, That the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
The Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill extends the availability of 90-day trials to all employers. It repeals the previous Government's policy of restricting this availability of trial periods to only small businesses. Currently, only employers with fewer than 20 employees can include a trial period of up to 90 days in their employment agreements. By extending the 90-day trial periods to all businesses, this will make a huge difference to the flexibility of the labour market, because large businesses employ around 72 percent of all employees across New Zealand.
The bill is being debated under urgency because in this Government's coalition agreement for the first 100 days we want to restore business optimism, scrutiny, certainty, and confidence before Christmas. This Government has inherited a bleak economic outlook thanks to the previous Government's reckless spending and over-regulation. There is no time to waste in getting labour market settings right to ensure both businesses and workers can keep their heads above water.
The 90-day trial periods were introduced in 2009 for small businesses and were extended to all employers in 2011. Extending the 90-day trials was part of a package of reforms that's intended to reduce costs, support more effective and efficient processes, and improve workplace productivity and flexibility. In 2019, the previous Labour-led Government restricted the availability of trial periods to smaller employers—those with fewer than 20 employees. This Government has heard the message loud and clear from businesses that they want 90-day trials back, and this is a Government that will deliver.
Whether a business has two or 200 employees, bringing on any employee takes time, it takes money, it takes risk, and it's in the best interests of both the employer and the employee to have the right fit in the workplace. Getting the wrong person can have a detrimental impact on a business and the whole culture within a workplace. Employers have consistently highlighted that the costs associated with dismissing an employee and the risk of a personal grievance claim can make them reluctant to hire a new staff member. Apart from the costs of the dismissal process, retaining an employee who is a poor fit for a business can have a detrimental effect on the overall workplace as a whole. It will only take one worker who's got a poor attitude or simply doesn't have the right skills for the job to perform their duties to take down an otherwise very productive team.
The costs and risks associated with this dismissal process could lead to a labour market with fewer employment opportunities, particularly for those people who are doing their best to get a foot in the door. The costly dismissal processes can also make workplaces less productive. When businesses can only employ a certain number of people at a time because they are resource-constrained, having a worker who is a poor match for the job can mean that more suitable job candidates end up missing out when they could have been in the best interest of that company.
I have heard from businesses time and time again that expanding the availability of the 90-day trials would be one of their top priorities when it comes to lifting unnecessary regulations that they face every day.
This bill will help farmers. Unlike most businesses, farmers don't just offer prospective employees a job but they ask them to live on the property, because it's common for farmers to provide on-farm accommodation as part of their employment.
Retailers have said that the 90-day trial has meant that employers have to be prepared to take a risk to bring on new staff members who may not be the best fit, and we need people who are given the opportunity to prove themselves—people who have a chequered employment history or a criminal background may not be given the opportunity because they don't have that ability for their business owners to take a chance. BusinessNZ identified that reinstating the 90-day trials was an election priority, and the Employment and Manufacturers Association did as well.
This bill is intended to encourage employers to take on new staff by reducing risk in their hiring process. It's particularly the case when employers are considering employing someone who doesn't tick all the boxes. They might not have the right skills, they might not have the right experience, but they might have the right attitude, and this is a Government that says we should give them a go.
Workers who are just starting out in their career and they've had a break from working or they're looking for a change will benefit from this bill. Workers that might be considered risky will benefit from this bill.
Starting a business is incredibly brave. Taking on employees is incredibly brave. This bill will provide more flexibility in the labour market, which is good for both employers and employees. I commend this bill to the House.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Wow! Here we are, under urgency, with another week of this Government taking New Zealand backwards, and another bill attacking working people. I note the Minister can't even speak for her full allocated time, even though we are in urgency and there's no select committee process, and I have sympathy for the Minister because there is absolutely nothing to back up this policy that she is putting though to extend trial periods. Her own officials, in the regulatory impact statement (RIS)—and I do commend the officials for actually producing one in relation to this bill—say, "What shall we do? Should we extend this? No. We should stick with the status quo." That's what it says in the RIS produced by the Minister's own officials.
So what could the possible reason be for doing this and for extending this policy? Is there evidence that it actually does increase hiring? Is there evidence that it makes it easier for people to actually get work or hire people? No. The evidence says exactly the opposite, and this isn't my evidence. This isn't trade union evidence. This is evidence commissioned by Treasury. Treasury says that it doesn't make a difference, so why are we doing this? The only thing I can come up with is that this Government hates working people; you hate working people.
This is the second bill in two weeks to go under urgency that makes absolutely no difference in benefits to working people. It may have some benefits in the sense of employers not wanting to go through fair processes to actually dismiss employees, which is totally available under New Zealand law. If you have an issue with performance or if you have an issue with conduct, you can go through a fair process and that employee can be dismissed in New Zealand. That can already happen.
So I was interested to read on the cover of The Post this week that the Minister of Finance said that she believes in leadership and that it's important to take New Zealanders with her, and I ask this Government: which New Zealanders are they taking with them? Not working people, for sure. The first thing they did through urgency was change the Reserve Bank mandate to take the importance off jobs. The next thing they did was repeal fair pay agreements—attacking wages of working people, and conditions. Another thing that they did in their second week in Government: attacking jobs again. This Government is not the Government for working people. It is taking their rights away with every single breath it takes for absolutely no benefit to the economy.
If you look at this research conducted and commissioned by the Treasury, you will see that there is absolutely no benefit, on a macro scale, of this policy to the economy. It doesn't increase hiring, it doesn't increase the number of people that are taken on, and it doesn't make things better for people who are vulnerable. The only thing it does is increase the likelihood of injustice for people who are engaged in work to be dismissed unfairly.
It is a shame and a travesty on this Government that they would, under urgency, decide to bring through a bill to this Parliament that doesn't help employers—it doesn't—and it doesn't help people that are looking for work. It just extends a policy which is shown in evidence not to work.
We've heard again and again that this Government, for some reason, doesn't need to have evidence or arguments to back up this policy, and we've seen the Minister not able to articulate that over her full call, because there just isn't anything to back that up. I would say to the members opposite that electoral mandates do not excuse bad lawmaking. Electoral mandates do not excuse bad lawmaking, and this is bad lawmaking. There is no select committee process. There is no ability for New Zealanders, who have strong feelings about trial periods, to be able to submit to the select committee process and tell you that impact that it would have on their lives.
Actually, I won't have time to go through it in the first reading, but I have got examples that have been proactively sent to me by members of the public wanting to make a submission on this piece of legislation and not being able to. I've examples of people emailing me and saying, "When will the select committee process be, Camilla?", and I have had to say to them, "Unfortunately, the Government that has been elected has decided that they do not want to hear from you. Your views that you would normally be able to expect in a normal select committee process are not valid." I think this Government should be ashamed of that because this is a ridiculous, pointless piece of legislation that just makes it more unfair for people.
As we have seen, and as the Minister went through, it was brought in in 2009, when it was 20 employees; in 2011, it was all employees; in 2019, it was back to 20; and in 2023, it is back to all employees. There is no clarity and no purpose for this bad law, and I do not commend it to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
House resumed.
SPEAKER'S RULINGS
Oral Questions—Question No. 2, 19 December 2023
SPEAKER: Members, I've reviewed the exchange that occurred during question No. 2 yesterday, and the allegation that family members were brought into debate. At one point during the question, I said "All I'm saying is that it has been a fairly longstanding convention in this House not to bring family members into the debate." I think most members would agree with that. On review of the footage and reading the Hansard, it's clear to me that family came into the debate by way of an answer. I've looked at all the supplementary questions that were asked of the Prime Minister and, despite points of order to the contrary, they were all in order. I would note that the answer to the primary question did open things up to a much more political exchange. Any suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition brought family into the debate is wrong. It was done only by way of answer.
I unreservedly apologise to the Leader of the Opposition, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, for any implication to the contrary from my intervention quoted above. I will be more vigilant in the future.
Urgent Debates—Applications Submitted during Urgency
SPEAKER: I've had a request for an urgent debate from the Hon Grant Robertson seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the Government's mini-Budget. It's not generally possible to hold an urgent debate during urgency. That is because an urgent matter is part of general business held at the start of a sitting day—Standing Order 66(1). Until urgency ends and the House adjourns, it's considered to be a continuous sitting day. We won't have any more general business until we have a new sitting day. Therefore, there is no opportunity to consider an application for an urgent debate at present. The only way to hold an urgent debate would be for the member to seek leave of the House.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Point of order. I seek leave of the House for an urgent debate to be held on the Government's mini-Budget immediately following question time, using the allocation of calls normally allocated for an urgent debate.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?
Hon Members: Yes.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I'm on my feet, though.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, it's a point—
SPEAKER: No. When I'm on my feet, you can't do anything. I'm in total control here. Have a seat. Take a seat. [Rt Hon Winston Peters sits down] Right—I'll sit down.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): These are early days, Mr Speaker. You're quite right, but, logically, if you didn't sit down, I couldn't have my point of order. My point of order is very simple, and I couldn't hear very clearly, but I thought I heard some people from the Labour Party saying no as well.
SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. It's not at all helpful to the order of the House.
Hon Grant Robertson: It's also not true.
SPEAKER: Whether or not it's true is something that the House itself will determine, but I would very much doubt that it is the case.
PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, there is a paper for presentation.
CLERK: Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2023.
SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House.
ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Question No. 1—Health
1. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement on the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, "My dream is to devolve decision making and funding and give to mana motuhake, as close to the home and hapū as possible"; if so, what structure and funding models will he use to achieve it?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes, I stand by my statement. The dream is to lift mostly every health metric for Māori. I'm still working with my officials on how this will look and am excited to work collaboratively with our coalition partners to ensure that we achieve better health outcomes for all New Zealanders. That is because there is one thing we can all agree on: New Zealanders are suffering from six years of broken promises and misguidance from the previous Labour Government. The latest clinical performance metrics, released yesterday, show that Māori and all New Zealanders are suffering, with longer wait times in the emergency department, for their specialist assessment, amongst many other issues. We believe the devolution of decision making and funding to those on the front lines will help drive better health outcomes and that the hapū probably know what's best for their communities.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What assurances can he give, if any, that the Māori health commissioning budget for Te Aka Whai Ora will stay ring-fenced for Māori health providers at the same level of funding currently in place?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The leader has already given indications that funding that is appropriated for Māori health will remain with Māori health.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will he ensure that the recommendations of the Wai 2575 Māori health claim are implemented in the new Māori health structure and investment model?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We seek to improve Māori health outcomes—which is also the endeavour of the Wai claim—and we have every intention of doing that.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What will now be the monitoring mechanism to ensure accountability for Māori health outcomes as achieved by Te Whatu Ora?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We could contend whether that was truly achieved by Te Aka Whai Ora, but we are working through structural mechanisms to make sure that there is monitoring in place for Māori health outcomes.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What specific decisions has the Government made on baseline funding, delegations, and the role of iwi Māori partnership boards under the new system?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We're working through appropriate structures and delegations for how we can improve Māori health outcomes.
Question No. 2—Finance
2. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What does the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update say about the state of the New Zealand economy, and what steps is the Government taking to respond?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Our Government has inherited challenging economic and fiscal conditions. Inflation and interest rates remain high, the economy is contracting, and unemployment is beginning to rise. The forecast, or so-called surplus, in 2026-27 has been eroded to a wafer-thin $140 million. Treasury has identified $7.2 billion of fiscal cliffs, although we expect that figure to grow in the coming weeks and months. In response to the cost of living crisis, Kiwis have tightened their belts. Today, the Government tightens ours. My message to Kiwis is that after six years of economic mismanagement, our Government is presenting a new chapter.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, and on a number of occasions last week, you warned Ministers about using Government questions to make commentary or to attack the Opposition. Now, particularly in light of the Opposition being unable to debate this today because the Government declined leave, I think we should be particularly vigilant about that with this question.
SPEAKER: Question time is a time for the Government to be accountable for itself, and answers should not refer to what are perceived political failings of any other parties in the House.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, this is meant to be a debating chamber, where the issues of the day should be discussed and argued, not some antiseptic Chrysler ad. It is about real issues—in this case, who's responsible for them—and to think that an Opposition, who arrived there only a few weeks ago and who were in control, don't want to have their record examined belies democracy and question time itself.
Hon Grant Robertson: We can't have a debate—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, you can have a debate on those matters, and we knew you were never going to get an urgent debate—we knew you'd try—because inexperience is what you were famous for. But the fact is that this matter will be discussed next year as well.
SPEAKER: So I am bound by Speakers' ruling 181/3. I am simply saying that there are lots of ways you can say things without it being an open attack.
Nancy Lu: What economic challenges are outlined in the half-year update?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As high interest rates bite, the economy is set to stall and unemployment is set to rise. Inflation is expected to finally come back into the target range in the second half of next year but will remain a challenge in coming months. That's why our Government is moving quickly to get inflation back under control, by getting Government spending under control with a programme of fiscal sustainability and unshackling businesses from the red tape that has been slowing them down. There is much more to do on rebuilding New Zealand's economic engine, but today's announcements are a good start.
Nancy Lu: What fiscal challenges are presented in the half-year update?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Government spending this year is around $15 billion higher than forecast just two years ago. That's the product of loose fiscal policy, with spending vastly outstripping any growth in revenue. The results of this, if left unchecked, are more debt, more inflation, and a delayed return to surplus. Looking forward to next year, the Government faces at least $7.2 billion of fiscal cliffs, with funding for a number of initiatives set to expire. That is why we are kicking off a fiscal sustainability programme to ensure New Zealanders can have confidence that their money is being spent responsibly and so that we can deliver effective and efficient services for them to rely on.
Nancy Lu: What savings have been finalised by the Government to date?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Since being sworn in just a couple of weeks ago, the Government has finalised $7.5 billion worth of savings and revenue initiatives, which were announced earlier today. Those savings reflect a series of decisions made by Cabinet to stop work on broken programmes like light rail and Lake Onslow but also to lock in the reprioritisations required to deliver tax relief next year. After years of watching Government grow and grow and grow, with little positive impact for real people, our Government is reining in wasteful spending so New Zealanders can keep more of what they earn.
Nancy Lu: What future steps is the Government taking to restore fiscal discipline?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Fiscal sustainability isn't a one-off exercise; it's about delivering a long-term culture of discipline and responsibility. That's why we are setting out more savings to be delivered heading into the Budget next year, with an initial baseline exercise delivering an annual savings of $1.5 billion and further work on new revenue measures and other efficiencies from Government programmes. In 2017, the outgoing Government inherited much better conditions than we are facing. Today, we face high inflation, high interest rates, large deficits, a recessionary economy, and rising unemployment. This is the result of poor economic management, and it's why we are so committed to getting the books back on track.
Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that in the half-year economic update, unemployment is projected to peak at 5.2 percent—lower than had been projected at the pre-election fiscal update?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member is correct. However, unemployment is rising from where it is today, according to these forecasts, and I am conscious—and I hope the member is conscious—that that percentage represents real people who, due to the state of our economy, are set to not have jobs. That is of concern to me.
Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that the Treasury, on page 6 of the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, have indicated that issues such as tax revenue declining represents a risk to whether or not the Government's decisions will be fiscally neutral, and, in fact, this means New Zealanders may see a worse economic outlook as a result of her tax cuts?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member can be assured that Treasury knows the greatest risk to the Government's book is a big-spending, ineffective Government, and that chapter has closed. That is why the Treasury, on page 6, state that it is anticipated that under this new coalition Government, "once combined with the other signalled commitments in the Mini Budget"—i.e., our tax plans—"[that are] expected to be agreed in the future, the overall impact would be broadly neutral over the forecast period."
Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that the paragraph after the one she just read out said that "Once the Mini Budget decisions and other commitments are reflected into the forecasts, there will be changes in the composition of some key indicators … there is a risk that once decisions are fully reflected into the economic and fiscal forecasts, the overall fiscal impacts may not be neutral"?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That is why we are working to ensure that our tax package is neutral, and I do have to say that being lectured by someone who broke every spending limit they ever set themselves—I can't really take it that seriously. Given the state that member left the Government books in, he should stop lecturing about fiscal responsibility. Not only will we spend better but New Zealanders will have more money in their bank accounts, and we'll be proud to deliver.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether she's concerned about the potential serious underlying unemployment as a result of the colossal figure of 128,000 immigrants being brought into this country at the end of October this year by the Labour Government?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have two concerns. The first concern is that after a period of extremely restrictive immigration settings, the Government then moved so swiftly to reopen immigration settings that it has failed to put in place adequate controls, and we've seen that with the evidence of migrant exploitation and we are seeing that we are currently experiencing levels of immigration that are unsustainable. That is why the Minister of Immigration is looking very carefully at the ill-disciplined systems that were left to her by the outgoing Minister. I also have another concern—if you'll let me, Mr Speaker—and that is that the previous Government allowed the jobseeker numbers to grow so significantly, even during a period of low unemployment, and our Government is committed to getting more people from welfare into work.
Question No. 3—Prime Minister
3. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): In the context in which they were made, and within the facts known at the time, most definitely yes.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that he is not hung up on the use of the name "Kāinga Ora", or does he agree with the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement that says, "All public service departments have their primary name in English except for those specifically related to Māori."?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On this side of the House, we don't have hang-ups—that's number one. The second thing is we admit the majesty of the Māori New Zealand language, and it's an intellectual muscle-builder for a young person and we've encouraged it from the time we arrived in Parliament, some of us. But that said, community housing, or housing the community, has become not that; it's become some woke virtue-signalling thing where people don't get housed, and where housing displacement—or people waiting for houses—went up by a massive 33 percent. So we want delivery on policy, not virtue signalling any longer.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Chris Bishop that "Kāinga Ora is known as 'Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities', I don't know a single person who calls it 'Homes and Communities'", and is that within the spirit of the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement that all Public Service departments have their primary name in English except for those specifically related to Māori?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, Mr Bishop was saying something terribly honest, and everybody understands it, and everybody can sympathise with it because the essence of all communications is understanding and comprehension, excepting over there [points to Opposition benches]. They'd rather virtue signal so that most people don't know. I can tell you now that when it comes to Waka Kotahi, or Kāinga Ora for that matter, people are concerned about getting a safe, affordable house. They want to get roads that are tarsealed and potholes that are fixed up, not some virtue-signalling thing which has certain people over there thinking that that's what people want for public policy. Ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders can expect something better.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Winston Peters, "The announcement today that New Zealanders will now have a direct pathway to citizenship in Australia is a monumental success that should be celebrated and congratulated", or does he agree with David Seymour, "Actually, we just got played by the Aussies. They've done a raid on New Zealand talent"?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have to say that—not by any sense of bias—I prefer the first comment, because every now and again, even a fool can get it right. Mr Hipkins went over there and spoke to "Albo"—Mr Hipkins went over to there and saw "Albo" and "Albo" saw the reasonableness of our complaint. And it arose yesterday, when it came out that someone who left this country at two years of age was sent back here as a 501—that's wrong. But in the big picture, Mr Seymour was right when he said this, because he could have expected two Labour Ministers across the Tasman to have got so much more.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Government still intend to raise $170 million for its tax cuts by taxing offshore gambling, or does he agree with the 2023 New Zealand First manifesto that that's just not credible?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The purpose of good governance—and Ministers over here understand that—is to ask good questions and keep on asking good questions and get the right answer. That manifesto was setting out some very good questions—I'm still waiting for the answer—and I admit the possibility—[Interruption] No, no, because we've been in business and know how business works, we don't act like that—laugh and scoff and jeer. They couldn't run a school tuck shop. In our case, we ask good questions and we're still waiting for the answer.
Tama Potaka: In relation to Kāinga Ora, is the Acting Prime Minister aware that the number of families on the social housing wait-list went from 5,000 to over 25,000 under the recent Labour leadership?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I say to the Minister of Māori Affairs, I'm dreadfully saddened to have to confirm that, but that is what happens, and it shows you the difference between a once-great party that came into this country way back in the 1930s and started building houses because they had practical people in Parliament who knew what poverty tasted and felt like, coming out of the Depression. Yet this modern version has come in with these virtue-signalling policies and done the very worst for Māori, and they stand there and claim to be the paramount voice for Māori today.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with that noted economic commentator Winston Peters that the National Government's tax plan, "they're going to make all this money, but every front-line economist has said, 'Hang on, you've got a hole of $500 million a year.' That's a hole of $2.1 billion over four years. How can you pay for your tax cuts?"?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The marvellous thing about consultative politics is that you learn things and, when you've had that discussion, you find a solution—and the Minister of Finance has already found it.
Hon Grant Robertson: What's that? Smoking?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No—no. Now, see, if he wants to talk about smoking and the Māori voice, they have taken from Māori and Pasifika in the last 12 years—[Interruption] Listen up. No, no, no. Can I just say, I know what my—
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What did your iwi say?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Excuse me, don't tell me about my iwi; I started it. The Ngātiwai Land Retention Committee—[Interruption]. Listen up, you—the Ngātiwai Land Retention Committee was started by a guy called Winston Peters in 1974-75. Right here, right now, you're looking at the founder. So don't preach to me about that. Now, if you want to talk about Māori and smoking—[Interruption]. No, no—I know that you've got no familiarity with the marae, but shouting won't help you. I've got the microphone and I've got plenty patience, OK? I haven't finished yet.
SPEAKER: You may not think you've finished, but I do. And I don't mean that in terms of your career.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you very much. Can I carry on now?
SPEAKER: No.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Point of order. With respect, Mr Speaker, they were saying something coarse. And everybody's entitled to interject now and again, but a screaming, volatile mass like we heard over there is not what Parliament looks like. I respect their right to interject—I think it's exciting and it makes exhilarating these debates—but that sort of clownish, cacophonic behaviour doesn't work.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with Winston Peters, "Sadly, the spokesperson for the National Party said, 'If I don't give you a tax cut, I'm going to resign'. Wow—could be a chance to have a decent Minister of Finance with a bit of experience."?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: But the member of Parliament and now finance Minister said that, is giving us a tax cut—get used to it.
Question No. 4—Finance
4. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by the principle in the Government's coalition agreements that "decisions will be based on data and evidence", including for economic and fiscal policy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes.
Hon James Shaw: Has she seen any data or evidence that shows that increasing bus fares for the lowest earning New Zealanders will cut their living costs?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am aware of evidence that shows that the biggest barrier to people choosing public transport is the reliability and frequency of public transport. Therefore, ours is a Government that will continue to invest in public transport infrastructure to ensure public transport is reliable and available.
Hon James Shaw: Has she seen any data or evidence that shows that increasing bus fares for the lowest earning New Zealanders will cut their living costs?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have seen evidence that the living costs of lower income New Zealanders are based on a range of things. This includes their incomes and whether they are growing and how highly taxed those incomes are. This is why our Government is committed to lower taxes for middle and lower income New Zealanders. Their living costs are also affected by the inflation rate, which has been allowed to be out of control for the last 2½ years, which is why our commitment to fiscal discipline will aid in bringing inflation under control. Their living costs are affected by a range of factors, and our Government is committed to reducing their cost of living.
Hon James Shaw: What data and evidence has she seen about children's ability to learn the basics brilliantly if they are hungry because the school lunch programme has been cut?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, obviously I'm not the Minister of Education, but I understand that the evidence to suggest that the school lunch programme has in any way increased literacy or numeracy achievement is extremely limited indeed.
Hon James Shaw: What data and evidence has she seen that shows that renters can expect to see their rents decrease as a result of the changes to the brightline test?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is demonstrably evident that if the costs we place on landlords are reduced, then they will have fewer costs that they need to meet through the rents that they charge.
Question No. 5—Finance
5. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all of the fiscal and economic commitments made in the coalition agreements signed by National, New Zealand First, and ACT?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, subject to final consideration and decision making by Cabinet.
Hon Grant Robertson: How, specifically, will the tax cut programme in the coalition agreements be funded?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The tax relief that our Government will deliver next year will be funded through a range of savings, reprioritisations, and new revenue measures. We announced a down payment, today, of $7.5 billion worth of savings we have already booked. The next step is a baseline savings exercise to reduce the back-office and consultancy spending of Government departments, and to drive more efficiency from Government programmes. We're also initiating full cost recovery for immigration levies, enhancing the audit capabilities of IRD, and taxing online casinos.
Hon Grant Robertson: Is it correct that the funding arrangements for tax cuts were not in the mini-Budget as Nicola Willis promised throughout the election campaign?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is correct that the mini-Budget contained $7.5 billion worth of savings, as well as concrete actions to deliver the next range of savings that will support tax relief. It's also clear that under the former Minister's watch—
Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, right. We're moving into something you're not responsible for.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —we had spending go up, up, up; tax go up, up, up; and very little delivered.
Hon Grant Robertson: Can, then, the Minister confirm that landlords and speculators can confirm that they have a tax cut, but New Zealanders, who she promised income tax cuts to, are none the wiser today about how they'll be paid for, what they'll be, or even when they'll get them?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I disagree with a number of characterisations in the member's question. But New Zealanders should listen up: at this mini-Budget, we are bringing not just economic responsibility back, but we are giving them the guarantee that next year they will get income tax relief.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that she's part of a coalition Government where all three parties are wholly committed to delivering the levels of tax relief to the people promised it, in the time frame it was promised by her all along; however, the Government is also taking advice on how to more effectively and efficiently do so, and that taking advice and considering different perspectives is a strength, not a weakness?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That's right. And I would put to the member: a way of summarising that is what New Zealanders care about is the size of the sausage, not how it's delivered. And how we will deliver it—[Interruption] It's been a year of bad quotes from me.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Talking about a right sausage, did she hear Mr Robertson's interjection when he shouted out, "You're not responsible for it"; and can she confirm that she's not responsible for his messes, and isn't she grateful for that?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: With respect to the House, I think, enough talk of messes, sausages, and holes.
Question No. 6—Health
6. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he received on the performance of the health system?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): The latest clinical performance metrics report released by Health New Zealand yesterday shows the amount of people waiting more than four months for a first specialist assessment, nationally, has grown enormously from 35,863 in September 2022 to 59,817 in September 2023. That is a 66.79 percent increase in just 12 months. Meanwhile, emergency department (ED) wait times have also deteriorated with only 67.6 percent of those presenting to ED being seen in under six hours. We will work with the sector to improve this.
Dr Carlos Cheung: What steps is the Minister taking to tackle the ongoing challenges around the 2020 health reforms?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Yesterday I announced my plans to appoint a Crown observer to Health New Zealand. This was a carefully considered decision but is necessary to work with the sector to reset a clear focus on health outcomes and to improve our health system. We will be a Government of outcomes and tackle the ongoing challenges left over from Labour's 2022 reforms.
Dr Carlos Cheung: What action will this Government take to improve the health outcome for all New Zealanders?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This Government will take many actions to improve health outcomes for all New Zealanders. The 2022 health reforms were proclaimed by previous Ministers as providing better health results, but all that they achieved was more money spent and more bureaucracy while delivering longer waiting times, dire workforce shortages, and worse outcomes for all. That is why, amongst other things, we will be setting clear health targets in the new year.
Dr Carlos Cheung: What benefits will the introduction of health targets have for New Zealanders?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As we have seen through the clinical performance metrics and many other measures, the past six years have caused an obvious deterioration in our healthcare system, despite the hard work of the board and our health workforce. The introduction of clear targets will help change that. We will deliver better health outcomes for all New Zealanders; put simply, we agree with clinicians that health targets save lives.
SPEAKER: Yes, OK, that's great, but don't use question time to attack previous Governments—pretty simple.
Question No. 7—Immigration
7. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister of Immigration: What is the Government doing to enable people living in New Zealand to bring family members here from Gaza?
SPEAKER: I've been advised that this answer might be a little longer. It is an important matter, so please proceed.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): New Zealand is deeply distressed by the escalating crisis and loss of life in Gaza. In my capacity as immigration Minister, I can confirm that we are continuing to monitor the situation closely, along with our partners. I have been advised that the steps Immigration New Zealand has taken related to the Gaza conflict are to centralise applications into one office, prioritise those visa applications, and provide case by case support to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for New Zealand citizens and residents attempting to leave Gaza and travel to New Zealand. In addition, I have been assured by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that all New Zealand citizens and permanent residents who wanted to leave Gaza have now left, and this was a priority for the new Government.
Golriz Ghahraman: Will the Minister create a special visa category for Palestinians with family members in Gaza, as was made available to Ukrainian New Zealanders in 2022?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Our current response of prioritising visa applications from people affected by the conflict is in line with our international partners, but I can assure the member that we will continue to monitor the situation very closely.
Golriz Ghahraman: What makes the situation in Gaza different from the situation in Ukraine, given that the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is actually far worse, having claimed the lives of at least 20,000 civilians—more than 7,000 children—in the past nine weeks?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I am advised by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that Ukraine was a different situation in that we were unable to, in that situation, work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to take refugees. However, I want to also reiterate that at that time we were working in accordance with our international partners in a global, coordinated situation to take people from Ukraine. In this situation, I am confident that we are processing visas with priority, we are escalating them where required, and we have a team set up, as I said, to make sure that that's happening. I can also assure the member that we are using the exception to instructions process and being very permissive where we can. I'd also like to let the member know that there have only been a very small handful of applications, but all the steps that I mentioned just previously are being taken with those applications.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Is the Minister aware that the Immigration New Zealand website currently provides no practical evidence or support to people seeking to bring their family members to New Zealand from Gaza, and, if so, will she direct Immigration New Zealand to rectify this?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I asked my officials this morning if there was some information online about this process and they assured me that there was, but I will go back to them and make sure that it is more easily able to be found, and I'm happy to also work with the member from the Greens if you'd like a briefing on this with me and my officials.
Ricardo Menéndez March: What is the average processing time for family members of people living in Gaza, and how does this compare with other family members who are trying to bring their families to Aotearoa?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I asked that question of immigration officials this morning. It's very difficult to know, because at the moment the number of applications that we've had are only divisible by offshore and onshore. So of those offshore, at this point in time, I am unable to tell how many of those people are actually in Gaza. On top of that, I've asked for further information to find out how many there are in Gaza. I wasn't able to find out in the time allocated, but what we will do from here is find out how many are actually in Gaza and then what visa type they're trying to come in on, because it matters. It makes quite a big difference in terms of the visa that they're applying for. If it's a visitor visa, it's usually more quick. If it's a resident visa, it can take a little bit longer. But I am going to find out that information as quickly as we possibly can, but we do have to go through every single application and look individually as to where they are, if they've given us that information.
Question No. 8—Transport
8. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Transport: What reports has he seen on State Highway 25A in the Coromandel?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): This morning, State Highway 25A reopened in time for Christmas after the completion of a new bridge following the significant damage caused by weather events earlier this year. This critical route was seriously damaged between Kōpū and Hikuai, but after impressive and hard work by the many construction workers on site, the bridge has reopened in record time.
Hon Scott Simpson: What will the reopening mean for locals and businesses and residents?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: With the busy summer holiday period upon us, today's reopening will provide much-needed benefits for local businesses and residents in the Coromandel. Summer is a critical time for the Coromandel, and the reopening of State Highway 25A will welcome visitors back and provide a much-needed boost to the local economy. The hard-working MP for the Coromandel has strongly advocated for the reopening of this critical route, and today's reopening brings certainty for his constituents and for mine.
SPEAKER: That's absolutely enough. If I was strict, I'd say that Minister had no responsibility for the Coromandel economy, so just keep it tight.
Hon Scott Simpson: Is this project an example of how the New Zealand Transport Agency and contractors can work to get things done more quickly in other parts of New Zealand?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: State Highway 25A in the Coromandel demonstrates that New Zealand has the capacity and ability to deliver infrastructure at speed and within budget. The hard work of contractors and the reduction in red tape meant that this bridge could be opened in time for Christmas. The Government is committed to addressing the lengthy and expensive Resource Management Act process, fast-tracking consents to make it easier to deliver the infrastructure New Zealand needs.
Hon Scott Simpson: In his capacity as Minister of Transport, what Christmas message does the Minister have for the Coromandel, their locals, and the tens of thousands of people who will want to enjoy visiting the Coromandel this coming summer?
SPEAKER: Keep it tight.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, a very merry Christmas to everyone travelling across State Highway 25A and the Coromandel. May they enjoy the beautiful road and the beautiful beaches of the Coromandel.
Tangi Utikere: Does the Minister accept that the State Highway 25A project was announced by the previous Government on 9 May 2023, began construction in June 2023, and came in under budget more than three months ahead of schedule, and has absolutely nothing to do with any actions taken by the present Government other than to simply cut the ribbon?
SPEAKER: You know that the use of questions probably does cut both ways. So I'm doing my best to make sure that the former Government doesn't get too criticised. But the former Government should try not to use question time for that political purpose. It was skilfully done, I'll grant you.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: As the saying goes: "Success has many fathers." But those who deserve the credit for this impressive work for State Highway 25A are the project teams, construction workers who worked hard days, day and night, to get this new bridge. I want to thank the project team and wish all the construction workers a very merry Christmas.
Hon Chris Bishop: Is the Minister aware of previous examples of Ministers cutting ribbons on projects that may have started life under a previous Government, including projects that former political parties may have opposed before they were constructed?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: I am, indeed. In fact, I remember a certain member of Parliament for Remutaka complaining about the so-called "holiday highway" before turning up to cut the ribbon. I'm very pleased for the member of Coromandel for the hard work he's put into this.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Minister—[Interruption]—
SPEAKER: Just wait for a bit of quiet.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Minister, that when, on 14 October, it was known there was going to be a new Government, work expedited, and this is not the fastest project this new Government has delivered?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: That is something which I'd love to say is correct, but I must reiterate my points: I thank all the contractors and construction workers for this project.
Question No. 9—Environment
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Does she stand by her—
SPEAKER: Sorry—could you start again? We've just got too much talk over here. Please start again.
9. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her answer given to primary oral question No. 11 yesterday; if so, which of the objectives of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 would she prioritise above the health and wellbeing of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Yes, I do stand by my statement. We do not agree with the hierarchy of objectives, and that is why we have undertaken to replace the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Freshwater Management 2020 to ensure more balanced, enduring, and sustainable outcomes. We have been clear that we will undertake a full and robust consultation process to replace the national policy statement and rebalance Te Mana o te Wai. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to give priorities when we will be entering a full consultation round.
Hon Rachel Brooking: So can the Minister therefore confirm that she would not prioritise the objective of health needs of people over the commercial use of water?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We have indicated that we would be looking for a balanced approach that would be more enduring and more sustainable, and therefore that consultation process will be with all stakeholders to ascertain all interests in fresh water.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Given her statement yesterday that she intends to customise and to have nuanced processes in place that ensure that at a community level they can be making decisions that are appropriate for that community, is she proposing to abandon national environmental standards entirely or will she retain freshwater bottom line standards?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We are very clear on this side that people on the ground are the ones that know solutions, and we've got some wonderful examples of that with catchment groups, and so therefore we will be ensuring that our consultation is to that level of people on the ground who have the solutions who can then bring that into the new NPS.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Point of order. That question was specifically about national environmental standards, and the answer related to the national policy statement.
SPEAKER: The second part of it asked if she was going to drop some of those. The member knows that you can't ask a "yes or no answer" question.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Will she commit to ensure that it remains the case that tangata whenua are actively involved in freshwater management, including decision-making processes, and Māori freshwater values are identified and provided for?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Absolutely. We are committed to a full consultation process including iwi and various other groups that have an interest in fresh water.
Question No. 10—Rural Communities
10. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Minister for Rural Communities: What recent reports has he seen regarding rural communities?
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): I have seen a report—the extreme weather insights and observations 2023 report from the Ombudsman. I welcome this report but am sobered by its contents. This report writs large the necessity for improvements in rural infrastructure, transport links, and telecommunication. It highlights the plight of those in more isolated communities who felt they were ignored and abandoned by Government agencies and emergency response in favour of those places more, I quote, "in the news". This reflects my own observations on the ground during my recent ministerial visit to Tai Rāwhiti. Rural roading was in a dire and often dangerous state. Locals, while stoic, were clearly stressed and anxious. This Government is committed to funding the recovery and not forgetting the plight of those in the Tai Rāwhiti and other cyclone-affected areas. I thank the Prime Minister; the Minister of Transport, Simeon Brown; and the Minister of cyclone recovery, Mark Mitchell, for also visiting these areas. This is a Government that has put cyclone recovery at point 6 and point 7 in our 100-day plan. It is a strong signal to those communities that we will not abandon them.
SPEAKER: Hon Mark Patterson, that was a very long answer.
Hon MARK PATTERSON: It was a good one, though.
SPEAKER: Well, not necessarily. There was a bit of superfluous stuff in there. You could do better.
Jamie Arbuckle: Has he seen reports on the increase in confidence that rural communities have in this Government's policies?
Hon MARK PATTERSON: I have seen another report, and rural communities have every confidence in this Government. The proof of the pudding was in the fourth-quarter Rabobank Rural Confidence survey. Of course, farmers are a key driver in rural prosperity and, indeed, the prospects of all New Zealand, accounting for 82 percent of all of our merchandise exports. Their net confidence has leapt 25 percent, and I quote from the report—
Hon Shane Jones: Tell us more!
Hon MARK PATTERSON: I will tell you more. A direct quote from the report: "Government policy emerged as a major contributor to higher overall farmer confidence." Farmers are now more confident they have a Government that understands them and has a policy platform to address their issues.
Ingrid Leary: Given his confidence in this Government, does he agree with the letter written by MP Mark Patterson, dated 7 December 2023, supporting my letter to the Minister of Education on 1 December 2023, requesting core funding of $90,000 per annum for the Tokomairiro Forestry Pathways course be provided by the Ministry of Education for the next three years, and, if so, will he commit to working with that Minister to ensure funding is forthcoming?
Hon MARK PATTERSON: I've already committed within that letter to taking exactly that course of action.
Jamie Arbuckle: What Government policies can rural communities look forward to?
Hon MARK PATTERSON: Well, there are too many to list, but of course the highlight for us on this side of the House is the $1.2 billion for regional infrastructure overseen by my colleague the Hon Shane Jones, and that will go some way to addressing the Ombudsman's concerns, as outlined in his report. The fast-tracking Resource Management Act provisions will unlock regional economies and make it easier to build renewable energy projects and get access to extracting natural resources, which will turbocharge our rural economies.
Question No. 11—Education
11. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Education: Has she seen any reports on student attendance?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I have. Today, the Ministry of Education released the term 3 attendance data—on schedule. This data shows that our attendance rates remain low, with just 45.9 percent of students attending school regularly. The data also revealed that there has been zero improvement in regular attendance rates from term 3 last year when regular attendance was 46 percent, a figure which I find incredibly disappointing.
Ryan Hamilton: Why is regular attendance important?
ERICA STANFORD: In short, a wise man once said, "To succeed in education, you need to show up. Attendance and achievement go hand in hand.", and missing school leads to lower achievement. Regular school attendance is also connected to current and future outcomes like student wellbeing, future employment, and income levels. We have a moral, social, and economic imperative to deliver better results than were achieved over the last six years.
Ryan Hamilton: Has she seen any other reports on attendance?
ERICA STANFORD: Yes, I have. A report by the Education Review Office shows only 41 percent of parents are comfortable with their child missing a week or more of school a term. This equates to missing a year of school by the time they are 16. We need a change of direction to restore the habit of attending school regularly. Our coalition agreement with ACT commits to addressing low attendance by prioritising data reporting and enforcement action.
Ryan Hamilton: Is attendance a priority for this Government?
ERICA STANFORD: Yes, it most certainly is. Students need to be in the classroom learning the basics and on a pathway towards educational success. We will continue to ensure the right supports are in place to help families get their children to school. We will continue to work with schools to understand the local drivers of absenteeism and how they can be addressed, and we will be clear about our expectations. This Government will be sending a clear message that there is a moral and legal obligation for children to attend school. Parent attitude counts, and together, parents, schools, and the Government have a role to play in turning around these abysmal results.
Hon Jan Tinetti: How will the Minister ensure that learners stay away from school when they are indeed sick, as has been the focus over the last few years—as confirmed in the Ministry of Education's own report, that states that "short-term illness/medical absences … continued to be the main driver of non-attendance in term 3, 2023. The level of illness is associated with the continued incidence of COVID-19 and winter illnesses."
ERICA STANFORD: Well, two things there—and one of those is the fact that I have already asked the ministry to look into this level of sickness, because it is interesting that the countries we compare ourselves to have far, far higher rates of attendance, and it would be interesting to find out why it is that New Zealand has such a high level of sickness and whether or not that is being used as an excuse. The other important thing to look at is the fact that the unjustified absences since 2017 have increased markedly. We have to have a change of direction and send a very clear message to parents that it is not OK to keep your children home from school.
David Seymour: Does the Minister intend to make it her practice to become an Olympic-level expert in obfuscating and justifying poor performance—as we saw in the previous question—or does this Government have a plan to actually improve attendance?
SPEAKER: No, I think we'll let that one slide.
Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just going to seek leave for the Labour Party to have an additional supplementary question to ask about school attendance.
SPEAKER: Well, the Labour Party may well seek leave themselves, but the member can't do it on their behalf—and he also knows that that's quite disorderly to undertake that. I think he's being unduly influenced by a bench colleague.
Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety
12. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Why did she decide to ignore advice by officials not to extend 90-day trials?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I didn't. I have considered it. This Government is extending 90-day trials because of our long-term commitment to improving labour market flexibility so that businesses can create more and better jobs. Extending the availability of 90-day trials to give more businesses confidence to take a chance on new workers should be welcomed by all parties in this Parliament.
Camilla Belich: Why did she decide not to follow the advice commissioned by the Treasury that concluded there was no evidence that the ability to use 90-day trials significantly increased companies' overall hiring?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: While the member may not see that there is significant benefit in extending the 90-day trials, there is benefit to the number of businesses that we have spoken to across New Zealand who have said that this is a top priority to give them confidence to hire more and better workers.
Camilla Belich: Why did she decide to ignore the Hon Chris Bishop, who told New Zealanders on 29 November 2023 that "We will introduce and refer to a select committee a bill to extend 90-day trial periods for all businesses", when she decided to introduce a bill under urgency to do this without a select committee process?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Cabinet made that decision, and Cabinet has made the right decision.
Camilla Belich: What does she say to the many thousands of New Zealanders who are likely to lose their jobs for no good reason due to the extension of this policy, including unfair reasons like their weight, having a bereavement, or their hair colour?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Nobody currently employed will lose their job because of the extension of 90-day trials. Existing current employment terms remain. All this policy will do is give confidence to businesses who are looking to employ new workers—that gives them confidence to employ someone in the new year.
Camilla Belich: What does she say to the employees who are moving into new work who are likely to lose their jobs for unfair reasons—for example, their weight, having a bereavement, or, perhaps, their hair colour?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The member may wish to note that 90-day trials give the option for a new employment agreement. However, anybody who believes that they have been dismissed unjustifiably can bring a personal grievance still under the 90-day trial for unjustified disadvantage, discrimination, or sexual harassment—those will still remain.
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (TRIAL PERIODS) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Debate resumed.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi, engari taku toa he toa takitini—which 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.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): 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.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): 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.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): [Tākuta Ferris stands] You have to seek the call. Are you seeking the call?
Tākuta Ferris: Āe.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): You have to ask the Speaker for the call.
Tākuta Ferris: Āe, I was seeking the call.
TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): 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.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): 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.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): 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.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): 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.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: 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.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): 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.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): 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!
HELEN WHITE: —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.
HELEN WHITE: —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?
HELEN WHITE: 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.
HELEN WHITE: 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.
HELEN WHITE: 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.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I rise to 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.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for second reading immediately.
Second Reading
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): 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.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): 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.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): 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.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): 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.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): 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.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): 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.]
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): 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.
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): 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.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): 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.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): 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.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): 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.
REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): 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.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): 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.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): 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—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired. Thank you.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): 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.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: 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
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. This bill is drafted in clauses. We will debate the bill clause by clause, starting with clause 1. Members may wish to consider Speakers' ruling 127/2, which indicates that clause by clause debates are generally narrow and should confine themselves to the words of the particular clause and issues contained in them. Having said that, because the bill has not been to a select committee, the debate on clause 1 may be more broadly about the bill—Speaker's ruling 127/1. Members, we come first to clause 1. This is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this debate on this bill, which, as you have correctly stated, is not a particularly long bill but particularly impactful to a large proportion of the population.
In relation to clause 1 that we are debating at the moment, I think there is an amendment on the table, from one of my colleagues, to amend the name of this bill because I think that there could be other titles that could be more appropriate to the Act than actually the Employment Relation (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. Actually, what this bill does is not just amend trial periods, it takes it from a rather smaller proportion of the population—and that's 28 percent of the population that are currently covered by trial periods, if they are new to their employment—to 100 percent of the population, or almost 100 percent of the population. I do have a question for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety around that. I'm just trying to think where the correct place in the bill would be to discuss that, and, I think, probably the title clause, as you've said, because it can be slightly more widely interpreted, might be the best part.
In the regulatory impact statement, which I do commend for being very thorough and going through a lot of the details surrounding the bill and citing a lot of the evidence relevant to this bill, one particular area is noted that is excluded from employers being able to implement trial periods within their employment agreements. It's not particularly mentioned in the bill, so that's why I'm bringing it to your attention in clause 1. But, in terms of my suggested amendment—my colleagues have another suggested amendment that this more correctly reflect the fact that we're going from a small percentage of the population to a large percent of the population being covered by trial periods.
It's important to ask, I think, the Minister at this stage about the accredited employer work visa, which, as I understand, are covered by the immigration rules, which would, effectively, mean that people coming into work in New Zealand won't be able to be covered by trial periods, and New Zealanders who already are here, working, would be covered by trial periods. Of course, I'm not advocating for a further extension of that. I think that it's better if fewer people are covered by trial periods. I agree with the regulatory impact statement, which states the status quo is the best and most preferable option here.
But I do think it's an unusual position to be in to be saying to people under the accredited employer work visa scheme that it is not appropriate for you to be covered by trial periods but it is indeed appropriate for everyone else not covered by that visa to be covered. So I wanted to ask the Minister about advice on that, in relation to this first clause of that bill, and also to consider if she has, in fact, considered a more accurate title for the bill. If you were to read the title of this bill, you may perceive that this is a small amendment. In fact, actually, it extends the coverage of the trial periods quite considerably from only 28 percent of the population who enter into new jobs, to, in fact, the entire population of employees. So those are my, really, initial questions for the Minister, in relation to the first clause.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the guidance around how this debate will be carried, particularly the ability to analyse it more broadly due to there not being a select committee stage.
I want to pick up on the previous speaker Camilla Belich's comments regarding the interactions with the immigration system. I also wanted to get a sense of whether there has been any exploration of the interactions with the migrant exploitation protection visa. So, for example, currently if somebody has been abused or has received comments in relation to their hair or their weight, or has faced harassment in workplaces where 90-day trials don't apply, the employer wouldn't be able just to get rid of that worker to avoid having to go through a process where that worker raises those harassment issues. I'm just wondering, then, after this bill, whether the use of the 90-day trials to get rid of workers where instances of harassment or exploitation would have occurred could still trigger eligibility for the migrant exploitation protection visa.
Stuart Smith: Point of order. We are debating clause 1. I haven't really heard anything relating to clause 1 in the member's speech so far.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you. In the opening remarks I made, I did make comment that the debate on clause 1 may be more broadly about the bill, given the lack of select committee process.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I appreciate that, Madam Chair. Why I'm taking the opportunity to bring that up here is because it's important to unpack the level of advice and consideration that would have been given in relation to this bill. And I think the title clause is where it's most appropriate to raise this because, ultimately, there will be interactions with other parts of the system as a result of this bill and otherwise it's kind of hard to point it out elsewhere. So the question I had was: has the Minister received or sought any advice regarding how these changes interact with the migrant exploitation protection visa?
I also wanted to get a sense of, for example, whether there had been any advice sought on the impact of wage scarring—whether 90-day trials would have contributed to wage scarring as a result of people entering below the poverty-level benefits, and then that potentially impacting the wages that people then receive after to try to get out of the poverty-level benefit. Because, ultimately—and why I think this is important to unpack at this point—the Minister, in her previous contributions in the debate, talked about how this bill would help increase productivity and would benefit the economy, but we know that wage scarring is one of those things that can contribute to lower productivity and can contribute to a low-wage economy. So I'm just keen to understand whether she sought any advice in relation to that.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought I'd take an early call to make sure that we are brought back to the specific bill. Both the member Camilla Belich and Ricardo Menéndez March raised issues about migrant workers and the accredited employer work visa. I can let both members know that immigration instructions set out the accredited employer work visas, not the Employment Relations Act. So there is no change to that specific area of law or regulation, because that's not actually in the Employment Relations Act, and we should come back to the bill. The issue is outside of my portfolio powers and therefore outside of this bill.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to ask a few specific questions about clause 1, given that we are simply talking about the naming provisions around the bill, and then, more broadly, the bill, because we haven't had a select committee stage. So I'll ask the questions of the Minister first so that she has time to consider them.
There is an amendment in my name to change the title of this bill—
Stuart Smith: Busy member!
ARENA WILLIAMS: —to acknowledge that—very busy member. Thank you to the honourable member for recognising how hard I am working to improve this legislation for the Minister. My amendment would recognise that this is a renewal of a provision that has existed in law before, and my questions to the Minister are about certainty for employers, for employees, and for organisations that represent employees and workers—about these amendments.
So my first question to the Minister about the proposal of mine to change the name, to recognise that this is a renewal, is about what the legislative history of the amendments to trial has been. I'm particularly interested in the number of times that this legislation has been brought in and then taken off the statute book, given that I think we need to have in our legislation a proper recognition that there is very little certainty for employers and for employees around these clauses. And that will point us, as a Parliament, to the need for some shared understanding in the House around provisions that could give employers further certainty.
My second question to the Minister is about how employees and employers can look at the history of legislative amendments and gain some help with the kind of individual and collective agreements that exist between them so that they can live on through changes of Government policy in this area. I'd like the Minister's answers to those questions before I ask any further questions, but I hope that she would consider the change in the name of the bill that I propose which would recognise that this is a reinstatement or a renewal of the provisions which existed before.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much. Look, I don't support the amendments to the title clause of this bill from either that member or Camilla Belich's concern about the Hon Duncan Webb's proposed amendment to the title clause.
But specifically talking to your question about the historical amendments of trial periods, I would simply refer that member to my first reading speech, which was not that long ago.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for her comments around my last contribution and also her confirmation that indeed it will be the case that those covered under the accredited employer work visa will not have trial periods, whereas the rest of New Zealand will.
I wanted to ask a follow up question to the member around—even though I understand it's in a different Act and it is under the immigration instructions which is perhaps not her portfolio—if she has discussed this matter with the Minister of Immigration in relation to the intersection of the two different portfolios that are relevant today. And, also, to note that in the last bill the Minister oversaw, the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill, there was an amendment to the Employment Relations Act, which is, as she's correctly noted in this instance, a totally different Act as well. So these matters do come up from time to time, and I wanted to know, following her earlier contributions in reply to my question, if she had in fact engaged in any advice or turned her mind to that. I do note that it is included in the regulatory impact statement.
So the other things that I wanted to comment on is also to support the amendments put forward by Duncan Webb and Arena Williams in relation to the titles. I don't think I mentioned the titles when I last made a contribution, but it was Duncan Webb's amendment that I was referring to. So just for the benefit of the Chamber, the amendment is to change the title from the current title, the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill, to "This Act is to Legalise Unjustified Dismissal (Employment Relations Amendment Act) 2023", more effectively encompassing, I think, the purpose of the Act.
Additionally, I support the amendment of my colleague Arena Williams, who referred to wanting to change it to the "Employment Relations (Trial Period Renewal) Bill". That is because this has come up a number of times and it is a change back from a previous policy which was adopted in, I think, 2017 to restrict the number of employers who are able to engage in trial periods to, in fact, include that to be a larger number. So I think that title, in reference to clause 1 of the bill, more effectively conveys the meaning of that.
So I wondered, primarily, to note her comments on the title, but wanted to know from the Minister about her discussions with the Minister of Immigration.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and picking up on the Minister's previous comments regarding some of those questions regarding the interactions with other parts of the system, for example the immigration system being outside of her portfolio. I just wanted to acknowledge that this will have consequences in other parts of the system, and that I guess it's not unfair to ask the Minister to address what level of interaction, if any, she would have with her counterparts in the development of this bill.
In relationship to the title, I mean, there's the words "trial periods" and I know that she stated that there hasn't been a select committee process due to this being in the coalition agreement, but at any point did the Minister seek any feedback from worker representative groups around 90-day trials specifically? Particularly around the kind of trial periods element that we can find in the title, and if so, what was the feedback that she would have received as part of any consultation work? Or was it the case that she would have just spoken to employers in getting to this?
The previous member Camilla Belich and the amendments that some of the Labour Party counterparts, in terms of the reshaping of the language, what I think they illuminate is the intent of the bill, and I guess while the title may in and of itself not have a huge impact in the day-to-day lives of people, it does signal how the Government is framing this piece of legislation. So that's why I'm interested in part of that framing—containing the title—what level of consultation she would have had with worker representative groups?
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister a question which relates in part to the issue of the carve-out of people who are on work visas because I wondered how much she knew about the logic behind that carve-out. My own understanding is that the carve-out will have been because people acknowledged a lot of investment has come, and a lot of risk has come into somebody coming into the country, and there are other ways of handling that situation which don't involve a right to terminate suddenly in that early period.
I wondered if the Minister had an opportunity to look at that model and see what was considered because it seems to me there's an immediate connection with some of the other groups of workers who also could claim a similar risk that they're taking and cost that they're paying if this law goes through. I wondered whether it might open the door to a carve-out for some of those other people in different classes. I wondered whether, for example, workers who are moving from one job to another who are actually leaving a job and leaving a good wage might be people that could be carved out very much on the same logic that they are carved out because they are migrants coming to the country on work visas. I also wondered whether we might apply that to some of the other groups that would be particularly at risk as a consequence. So I would like to know whether the Minister looked at that part of another law when she considered this and whether she'd consider those kinds of carve-outs.
I also just wanted to talk about the issue of the amendment that has been put up by my friend Duncan Webb. That does seem to be a clearer articulation of what this is, and I wondered, again, to link it to my last point, whether the Minister had considered whether it was all right to do something unjust to someone in the first 90 days; to terminate them unjustly? Is it all right to terminate them unjustly in that period and not all right when that period has expired? So I'd love an answer to that question: is it OK, why is it OK? I'd like to know whether that's the way that she sees things or is she suggesting that if there is injustice there should be some recourse? Because I heard some comments made from the Minister in one of her speeches which suggested that she really saw the pathway, for example, to discrimination and unjustified action as still being available, etc.
So is she saying that "No, this is wrong. Duncan Webb's wrong because there will still be pathways to justice here if, maybe, the bar is higher." Is that what she's saying? Or is she saying it's OK to be unjust in this period; workers in this situation just have to accept that they will pay a price here because it's better in the long term for our people across the country to allow injustice of any form or favour? I'd like an answer to that question. Thank you.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this bill. This is the first contribution that I intend to make throughout this debate, and later on in the debate I will bring some amendments that I intend to speak to, but for this first contribution I specifically want to ask the Minister about the engagement that she has had, particularly with workers who have been affected in the past through 90-day trial periods, to specifically check and see what has been the impact on their lives.
This is something I can talk to from personal experience. A member of my family was dismissed under a 90-day trial and I wanted to bring that to the House tonight because I think it's really easy for those who are promoting these types of trial periods to talk around the rights of employers and one of the things around the Employment Relations Act is it does actually specify the rights for employers; it specifies the rights for employers and employees.
So I don't think anyone in on this side of the House is suggesting that there shouldn't be a process for dismissal of someone who is not performing their job, but the particular experience that my family member had was working in a job that they had worked in previously. They had worked in the industry previously in a number of roles in the hospitality industry, and so it wasn't a job that they didn't know how to do or didn't have experience in. I particularly wanted to ask the Minister what consultation engagement she's had with these groups of workers to really understand the impact on them, because my family member was dismissed and the way in which he was dismissed caused him significant mental health issues for a number of months following. The way in which he was dismissed was that he was brought into a busy cafe, in front of many customers, and sat down across the table and told "Collect your knives; leave."
When someone is in their 20s and that's their experience in employment, it's devastating. He wasn't told why; he had been in the role—I think it was day 88 or 89; he'd been in the role for nearly 90 days, hadn't any matters raised with him or any concerns. He'd worked in previous hospitality jobs in the exact same role, never been dismissed, never been given a warning, never been late for work, never underperformed, but something had obviously disconnected in the employment relationship, which we know happens. I've worked on behalf of employers, by the way. I've given employment advice to employers, including performance advice, including issuing people with warnings, including dismissing people, and including putting people through redundancy. So I have actually, as well as having been a union organiser, worked on the other side, so I just want to put that on the table.
My specific question to the Minister is around has she actually sat down and talked to those workers, like my family member—the mental health impact, for months; he never knew what he did wrong. We all want to see young people succeed in their employment but one of the things about the Employment Relations Act is it talks about good faith. That behaviour is not good faith from an employer, and so I really do want to get to the bottom of what the Minister really sees is the impact on, particularly, our young people in the beginning of their careers, to ensure that they are actually heard and consulted through this process.
I ask this question because we're not putting this through a select committee, so we're not having the opportunity. I just wanted to make that point, which is one of the reasons why the scrutiny from our side is so important and why I do seek to make a number of calls to ask a number of questions of the Minister. We're not allowing people like my family member to actually make a submission like the one I've just made, and there are many more examples like that—make a submission of that nature to a select committee.
My specific question to the Minister is: through this process, before actually coming to the House and bringing this legislation, has she sat down with actual workers who have been on the receiving end of a dismissal under a 90-day trial and said, "What was your experience? How did this work for you?", in order to actually help inform a piece of law that's going to work for employers and employees because, as I've often said in this House, we have obligations to both parties. As parliamentarians, we're here for all and so we actually need to consider the needs of everyone when we're having this debate. So that's my specific question to the Minister: has she actually sat down with young employees who have been subject to a dismissal under a 90-day trial and actually heard their stories, and does she have a response for them? Thank you.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 Commencement
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to clause 2. Clause 2 is the commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in regard to the commencement, the Minister spoke about—well, she didn't speak to some of the pieces of evidence that we did have in relation to 90-day trials not boosting wages, etc. I just wondered whether she had considered delaying the commencement of this bill to allow some evidence-gathering exercises to, for example, assess the impact of those 90-day trials and the impact that that would have had on workers and on things like wage scarring. In my previous contribution in Part 1, which the Minister didn't address, around the impacts of wage scarring, those are really important things, right? It affects things like the gender wage gap, the ethnic wage gap; it affects overall incomes in our country.
Carl Bates: What's the question?
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: My question is whether the Minister would have been open to considering, or had received advice on considering, a different type of commencement date so that she could have then trialled out—for maybe 90 days—the impacts that the status quo was having and to seek some further advice on what the past arrangements had. So really interested to understand why there is such a rush to put this through when the Minister had acknowledged that she's not really basing this bill on any evidence. Looking at the coalition agreement, clearly there's an appetite to make decisions based on evidence, so the commencement date just feels like it goes against that intent in the coalition agreement, by trying to have this Act come into force the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. So, again, just checking whether she'd like to honour her coalition agreement by allowing for a later commencement date to gather some more data and information.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair—Mr Chair. I'm sorry; I hadn't noticed that the Chair had changed.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I have transformed.
CAMILLA BELICH: It is certainly a transformation. Mr Chair, I have a few comments to make on clause 2, the commencement provision, and one is really for the Minister. In relation to this particular bill, which he is seeking to turn into an Act, it is exactly the same as a bill in terms of its nature of content, and so I wonder in relation to the commencement of this bill whether she had considered just recycling the 2011 bill in relation to this provision and, indeed, the whole Act and whether she got any advice on that. I'd be interested to know if she did do that; or, if she didn't do that, why she decided not to do that. So that would be my first question.
The second thing I wanted to ask was just really about two amendments, which I understand my colleagues wish to speak to in their names. The first is in the name of colleague Ginny Andersen around clause 2, the commencement provision, seeking to replace the words "on the day after" with "90 days after". It just seems fair, doesn't it, that the New Zealand public gets to sit with this bill for 90 days as we expect them to sit with insecure and unconfirmed employment. So I think that that's valid and fair and has a nice kind of poetry to it, if I could be so bold. So I commend my colleague for putting forward that amendment in relation to the commencement clause.
I have another colleague who has put forward a different amendment in relation to the commencement. This one is significantly longer. My colleague Arena Williams has suggested that instead of what is currently included in clause 2, we change it to "This Act comes into force on 9 months after the date of Royal assent." It's probably slightly less poetic, and I hope no offence is taken to that by my colleague Arena Williams, but it is a significant amount of time in which I think we could perhaps, if the Minister was of a mind to, do a select committee process once this bill has been passed. I'm sure we could do that within the nine-month period, and that obviously would affect its commencement. But it would mean that it was a meaningful process—that we could effectively delay commencement, which is what we're discussing at the moment, until after a period of consideration.
Obviously, there'll be the summer period when not as many people will be around to make submissions, and I've heard other colleagues discuss that in the past as well. But then we would have a significant amount of time where, prior to commencement, it would be possible for the Education and Workforce Committee—of which I'm a member; and I see our chair is also in the House—to engage with the content of this bill and hear submissions.
As I was discussing in the previous reading, a number of people have indicated to me that they would be in a position to make a submission and want to make submission on this bill. And so I think delaying the commencement in order to have a select committee process would somewhat go towards making the process of urgency, which we are now debating this bill under, slightly fairer and more justifiable—because of that delayed commencement.
So, as I said, although the Arena Williams' amendment is not as poetic as I think Ginny Andersen's amendment is, Arena Williams' amendment does allow greater scope for delaying the commencement in order to go through proper process that would allay a lot of the concerns that we're hearing from the public.
So I do wonder if the Minister has—it doesn't have to be specifically around this particular amendment to clause 2—had advice around a subsequent select committee process that we may be able to enter into. That would be really interesting to hear. So I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on that and also on the substantive provisions that my colleagues have sought to introduce under clause 2 as well.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have two points to make on this clause. The first is to highlight the need for the nine-month period that I have suggested in my amendment. As my colleague Camilla Belich has pointed out, this would allow the Minister to write to a committee of her choosing, say it was the Education and Workforce Committee, to conduct an inquiry. That has been traversed by Camilla. That is not what I will be speaking about. I would like to help the Minister consider some of the other options available to her, perhaps using a model like Scotland's Futures Forum to discuss this kind of amendment, which has been back and forth, in and out of our statute book, and really does call for some bipartisan agreement around it.
So something like Scotland's Futures Forum, or a citizens' forum, which are two different things, are models of engaging with the people who a law affects, but while presenting them with evidence that has been independently gathered, so that they might make informed decisions about their policy making. My colleagues are very excited about this. They're having a very lively conversation about it beside me.
So what Scotland's Futures Forum allows as a lawmaking model for Parliaments like ours is to delegate decisions that have consistently been passed back and forth between major political parties where there is no agreement. This kind of model, if the Minister were to choose to take up my amendment and then allow a nine-month period, would allow her to convene a bipartisan forum that also had representatives of people who are most affected by this—employers, employees, but also experts—and to consider the evidence for this.
I think the first briefing of such a forum, which would be considering this piece of legislation, would consider, perhaps, the research of Motu. It was published with funding from the Treasury into the effect of trial periods in employment on firm hiring behaviour. That research asked the question about whether the option of using trial periods had affected the quantity of hiring by firms and the types of individuals hired, and the stability of employment relationships. It would be really useful for a committee of Parliament to be informed by the expert evidence, but to have alongside it individuals who are outside of Parliament who were most affected by this law, hearing that evidence and making evidence-based decisions.
That first briefing from Motu would show that research they conducted found no evidence that the ability to use trial periods significantly increased firms' overall hiring. They estimated that the policy effect was statistically and economically insignificant: a 0.8 percent increase in hiring on average, across all industries.
My contention here is that it would be really useful for the Minister to be able to spend that nine months considering—with a group of parliamentarians who are interested in the long-term future, in providing certainty to employers—the evidence basis for making these kinds of decisions. It may be that that forum—
Hon Simeon Brown: They just want another working group.
ARENA WILLIAMS: —and there's some very enthusiastic discussion over this side of the Chamber also, on the Futures Forum. I look forward to discussing it with that Minister, because there are some issues in our infrastructure pipeline that could do with some bipartisan treatment too. But this would allow the Minister to consider how we get longevity in this policy. How do we find a common ground? Because I have faith that that Minister is interested in finding common ground here. That is how our democracy works when it is most flourishing, when we agree on the way that we can serve our people the best, and this is a great option for that. I hope she will consider my amendment.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to specifically talk to the contributions that have already come, and I suspect will also follow, about changing the commencement clause. Look, this is pretty standard that a commencement happens after a Royal assent. I don't think anybody is challenging that. But would we delay it for more information? No. This has been a widely canvassed debate since 2009. Ninety-day trials have been around in New Zealand since 2009, so since that time period, we have gathered quite a wide range of information that has informed our commitment to the New Zealand public. It has informed our commitment as part of the 100-day plan. We have a clear mandate from the New Zealand public to do this change.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. So I take the point that there's no intent to delay it, but I do want to unpack how it matches the intent to use the best available data—particularly when it comes to chance or certainty this bill actually matches with the intent in the coalition agreement. Because I just heard that there is no data gathering; the Minister talked about the fact that we've had a debate on this. But can I just ask: is she confident that this bill honours the coalition agreement in relationship to the best use of data and evidence? So I just want to sort of pick that up.
The other thing is: will she then commit to ensuring—and has she considered then—after the bill comes into force, actually starting to collect any data? Because then, otherwise, we're just having a situation where we didn't have data before but there's no intent to collect data.
So my two questions are: will she commit; will she initiate data gathering after this bill comes into force? And just the consistency with the coalition agreement.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask a question about the possibility of extending the bill to a time when perhaps people are doing better in this country, particularly low-paid workers. My understanding is that the Government has a Budget coming into effect in the April period, so a lot of the policies will kick in there. That's when a lot of New Zealanders will actually be hit quite hard, I suspect, by things like the lack of childcare payments; perhaps the end of school lunches is my greatest fear, etc.
I understand that the Minister has a different position and thinks that everybody's going to be thinking it's the second Christmas because they're getting $4 a week. I doubt that—there will be things like no support to people for their public transport costs for their children. So I wondered whether we could delay the bill—
Stuart Smith: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. It seems like we've drifted a long way from the commencement clause.
Camilla Belich: Speaking to the point of order, I'd note, Mr Chair, that the member was just about to mention her concerns around commencement in this contribution—[Interruption] Excuse me, she just said the word "commencement".
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Well, I wait with bated breath to hear how this relates to the commencement.
HELEN WHITE: So this relates to the bill, Mr Chair, because I wondered whether we could delay the bill long enough to see what the impact was of those other policies and then look at this bill at that stage as coming in after that impact has happened. Because if I'm right and the impact is that hurts New Zealanders, then the bill comes in after that period has happened. If I am wrong, then we're in a situation where, in fact, the bill's coming in after the good impact and they'll be cushioned from the blow by all the wonderful things that the new Government's going to do for them, ostensibly.
So I wondered if we could extend the period long enough to see the impact and therefore people like the woman I described in my speeches—who has children, who is going to be impacted by lack of childcare payments and lack of school lunches and transport costs—would be cushioned from that blow in that period, or the Government's policies would kick in and she would be so much better off it didn't matter. That, in fact, she was in a position where she couldn't afford to take a job that was more risky, from a minimum-wage job, because she risked all those things.
I just wondered whether we could have that extension through the next year, or we could have an amendment which says something like, "This will kick in when a person on the average wage is, in fact, $50 better off." Then we could do this, perhaps, at that point—when they were less exposed to the risk of it. Thank you.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I'd like to take the opportunity to speak to one of my many amendments that we have here tonight. In clause 2, as already referred to by Camilla Belich, there is a proposal that I've put forward in my name to replace the words "on the day after" to "90 days after". It only seems fair that if New Zealanders don't even get to say that their fundamental working rights are being legislated away, then surely New Zealanders in our democratic society can have a 90-day period to evaluate this very legislation. If they can be fired in 90 days without the right of any redress or having a personal grievance, then surely it's a good democratic society that enables the people of New Zealand to vote this bill down, or have a course of looking at how it's working. I think 90 days is a fitting time to be able to change that.
It's really important that we highlight the fact of that commencement, because in that is the fact that there has been no opportunity for New Zealanders to give their views or their feedback on this legislative change which has massive impacts upon their daily lives and their working life. To be able to have that "90 days after" put into clause 2, into the commencement—that would enable an additional ability for people to be able to say what the impacts are on their lives.
There have been many instances, as a local MP, when I have had constituents come to me and say that they have had the sharp end of a 90-day trial period, which has resulted in them losing their job. One that sticks in mind most as we talk on this clause is the instance where the former employee said that the employer had four—four—different employees over the period of the past 12 months and each of them, when they had come to their 90 days, had had their contract terminated on that basis. What those employees were doing in the 90 days is they were taking up whichever hours were on offer; they were doing extra shifts; they were working hard out to be able to meet the expectations of their employer in the hope that they would have a permanent position after that 90 days, and four, one after the other, had their contract terminated with no reason. It was a fire-at-will situation for all four of those individuals.
The absolute uncertainty of those employees and the flexibility and the benefits of the employer are way out of balance. It is only right that if New Zealanders are able to be fired after 90 days, then surely we need to take a good look at this bill after the same period—90 days—to see how it is working for our people and how our workers' rights are being protected.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to respond to that member's contribution. Bearing in mind her rhetoric, she may not be aware that under her previous Government, there were 90-day trials just for small businesses—for businesses with 20 employees or less. If it's good for businesses and employees and employers in a situation with 20 or less than 20 employees, then it's good for a large company, too.
There is a question here from Ricardo Menéndez March about data collection on 90-day trials. I'll be looking to work with officials in the coming years on researching and evaluating the labour market as part of my wider work stream. Talking also to his query about why it's going through quicker than he may wish it goes through, part of that is because the Government has actually inherited quite a bleak economic outlook and we are wanting to reinstate business confidence as soon as possible.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. The issue, of course, when a Minister responds with political responses to genuine questions is that it allows the debate to drag on. We don't really want it to drag on. We just want some answers to our questions. The issue that we've got—in defence of the Hon Ginny Andersen—is that it was a genuine question, made from genuine concerns, and all that she got from the Minister in response was a political response, not an answer.
I think the Hon Ginny Andersen has a point, because we are here, as everyone is, approaching Christmas. Now, some of us in this House might be more motivated by that, and that time frame that it brings, but we are here to debate what this bill proposes. In the bill, in clause 2, it proposes that it comes into force as soon as there is Royal assent. What we have from the Hon Ginny Andersen's amendment is a proposal that would take into account that, over the summer break, there will be people who are taking on employment. They will be taking, potentially, a break at Christmas and taking on new work. Or they might be taking on new work heading into summer.
The issue that we have here, with a lack of select committee process, a lack of an opportunity for the public, both employers and employees—because it is a mistake to assume and state that all employers are in favour of this—is that this House is yet to be convinced that, if this comes in when it's proposed, directly after Royal assent, there won't be people that are dismissed with no reason. We're yet to hear from the Minister any evidence to say that there won't be people dismissed for no reason. In the absence of that information, I think it is utterly reasonable to propose that there is a time period that covers the summer period that allows people to take on work and demonstrate that what the Government is saying is the case—that it will allow employers to be more flexible and take more people on without impacting those that are about to start their work.
What is wrong with an idea here with a bill that proposes the idea of a temporary arrangement to see if it works, to take their own medicine and apply the same thing to this? It's an utterly reasonable proposal. There are other proposals around the commencement date that are a bit longer, but the Hon Ginny Andersen's amendment uses the exact same time frame that is proposed in this bill, and I think she deserves an answer.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. The commencement date will play in force in summer and there are specific industries that come into life and are more transitional and/or precarious like the tourism sector, for example, where in summer there will be pockets that are more active than others. So the reason why I wanted to ask about the timing of the commencement date in relation to the industries is whether the Minister has any knowledge about the timing of the commencement date in terms of the industries that she expects to be the most impacted as a result of the timing of this bill.
I wanted to pick up on the regulatory impact statement, which we don't have any opportunities in this debate to kind of have a back and forth with the Minister in relation to it. We do have some information from almost 10 years ago about the types of people who had a higher likelihood of starting on those trial periods, but that was 10 years ago. So does the Minister know which industries and what kind of people will be most impacted by the timing of the bill, as industries tend to hire more people in specific periods? And, if not, why did she not seek that advice in relation to the timing and the commencement of the bill?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The people that will be impacted by the timing of this bill will be all people over the next nine years of this Government.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a specific point in relation to clause 2, the commencement provision. So the Minister, when she was responding to a previous question on commencement, stated that it was quite usual for the day after Royal assent to be the commencement date. So I happened to have a copy of the Employment Relations Act, which is the primary Act that this Act amends, in front of me, and I thought it would be interesting to check the commencement date in the Employment Relations Act. I noted, when I checked the commencement date in the primary Act that's being amended that it actually didn't have the date after Royal assent; it had a specific date, 2 October 2000.
I wondered whether the Minister had received any advice about having a specific commencement date. This is not a facetious question. It's actually because one of the key issues with trial periods is a lot of employers get them wrong, and that's partly because of the high standard that the Employment Court has placed on making sure that trial periods are, for example, between new employees, they can only be in writing, and they have to be before employment commences. So often employers, and specifically because this policy has been related to small employers, tend to get that wrong. I think we've referred to previously in the debate the high majority of the number of trial period clauses that have been to the Employment Relations Authority and have been found to be invalid.
So this relates to the commencement clause in that could she please receive some advice on whether she thinks it might be beneficial for New Zealanders to have a specific date rather than the day after the Royal assent in the legislation. That way, if employers or employees were looking as to whether, in fact, trial periods could be used for all employers or, in fact, smaller employers, they could look to that specific date in the commencement, rather than the day after Royal assent. Because, actually, finding the day of Royal assent is quite difficult. I know that the Parliamentary Service is quite helpful. I've seen that they do tweets on the commencement date of some pieces of legislation. They confirm—
Hon Rachel Brooking: What are tweets?
CAMILLA BELICH: —Yeah, they do. Yeah, tweets; very useful if you have an interest in certain areas. But I don't think the general New Zealand public would be so engaged with the parliamentary process to either check the Gazette, which may be where it's advertised—and that's actually another question for the member: how do members of the public find out the date of Royal assent? So I'm quite interested on that, and I just think it would provide greater clarity for members of the public to see a particular date. I think it's not without precedent, as it was in the Employment Relations Act—a specific date of commencement—and it would seek to address some of the issues that we know with trial periods, in that there are still quite a lot of issues with validity and also a high standard in the authority and in the court to look to.
If so, if she was to enlighten us with, in fact, if she had taken advice on that, what date would she be looking at? Because I think it would be unusual to have a date this late in the year, and so perhaps when people were likely to come back to work; perhaps after the statutory holidays in January could be a time period which would be clearer for New Zealanders to know. Because it might be that she might want to have it from 1 January, for example. It might be, in fact, that that's the day after Royal assent. I don't know if the Governor-General has plans over the summer or is still, in fact, signing bills or not, but I would be interested to know, yeah, a few things.
So advice on it, what date she would determine could be included in that, and, in fact, how do members of the public—because, genuinely, how do you find out exactly when the date of Royal assent occurs in order to know whether the bill that we're discussing around the commencement in clause 2 actually is in place or not? So if the Minister wouldn't mind looking at that commencement provision and just providing some reasoning around the decision to have it after Royal assent.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I can assure the member that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will update their own website to allow for members of the public to know when the official start date will be for this new law, and I look forward to the member going online and finding that out. Also recognising that most people do not go to the specific law to find commencement; they go to the governing agencies where information is usually held.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Off the back of my colleague Camilla Belich's excellent contribution, I just wanted to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety some further questions about this commencement date, particularly relating to my colleague Ginny Andersen's excellent amendment to give the bill another 90 days before it commences.
So my specific questions related to the fact that the bill reinstates 90-day trials for large employers. One of the matters that's come up in the debate is that for many of those employers, one of the reasons why this side of the Chamber believes, actually, they don't need 90-day trials is because they're able to, effectively, manage a fair dismissal process, if they needed to do one, with a standard trial period that had already existed in law. For example, we have, often, these large employers managing employment-relation matters with HR teams. So one of my questions—as, I think, Camilla Belich pointed out very succinctly—was around the fact that we're about to approach Christmas. So, you know, I'm really mindful for HR professionals, leading into Christmas, from those large employers, that if they, for example, use template employment-agreements—they're quite common. So being able to give people who work in areas like human resources, like legal teams, like employment-relation teams within a large business that extra time before the commencement comes in, to ensure they're following the updated law.
So my question for the Minister is: has she actually considered that having a 90-day delay would assist some of those large employers? What I wouldn't want—I think none of us would want our poor HR teams having to work on Christmas Eve, updating employee templates. I think that we want to make sure everybody gets a good break over the Christmas period. So there's some really good practical reasons why delaying that commencement clause of the bill by 90 days could be really useful for those large employers so that they can go across the summer break, using existing law, without having to update some of their internal processes. So it's a genuine question for the Minister, just off the back of that contribution, and it'd be really good to get an answer on that, because I think we are at that particular point in time of the year where HR teams, legal teams, won't be updating templates.
So if you're, for example, a manager of a department for a large department store, and you're wanting to hire people between Christmas and New Year and you want an updated individual employment agreement that you get off a website, usually, in those situations, there'd be somebody in an HR team actually updating that for you. So, from a practical point of view, it would probably be better for those teams to be working off existing law. So I'm just interested if the Minister has considered that.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much for the question, I believe it is in good faith. Looking at employment processes over Christmas, I do like to assure the member that, of course, nobody has to take up a 90-day trial; existing law applies. It is simply an option. So if a company or a business or an employee does not feel comfortable, they don't need to do it, because it's not mandatory.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. So just picking up the point around the updating of the website—I mean, sure, great. But the reality is a lot of businesses and, actually, workers don't just go to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website to check up the most available information. So I guess my question in relationship to the timing of the commencement date was: what further resources does she think will be needed to go into place to ensure that everybody is up to speed with those changes in the law?
We may then be able to discuss that in clause 3, in relation to just amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2000. But my experience—why I think it's important to pick up on the point that she had just made and to unpack it a bit further, acknowledging we haven't had a select committee stage to ask officials about this, is what resources beyond just updating the website does she think are needed? Particularly with the timing going into Christmas and that kind of public service shutting down for a little bit, what will be needed to ensure that everybody is compliant, and that workers actually understand that if their employers are talking about changes to laws, they have the resources to navigate those changes? Because of the kind of Christmas timing, I'm concerned that just updating the website does not give people enough awareness of changes that actually have really big, impactful, material differences in their lives.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I note that there has been some new material, but this is focused on the commencement date, and we are starting to drift into other clauses. But members, rest assured there is more debate to be had.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Point of order, Mr Chair. So the previous person in the chair acknowledged that we haven't had a select committee stage and she had originally talked about how, in the title, we can go beyond that. I just want to check: do you intend to have a specific clause in which we're able to further unpack this bill and the fact that we haven't had a select committee stage? Because otherwise, we're all trying to actually, in good faith, unpack the consequences and implication of this bill and we just haven't had that chance. So at what point do you expect that we can then have the more substantive debate because we didn't have the select committee stage?
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): My observation is that members are ranging a bit further away—and that's fine because, as people have said over the last couple of days, actually, we haven't had a select committee process as well. So we have tried to build that into our flexibility. I also note that the previous Chair here did say that specifically within clause 1 as well, but when we start to hear repetitions, it's time to move on.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I have two questions for the Minister who's in charge of the legislation.
The first; I'd like to have it clarified: in terms of the commencement for clause 2 and when that applies in relation to an employment agreement—we've already been discussing specifically over the holiday period. What I'd like the Minister to answer is if somebody who was hired, say, yesterday, under an employment contract and then the legislation comes into force after the day's commencement as specified, what is the impact of that on the employment relationship? So it's really important for employees to be able to know if they were hired before this bill came into force, are they still going to be held to a 90-day trial period or if they are not.
The second question I have for the Minister is really in relation to my amendment. Again, I didn't really get the answer. All the Minister said in relation to that was that small firms are already able to do this. It didn't really address the fact that there is that ongoing unfairness and it didn't really explain if employers are able to fire an employee in 90 days, why don't New Zealanders also get that opportunity to be able to do that? I didn't feel that the answer actually addressed what the question was, and I'd be really grateful for any further enlightenment that the Minister would like to provide.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 stand part.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 Principal Act
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we come now to clause 3, "Principal Act". The question is that clause 3 stand part.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am pleased to make a contribution to clause 3 of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill, which states that the principal Act—which the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Act works under and, in fact, does amend—is the Employment Relations Act 2000; one of my most used and affectionately known pieces of legislation.
The question that I would like the Minister to engage on—and, obviously, I realise that she may have received some advice on this from officials, but I think it is important to note that this bill started off as a member's bill, and members' bills are drafted differently to Government bills. So what I would like to know, in relation to the decision to draft this bill in the way that it does amend the Employment Relations Act, is the advice that she has received about the appropriateness of this. Did she look to other alternative methods of drafting this particular bill? Were there suggestions made by officials on how to improve the drafting of this Act? Because, in my experience with members' bills, often there is a number of changes that officials do suggest.
There are not many consequential amendments that are suggested to this principal Act; so is there any comment she can make around the suitability of adopting a member's bill that was drawn in the last ballot prior to the election and then adopting that bill—first of all saying that there would be a select committee process on it and then subsequently stating that there wouldn't be a select committee process on it, and then taking it through urgency? This is such an important piece of legislation that is being amended. It has existed since 2000, and it's already come up in debates on different bills in the House today, about how the Employment Contracts Act existed and then it was repealed through the Employment Relations Act. Any amendments to this piece of legislation are very important and significant to the fabric of how employment law functions in New Zealand.
There are a number of colleagues who have already made comments on the nature of this bill, which is the subject of this clause, and about how it introduces the concept of good faith into employment relationships. We know the concept of good faith is a principle that imbues all employment relationships, and, very interestingly, it's very difficult to see how good faith applies to this particular amendment. Usually in good faith, there is an opportunity for an exchange. Usually with good faith, there is an opportunity for explanation. Usually in good faith, there's an opportunity for representation. Usually with good faith, there is an opportunity for that important relationship that is so fundamental to the Employment Relations Act to be thought through.
I know the Minister may say, "Well, employment trial periods existed prior to this legislation, and this simply extends it." But I think it's incumbent on her, as a Minister, to tell this committee—because we don't have the ability to go through a select committee process—why it is appropriate in 2023, or indeed in 2024 if that is when the bill comes into effect, how good faith and how the case law around good faith has progressed during the intervening period, between when we had trial periods first introduced and had them extensively throughout all employers and now having limited that for the last three or four years. How does good faith apply to trial periods? We know it does apply, because we know that it is an important part of the Employment Relations Act which is amended by this clause.
I have a copy of the Employment Relations Act in front of me, and we can go to section 4 and just see how far the duty of good faith goes. If you look at section 4, "Parties to employment relationship to deal with each other in good faith". They "must deal with each other in good faith". And this is a principal part of the Employment Relations Act. If I just skip up to the object part as well, "The object of this Act is … to build productive employment relationships through the promotion of good faith in all aspects of the employment environment and … employment relationship". I know this trial period was not invented by this Minister—I don't ask her to take responsibility for that—but what I do ask is, when she says that this trial period extension bill allows trial periods to apply throughout the economy, to every single employer, how does the principal objective part of this Act and the purpose of the Employment Relations Act fit with trial provisions? And is she satisfied that it fits within that piece of legislation?
The practical implication of passing this law is, as I've said, to change this Act, and everything in this Act should be, if legislative drafting is correct, consistent with section 4 of the Act and also should be interpreted consistently with the object of this Act, which is set out in section 3 of the Act. It is very different to imagine a good faith employment arrangement as envisaged in section 3 and section 4 in a trial period situation, because, in practice, the duty of good faith is to engage. One of the key things around a trial period is that there is no requirement to engage—a dismissal can be for any reason that isn't a discriminatory reason. And Mr Chair, if you will allow me, I would like to foreshadow that there are a number of sections in Part 9 that are not amended by the bill in front of us but are relevant to the bill in front of us, and I would like to make a contribution to that particular section at some point. I think it would be beneficial for those following this debate to actually understand the types of personal grievance which continue under a trial period regime and which don't continue under a trial period regime, because even for someone who used to practise employment law, like myself, it is very difficult to ascertain exactly what could be covered for a particular dismissal or not.
So, when we look at this clause 3 of the bill, I wonder if the Minister is able to go through—and I do realise this is my second call, so I won't take all of this time. But can I just end this contribution by saying that to the employment law community in New Zealand, who will be the ones who are responsible for interpreting what the Minister does today and providing that advice to their clients, big and small, vulnerable and not vulnerable, rich and poor, throughout New Zealand, they need to know how the intersection of the primary provision of good faith in section 4 and the object of the Employment Relations Act is consistent with the bill that she is putting forward.
I do have other contributions to make in relation to this bill, in relation to the personal grievance section, which is the other substantive section which is relevant to this bill, but I just wondered if I could leave those questions with the Minister to have a response.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much for the member's contribution. Look, I wanted to talk briefly about the principal Act being amended, as the member Camilla Belich raised. That's because this makes an amendment to the 90-day trial provisions that exist within the Employment Relations Act, which are currently just for small and medium business, and we are changing that to all employers. So it seems pretty straightforward why we need to amend that particular part of that Act.
The overarching question was about whether or not the bill that we have before us is suitable, as it was a member's bill. My officials have advised me that it does achieve my policy objective and that it is a well-drafted bill. They also advised that we didn't need any changes to the bill, because we don't need any transitional provisions, because this is very clear that it is applying only for new employment agreements from the date of Royal assent. I would also like to take the chance to commend by former colleague Dr James McDowall on the very good drafting of this member's bill, which allowed us to use this at the time.
Talking to the third part of her question—about good faith applying to 90-day trials—I'd like to assure the member that an employer dismissing an employee under a 90-day trial still has a requirement to act in good faith under section 4 of that Act. It still applies. The Employment Relations Authority and the courts have upheld good faith requirements for dismissals under 90-day trials since trial periods began in New Zealand in 2009, such as ensuring that the trial period is agreed to before starting work, to provide an opportunity for the employee to seek advice and to raise any issues. So the bill does not change any of those requirements, which is why it's not in it.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just for members' enlightenment, in terms of the narrow focus of this clause, this provision identifies the principal Act; it doesn't open up the Act for debate, except to the extent that this bill amends it. However, members, the time has come for dinner, and I need a cup of tea! We will suspend until 7 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. Before the dinner break the committee was considering clause 3, "Principal Act."
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I enjoyed the last contribution I was able to make on clause 3 in relation to the amendment of the principal Act, the Employment Relations Act, and I did signal to the Chair at the time that I had another contribution that I wanted to make, specifically around clause 3, which is the amendment to the principal Act.
The main clauses which are amended in the Employment Relations Act are the sections 67A and 67B. So I will speak, and I did note the comment by the presiding officer at the time, and I'm not intending to—just for your assurance, Madam Chair—speak to the entire Employment Relations Act, even though that is included in the clause.
The contributions that I want to make are specific to the particular sections which are affected by this new bill on trial periods. So section 67A—we've some amendments to that that will be discussed in the next debate, on clause 4, but the amendments in relation to section 67B do open up a different area, which is another fundamentally important part of the Employment Relations Act, which is the provisions to allow personal grievances to take place or not in section 103. So that's specifically referred to in the principal Act—the section that 67B amends refers to the personal grievances section.
So one of the main issues with trial periods is the removal of the ability for employees to take personal grievances in respect of their dismissal. So the language used in the bill—and that will be discussed in a subsequent clause—is quite specific around that not being permitted. However, if we actually look at the Act, which we're now looking at under clause 3, we see that there are a number of personal grievances that can still be pursued by people regardless of the fact that they might be under a 90-day trial period. And that is, I think, one of the issues with this bill, and I wonder if the Minister could comment on this at all—the lack of clarity in what types of action can actually be covered and taken under the Employment Relations Act, despite the bill which the Minister is proposing on trial periods.
The bill says that if you're in a trial period, you can't bring a personal grievance for dismissal. However, it does allow a number of personal grievances to continue, and I might go through those for your benefit and just ask if the Minister had considered any other types of personal grievances that she may want to protect by allowing them to continue with this legislation. I think the Minister did refer to this during question time today; it's clear, then, and it has been an established practice for a number of iterations of this type of legislation, that discrimination claims and other acts relating to racial discrimination, sexual harassment, that type of claim is able to be taken whether you're in a trial period or not.
In looking at this section in the Employment Relations Act, again it was notable to me how many other exceptions have been added in more recent legislation. So there was the work done around zero-hour contracts, and that was under the previous National Government and that's actually been included in this section which has been retained by this bill, preventing people who have rights in relation to zero-hour contracts from actually being prevented from taking a personal grievance. So that is obviously interesting. And then there's the membership or not of a union that can also continue, and then protection of whistleblowers.
So I think the House can be united in being satisfied that these are protections that are so fundamentally important that of course, regardless of whether you're in a trial period or not, they should not be excluded from being able to take these forms of action. The difficulty that I have and the question I would like to ask the Minister is: what happens and what is her understanding of this legislation in how it would impact a dismissal which is tainted by sexual harassment, family violence, racial harassment. These are all clauses which are relevant to this particular bill and retained by the Employment Relations Act in relation to this particular bill.
So what would occur in that situation, from the Minister's advice, if there is a dismissal which is tainted by some of these discriminatory reasons? And what would be the course of action under this new piece of legislation that she would recommend someone take in relation to taking a course of action in law? Is her advice that, obviously, the bill she's proposing says that they can't take a claim for a personal grievance because of that dismissal? However, is the dismissal able to be part of some other personal grievances which remain under this piece of legislation? And what's your advice to the public, really, about how they would navigate what is quite a complex situation?
So I want to thank the Minister for making sure that those provisions were retained within this principal Act which we are discussing in clause 3. I think that was the right thing to do. I do think that there is somewhat of a lack of clarity as to what people should be doing in those particular situations, if they are in fact to find themselves in a situation where they have one right which exists but another right which is taken away. Obviously, for lawyers and for unions, they can offer advice to people, but not everyone's in a situation where they have access to a union or a lawyer, and it might be good to clarify how she sees that intersection of rights occurring.
I thought it was helpful, in relation to my last question, when she confirmed that good faith would apply throughout the process of the trial period. That's really good to have that reassurance, and that was my understanding of how the Employment Relations Act, which is the principal Act that is being amended by this bill, would work. So bearing that in mind and understanding that we do have this relationship of good faith which imbues all of the clauses, including the bill which the Minister is intending to pass tonight, can she dig into a wee bit more the type of advice that she would give to members of the public on how to navigate what is quite a tricky area. So a few questions here for the Minister and I look forward to her response.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask the Minister about the object section of the principal Act. We've talked about good faith but we haven't talked about the acknowledgment that there is an inherent inequality of bargaining power. That is something that is in the next section; part of section 4. I thought it was interesting, because I see a distinction between small employers where the power imbalance is a little bit different.
A small operation is, effectively, two people who have a greater amount of equality. That really is the nature of a small business and I can see the justification for trial periods in that situation being quite different. But when you have a big employer, one that has 50 employees or more, there is a clear acknowledgment in the Act that there is an inherent inequality of power between the two, and that's fundamental to the Act. So I wondered how there was a reconciliation between those two things and how you could have that object in the Act, yet have this clause applying to large employers where that is so evident. But also the Act is built trying to make sure that that's acknowledged in its object section.
So I wanted to know whether there'd been any advice on that and whether the Minister has a view on that inherent inequality that is in a relationship and how she protects against it. Because it goes to the vulnerability of the types of workers I've talked about who are way more precarious in this time period than they would be otherwise and are going to be really worried about what happens next. It goes to the capacity for them to even raise issues in that time and the kind of fear that they will bring into the workplace, because they'll be worried that they're going to lose their jobs if they do anything that their employer objects to, whether it's good or bad.
I think the Minister is aware that most sexual abuse situations never get near a court, they're never challenged in that way, and that makes an area like that, bad behaviour in terms of things like sexual assault or other kinds of bad behaviours which we know are bad, a lot less able to be managed in that situation because there will be fear of retribution because there's a very big difference between those things happening and being able to prove that they've happened. In fact, the employer doesn't have to give any reason in this situation. So I'd like the Minister's comments on that.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, really quick questions for the Minister—this will be a brief contribution. Just asking about clause 3 in the amendment bill. My question is about whether there is any other legislation, any secondary legislation, any legal instruments, any regulation which is impacted by the passage of this bill. That clause reads "This Act amends the Employment Relations Act 2000", but it would perhaps better read, "and makes consequential amendments to the immigration instructions", for example.
So I'd like the Minister to tell me whether there is any other secondary legislation or legal instruments which are impacted by this—and then I can write a really useful amendment.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Acknowledging, again, the lack of select committee, I hope my judgment is right that this may be the best place to raise it, because I feel that in the previous clause it wasn't addressed—the steps that the Minister was hoping to take to ensure there was a proper communication campaign to ensure workers and employers are made aware of any changes to the Employment Relations Act. I say this because when a fair pay agreement is passed, the reality is that we were handing out letters to people, a lot of people were still not aware that fair agreements were a thing, so I think there is always that need whenever there is a change to the Employment Relations Act; that it's not just a matter of updating the website.
So my question is: what steps does she envision that she needs to take or what resources may need to come into place to ensure that the changes to the Employment Relations Act 2000 actually create the conditions for employers to be aware of this extension of 90-day trials, as well as those workers who may be entering those workplaces; that they are also aware of these changes?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to take the chance to respond to a few of the questions today. The member Camilla Belich was talking about what would occur if dismissal might happen and there is another personal grievance that's part of the process. I'd just like to remind the member that it is possible to bring a personal grievance under this new law in relation to any other matter such as sexual harassment. The bill is only excluding that one part of the law, which is specified, for unjustified dismissal. It does not preclude bringing on another personal grievance ground.
I wanted to take the chance to talk to the question from Helen White about inequality of power, and just remind the member that good faith principles apply no matter the size of a company in New Zealand, under the Employment Relations Act.
I'd also like to take the chance to respond to Arena Williams, who asked about changing the clause as it's written in the bill to allow for things like the immigration instruction, and just remind her that I've already spoken about that in relation to clause 2. I have already outlined that this does not change the immigration instructions, so that is null and void.
And also to Ricardo Menéndez March's question about further resources—I thank the member for that question, because I believe it is in good faith—and what more resources are needed to let employers know about the new laws and that they're up to date. As part of the implementation of this policy, we will be updating the guidance on the Employment New Zealand website, but I've already mentioned that in a previous clause.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 Section 67A replaced (When employment agreement may contain provision for trial period for 90 days or less)
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to clause 4, "Section 67A replaced (When employment agreement may contain provision for trial period for 90 days or less)". The question is that clause 4 stand part.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to speak to my amendment to clause 4, which is that after new section 67(1), it would insert "An employment agreement cannot contain a trial provision if the employee identifies as Māori or Pasifika or as a woman, or if the employee is under the age of 30 or is disabled."
In the classical liberal view of the world—and I raise that because the ACT Party often style themselves as great advocates of classical liberalism—that particular world view sees humanity as just a collection of atomised individuals, and Margaret Thatcher very famously said, or is often quoted as saying, that there is no such thing as society. Now, she said that she was terribly misquoted, as people often do when their words are quoted back to them, but she was, in fact, expressing a view that was influenced by Friedrich Hayek, who some people in this Parliament, including some ACT members, claim as a great—
Dan Bidois: Relevance.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —philosophical influence. Well, I'll get to the relevance. The relevance will become very clear.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Soon, I hope—soon.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The view does not allow that we have collective interests and that we are part of communities, or that it is the role of Government to regulate our affairs. It also doesn't allow for the possibility that how we get on in the world is determined, often, by things like social hierarchies, or where we sit in the process of production in the economy, and that's where this amendment comes in, because there are people in our community and in our country—women, the young, ethnic minorities, the disabled—who actually are at the bottom of the economic hierarchy. They are the people who figure most disproportionately in low income and in poverty, and it's not just ethnicity and gender; it's often the history of those people and their place in the country and in the way that power is exercised—not just political power but economic power.
The view that I'm talking about pretends that we're all individuals and we're all able to negotiate our interests and contract with each other on a level playing field. For example, a 17-year-old Pasifika woman who turns up, applying for a job with a multinational fast-food operator that has hundreds of millions of dollars of capital behind it—it pretends that she can negotiate on an equal basis with that company, with that prospective employer. That is why we have rules for collective bargaining and protections built into our employment systems, like the restrictions—or what should be a ban, in my view—on 90-day trial periods.
This bill, which extends the 90-day trial periods to all companies and to all employees and all employers in our economy, is a perfect expression of this view, and I want to ask the Minister: does she believe that there is a power differential between the job seeker—the young 17-year-old Pasifika woman turning up to seek to apply for a job at a multinational fast-food company—and the employer? I'd really like to know whether the Minister thinks that they are, in fact, negotiating on an equal playing field. Further to that, I would like to ask, in line with my amendment, whether or not the Minister believes that the young, women workers, the disabled, and Māori and Pasifika experience disadvantage in the workplace, and whether or not they should be protected by labour laws like the law that currently restricts—significantly restricts—the use of 90-day trial periods in workplaces.
This bill is an echo of a view that is also expressed in this coalition Government's desire to bring back no-cause terminations in rental housing. It's based on a view that working people, the young, and the least powerful people in our society don't deserve due process and they don't deserve the protection of the law, and it is contrary to the idea that we are all individuals living together on some kind of level playing field. It is a brutally hierarchical view of humanity. It says that one group of people, or a whole bunch of people in our society simply don't deserve the same protections as other people.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to take the opportunity to speak to the amendment put forward in my name to clause 4. In clause 4, in new section 67A(2)(c), I propose to insert a (d), which would state that an employer seeking to rely on a trial period must keep detailed records of the dismissal process for an employee under the section and that these records must record the correct reason for the dismissal and must be provided to the employee upon request.
I'd like to actually back up why I'm proposing this change, because the regulatory impact statement—and I'm really pleased that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has agreed to have a regulatory impact statement on this bill—highlights some very good reasons why this amendment should be adopted. I'd be interested in the Minister's feedback, because in the regulatory impact statement it does state that "There is limited research on the prevalence and extent of impacts of trial periods in New Zealand." So we don't know what the impact is, fully, on this. We have a lot of anecdotal evidence—many of those incidents have been recalled in this House tonight—but we do not have a good base of evidence in New Zealand around the impacts of this on both employee and employer. And if we have an Employment Relations Act, which this bill is amending, then we need to be understanding how the impact on that employment relationship between an employee and an employer plays out.
By inserting a subsection (d) in section 67A(2) and requiring that we keep detailed records of the dismissal, that will enable us, going forward, to have that evidence base of understanding where, in fact, a 90-day dismissal period is being utilised. Is it, in fact, going to provide greater flexibility in the labour market and be endearing employers to take more people on? It's a great thing, in general. Or is it, in some instances, being utilised at the detriment of the working rights of New Zealanders who have no comeback when they're told to leave and not come back the next day? I think we know that we should have that information available to us, and, furthermore, I'd like to quote the regulatory impact statement that the evaluation that was undertaken back in 2016 did not find any specific evidence of an economy-wide effect. We need to know that. This is going to have a huge impact. We know that there's a large number of people who will now be potentially impacted upon by this legislative change. Do we not owe it to ourselves as lawmakers and good policy makers to be able to enshrine within this legislation a way of understanding the impact of what this would do?
And so my amendment is only right and fair; to say that we should be keeping good records and understanding, if someone is dismissed under this new provision, then we should know why they are dismissed. And, also, there is a fair right for workers to know why they were dismissed. Whether it be their hair colour, their weight, or whatever their employer has used as a reason, they should have that written down and have information made available to us.
The regulatory impact statement also states that there are a number of old surveys that do provide some insights in terms of prevalence, through information on the impact on employees. But the impact on employees—that information is limited. The current regulatory impact statement that accompanies this piece of legislation is clear in the fact that the impact on employees—we just simply do not know that. So if that is the case right now, I think it is really important for the Minister to enlighten us, to understand what would be the impact and why we should not have a provision in this legislation for records to be kept and for the correct reason for dismissal, and for that to be provided to the employee upon request. That is my request to the Minister, and I'll be really keen and interested to hear her response.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call, I'll just remind the member who resumed her seat: you were speaking to your amendment that is relevant to clause 5, but I did allow that contribution to continue. So we just need to keep a close watch on some of those amendments, to make sure that they are relevant to the clause we are speaking to.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you for giving me that call. I'm actually speaking to two amendments that I have put forward in my name and they are both ones that I'm passionate about and they both pertain to clause 4.
Basically, the first one is in clause 4 after section 67A(2)(c) insert "(d) 67A(2)(c) does not apply if the employee identifies as Māori or identifies as Pasifika, or identifies as a woman, or is disabled." The second clause is in clause 4 after section 67A(2)(c) insert "(d) 67A(2)(c) does not apply to any employee who has been employed after being on a benefit." They are two that I am personally very, very passionate about and I'm going to actually ask the Minister a question first because I may not get through this, so I want to just put my question out there to the Minister beforehand and then put the context around it.
My question to the Minister is that for people who are in vulnerable situations, as has been identified, those that are most vulnerable under employment law, how is the power imbalance going to be addressed and what is available for those people in those situations? Now, that might sound very simple to the Minister, but the reason I ask is that it is because of the 90-day trials that I made the very difficult decision to come into Parliament. I had personal experience of this, and I was reminded of that when I was in the House earlier when I heard my colleague Rachel Boyack talking about her family member, and I was really appalled. It was a hard story to listen to, but I was really appalled when I heard from the other side an interjection that said something along the lines of "Oh, it doesn't matter, they got over it, they got another job."
Well, I can tell you a story where someone didn't have the opportunity to get another job. And that is a former pupil of mine who on day 86 of their 90-day trial was let go and had no reason given to him why he was let go. Now, that might have been illegal, but he did not have the wherewithal to know whether that was illegal or not. Now, this was a pupil who I had had a lot to do with over the years. I wouldn't say that we always got on when he was a pupil; he was one of the more colourful people, but I always had a very big soft spot for him.
When he was let go, it was very tough for him, and he actually went into a deep depression. I had only seen him about three months earlier and things were great. He had his first job, he had things going right for him in his life, and then suddenly this happened. Now, he'd come off a benefit. He had gone into this job. This was the best thing that had happened to him in his life. Then he was let go and given no understanding of why that happened. Two weeks later he took his own life. And talking with his mother—and I still have that recollection in my head every single day that I am in this place because it brought me here—seeing the pain, seeing a young life snuffed out because of a 90-day trial. It is not right. This is bad law and it's just being made worse under this bill.
So that is the question that I have for the Minister, and it is a real question. What is it that those people who are so vulnerable, who don't understand the law like we understand in this place; they don't sit down and read the law, they don't sit down and read these Acts. They don't know about people that can advocate for them. They just want to work. They just want to be valued because all through their life very few people have valued them. For that young man, this was the first time in his life that he felt valued, and that law took that away from him. It was because of that that I felt a passion to come into this place—to leave something that I was passionate about. Because we can make law better, but what we're doing here this evening is making that law worse for those people, and that is such a shame.
So, again, I ask: what is it that those people can access? And how do they know that they can access it? Because it is not easy for them out there, and I implore the Minister to go out and sit beside those people in those situations, because life is just hard.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to honour the contributions from the previous speaker, the Hon Jan Tinetti, and acknowledge the real-life impact that bills like this and policies like this can have on people. I hope that in this clause, Madam Chair, because of the kind of substantive element that it covers in terms of the clarification of those trials and how they work, we can go a bit deeper into the analysis that we didn't get a chance to at select committee.
My question was hoping to get—I touched on it earlier but it wasn't addressed whatsoever and I think this is another good part to try and get it addressed again—into the impacts of wage scarring. Why I wanted to get the Minister to address the issue of wage scarring is because of the fact that we haven't got any analysis or comments, actually, from the Minister around the impact on households when somebody jumps from finally receiving an income to then potentially being out of work, into a benefit. That actually puts people in a situation where, because the benefit is so low, they may feel forced to take a job that would have paid less than the previous job they had. I believe that this bill contributes to wage scarring; it contributes to lowering wages. I want to see if the Minister had any insights on what she considers is the impact on wage scarring and household incomes because of this policy.
Hon Member: Relevance?
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I can hear the members on my left making snarky comments, and to be honest I heard those even through the very sensitive contributions that the Hon Jan Tinetti made earlier regarding issues of suicide, and I'd like those members to get a grip and understand that these are questions that we're asking because we care about our communities, because we care about our constituents and the workers who are going to be impacted.
So I just reiterate, my question is: has the Minister asked, seen, or got any analysis regarding the impact of this bill in relationship to the issue of wage scarring?
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Madam Chair, thank you. I note from the regulatory impact statement (RIS)—and thank the Minister for providing the cover sheet of that—that where it relates to clause 4, option three in the RIS, looking at paragraph 64, it talks about the fact that "fewer than 20 employees [would] represent around 89 percent of [businesses]". So this extension, effectively, would extend by 11 percent. In light of the fact that we haven't had a select committee process to hear from either the 89 percent or the 11 percent of businesses—not to mention the employees who might be affected by this—I have an amendment in my name which seeks an amendment in clause 4.
Clause 4 itself, as members will know, seeks to insert a new section 67A that outlines the process for a provision of a trial period of 90 days set within that. The amendment in my name seeks to insert a new section 67A(3), in that a valid trial provision must state a couple of things. I'm interested in the Minister's views as to perhaps whether she thinks these should be included, or, if not, why they shouldn't be included. The first is the genuine business reasons based on reasonable grounds for inserting a trial period in the employment agreement, and that relates to providing some weight around the genuine nature of the concerns that might be expressed by an employer, but more specifically, the reasonable grounds that exist for placing that condition within the terms of the employment agreement—that's the first one.
The second one is around where a trial period is used to dismiss the employee, to provide the process for advising the employee as to why their employment is ending in that way. And I think, Minister—we've already heard from other members in the Chamber that there are many people who are employees who just want to work, and perhaps are not au fait with legislative provisions or what particular aspects in an employment agreement might be. And it's all good and well for people to say, "Well, they should just know that before they sign it." But when someone is on the bones of their backside and they need a job; they need work—many will do what it takes in order to secure that. And so that provision really does provide for an opportunity to advise the employee—the person for whom this has the significant impact—on why their employment is ending, but, in particular, what the process is: the process for advising. Not the process that might take place, but the process for informing or advising an employee why their employment might be ending in that particular way.
We've heard a wee bit about the power imbalance, and I think what would be helpful to hear from the Minister is considerations around process and how there is going to be an acceptance or a guarantee that those employees who might be subject to a process in this particular manner will be made aware of not just their obligations but what the process means for them. And remembering that the decision by an employer to, effectively, dismiss an employee is a pretty significant one. It is a pretty serious one, and so I think members on this side of the Chamber—and certainly myself—are interested in hearing from the Minister around what provisions either exist in the legislation or why she won't support the amendment in my name to ensure that there is a process in place for employees who may find themselves in a situation where the end result is one of being dismissed.
Much has been said about the parent Act itself and the provisions of the principle of good faith, and so the amendment that I put forward—and I've got a couple more that we'll deal with, perhaps later—really does lend itself to ensuring that the good-faith principle, which is the overarching consideration here, is actually available, not just to the employee but also to the employer, so that the employer is aware of what the process might be if they choose to engage that functional aspect of dismissal and then to be able to provide the employee with the opportunity to understand why things are taken in a particular way. So I'd appreciate the Minister addressing those.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will take the opportunity to respond to quite a few contributions so far—a number of which already repeat themselves in substance, so I'll take them together.
For the amendments from both the Hon Ginny Andersen and from Tangi Utikere, there are questions about providing reasons for dismissal. One was, of course, about inserting a new clause—as was the other. The reason why we are not detailing that businesses "must" provide an answer is because this is a Government that is seeking to reduce regulation and reduce burden and reduce red tape on employers. However, I'd also like to point both members to the fact that there is nothing precluding an employee from asking what the reason is for their dismissal. That is perfectly in line with current legislation and we're not removing that ability to occur.
I wanted to take the chance to respond to Ricardo Menéndez March talking about wage-scarring impacts of the 90-day trials. This is a Government that is hoping to extend the availability to increase job opportunities, and we believe that this is what this law will do. It will expand the number of job opportunities that will provide more opportunity for people to be able to progress their career and increase their incomes by increasing marketplace flexibility.
I wanted to take the time to respond to the Hon Phil Twyford and the Hon Jan Tinetti, who both had similar amendments and both were about certain groups being excluded from the 90-day trial provision. This bill is intended to help people have more job opportunities and people that may be considered disadvantaged by the members. We believe, on this side of the Chamber, that people will be better off because they'll have more opportunities; because they will have more business confidence and more ability for people to have a go in the labour market.
People can still bring a personal grievance claim related to discrimination; we're certainly not removing that—that is very important to note. But we believe that this law will allow more labour market flexibility and more job growth for people who those members may consider to be disadvantaged. But I also just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the member for her contribution. It was very emotional and I certainly hope that the family members and friends of that individual do find peace.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Point of order. I just want to seek some clarification because of the previous comments you have made around a few of the amendments, including those that are in clause 5 as another clause. I just want to seek your guidance on whether you expect us to have a debate on potentially adding that additional clause and whether you'd want us to have that debate right at the end, or at what point do you think some of those amendments may be appropriate?
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can you elaborate on which amendments you're talking to?
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: So, I mean, because I know that some of the themes we're covering are already there in the additional clauses—for example, several amendments that I've put in, so, for example, my amendment 6 which adds a new clause 6. I just want to seek clarification as to whether you're going to ask for a debate around clause 6, or at what point do you want us to have those debates?
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The short answer is yes, there will be an opportunity to debate a clause 6 amendment.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: The new clause 6?
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): But not in clause 4, no.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you. And may I have 5 minutes? Thank you.
The reason why there are so many tabled amendments that are being proposed by my colleagues to clause 4 is that we find ourselves in a situation where the Act that is being amended—the Employment Relations Act 2000—retains those grounds of prohibited discrimination which someone may bring a personal grievance for, but this amendment Act that the Minister is proposing proposes to limit that in certain circumstances. So, Madam Chair, if you'll allow me to just explain the situation that we find ourselves in: because those grounds within the Employment Relations Act, the original Act, are preserved, you then have a situation where if someone is fired within—dismissed within—their 90 days, they have a question of whether they can bring the personal grievance on the grounds of prohibited discrimination, say, for example, because they are a woman. But then whether they should mention that they were also dismissed within the 90 days is at issue, because on the face of it they have been dismissed for reasons that were legal, but then they have this further sort of issue for an employment court to work through.
So that's why there are so many tabled amendments—21, in fact—in my name, and I hope to speak to them all and I will be economical with my time. The first I'll speak to, No. 1, is to amend clause 4 after section 67A(1) to insert a new (2), "Employers can only use a trial provision to dismiss an employee if they can prove that the employment of the employee has caused a material, financial, or reputational harm to the employer or the employer's organisation."
This is a clause where I'm trying to find a way through for the Chamber. This is not something that fits well with Labour Party values, but this is a way that we can acknowledge that though there are a divergence of views around the Chamber about what is appropriate here, to allow, say, market flexibility to allow employers the kind of flexibility that they need to operate in, this is something which says if there is a problem here, if you're a reasonable employer, you're just doing your best, whether you're a small employer or a large one, you've taken a chance on somebody, you've given a young guy a go and he's not the fit, you need to say, "Well, the employment here is causing me financial hardship, it's causing me a financial problem." And, you know, you don't need to go and tell a regulator that. That is not extra regulation, you just have to keep proper records of it. It's an email between you and your chief financial officer, it's an email between the line manager and their boss. It's simply recording somewhere that it is reasonable because of the financial reasons of the business that it is appropriate to let this person go.
And just dealing with this point, this finds us a middle ground, because the Motu research that I referred to in one of my earlier contributions found in their inquiry into whether 90-day trial periods were a good thing for the economy as a whole—they concluded that "the main benefit of this policy was a decrease in dismissal cost for firms, while many employees faced increased uncertainty about their job security for three months after being hired." That independent research found that the balance was perhaps not right.
So my question to the Minister is: is there a way that this sort of amendment, that finds that middle ground where employers, who all maintain a practice of keeping reasonable records about their employment decisions anyway—should they be held to a standard where, look, if it's impacting on your business, we say, "All right, go for it, dismiss that employee because you've given them a go and good on you."? So that is the first amendment that I hope the Minister will consider.
The second amendment that I wish to speak to is to replace section 67A with a new title. I'm not splitting hairs here, but we've worded it in a really weird way in the amendment bill that the Minister has proposed. She's saying, "90 days or less". I would like it to say, "90 or fewer days". That's the way I would say it and we should make that amendment now just so that our law reads correctly and is in plain language. I know the Minister is an advocate of plain language, straightforward language, less regulation, clearer language, and so I would hope that she would consider that amendment.
The second tabled amendment that I wish to speak to is to clause 4 to replace section 67A(1) with a clarification about using the trial provisions only if the employee has not previously been employed by the employer. The current way that reads I don't think is clear enough and, you know, in the spirit of making sure that this law is plain language, that it reads well for employers like me and many of the members around the Chamber who have been employers in a situation where we've had to make quick decisions—we need the primary legislation to make sense.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have not had an opportunity yet to speak to this part of the bill, clause 4, but I do have a couple of amendments that I wanted to make. The first two are, I think, really sensible, pragmatic amendments which are very much in the spirit of this bill.
The first that I wanted to mention was, essentially, adding in to section 67A, which is in clause 4—the area that we're currently debating in the bill—to make sure that when people are able to be covered by a trial period, when people are either engaged as an employee, or if they, in fact, in the past, have been engaged as a contractor, they wouldn't be able to be covered by a new trial period.
There's a clear policy direction within this piece of legislation and other pieces of legislation which have dealt with trial periods, which is very fundamental to the design of them, which, essentially, means that if you are already engaged as employee, you can't then have a valid trial period put into your contract of employment. That's clearly in this bill as well. So it's people who are currently employed with an employer who wouldn't have a trial period. That's because—I mean, why would they? The justification for trial periods, even though I may not be one of the people that accept them, is clearly to allow an employer and employee to get to know one another. So that could also occur in other types of relationship akin to employment, so worker relationships.
I know that this is an area that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is interested in, having read the coalition agreements and the ACT Party policies prior to the election. I know she's interested in looking at contractor law. I'm not interested in discussing that particular aspect today, but, I think, to have a piece of legislation be enduring and also meet the policy objectives that she is trying to meet, why should contractors who have already had the opportunity to engage with an employer, although not in an employment situation, be subject to trial periods? I don't think the justification applies. They already know that contractor because they've engaged with them. They know if they're reliable. They know if they're trustworthy. They know if they do a good job. They know if they're a good fit. They've engaged with them. Yes, it could be in a slightly different way to an employee, but that's also true of existing employees who may be looking to move up within the organisation, which, possibly, could be more likely to be the case when you have trial periods, because you wouldn't be able to be subject to a trial period if you got a new job with your existing employer.
So that is my amendment that I have tabled, which I think is within the spirit of the bill that's being put forward and would improve it. I encourage the Minister to consider it, and I would like to hear her response as to whether she will be supporting that particular amendment.
The second amendment that I wanted to particularly mention was really about the situation that sometimes vulnerable employees find themselves in, which is when they, essentially, have a different employer, but, essentially, they don't really have a different employer. You know, the legal entity may change, they might have a different name on their employment contract, they might have a new contract, but, basically, the same people are doing the same work for pretty much the same people, and usually in the same locations. So I've actually added that into my amendment.
Arena Williams: It's a good amendment.
CAMILLA BELICH: Thank you. Trial periods wouldn't be applicable to an employer using a different name, or legal entity, but conducting the same or substantially the same work in the same location.
So there is quite a substantive part of the Employment Relations Act which deals with vulnerable workers and that type of situation. I think it should be really clear, within this bill, that we're not seeking to put trial periods in for those particular people. I think that is in line with the policy intent, because I think all of those other reasons are justifications for this policy: getting to know one another, finding a good fit. All of the things the Minister has proposed in her speeches in the different readings of this bill would not apply in that situation where there was a change.
So I think those are two very good amendments. I do have a third one which I would like to speak to, but I would like to give the Minister the opportunity to respond.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to take this opportunity to address some of the amendments that I've made on the Table that are actually related to each other.
The first one is about the possibility that there will be a carve-out; that the trial provision will be unlawful for any employee who has left another job to take work with an employer given the injustice of the employee's loss of work and the loss and, actually, the cost to the taxpayer if they are unemployed as a result of termination. So I want the Minister to tell me if she would consider this, because I understand, from her speeches, that what she's saying is motivating her is giving people a chance who may not find other employment and encouraging people who would otherwise be unemployed into the workforce. Yet, these people are employed and they are taking a huge risk going into a situation where they may not actually keep that job and they may suddenly find themselves in a situation where they have to go on the unemployment benefit and we all have to pay for that.
The other amendment that I've put that I think relates to this is the one that I foreshadowed in my speeches tonight, which is the issue of restraints of trade. Because what I have seen in a lot of agreements is the increasing use of restraints of trade with low-wage workers. If it's combined with a trial period, you are putting people in a situation where they may well go into an employment situation and be dismissed but actually be prevented from going out and getting another job. So I have suggested an amendment which is about making it unlawful for anybody to be held to a restraint of trade if they are dismissed in a trial period and that if, in fact, that happens, that they will be free to compete.
Now, I have made sure that in my amendment I have addressed the issue of confidential information; that if you're given trade secrets or confidential information, this is something that, of course, you should keep and there should be right to suit if you don't. But if it is a matter of competing with your employer, then it's very important.
I would just like to talk a little bit to the mischief here, because this is not fantasy: this is happening all over the place. Big employers like Amazon have adopted restraints of trade for workers on as low as US$13.50 an hour. They put them in absolutely habitually and most employees don't actually look at these contracts when they're signing them because they've got no bargaining power, which goes to my friend the Hon Phil Twyford's point about the inequality of bargaining power. They simply—yes?
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry to interrupt the member, but you are speaking to clause 5. Your amendment relates to clause 5.
HELEN WHITE: I think I'm speaking to clause 4 because what I'm speaking to is an amendment which says that clause 4, after section 67A(1), insert, and then I'm bracketing subclause (2) and then I'm saying, "a trial provision will exclude"—. So I am speaking to clause 4; I'm adding to clause 4—an extra—and I'm carving out. So thank you, ma'am. Is it all right to continue?
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Absolutely, continue.
HELEN WHITE: Thank you, ma'am. So I am talking about a very real situation, and it's a trend that has been noted by big economists—and they're not left-wing economists. They're people like Joseph Stiglitz, who've noted that this is happening. There has been a lot of research in America, which actually goes to another point, ma'am, if I can just have a little bit more time because I've got another amendment on the Table which suggests that what people should do is, if they're going to put a trial period in the agreement, they should lodge it with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
So the reason for doing that is it turns out we have very little information about 80 percent of employment agreements. So because we have these employment agreements in individual form, nobody knows what's in them. You're very unlikely, Minister, to know whether these impacts that you're talking about are real or whether there is exploitation. So, for example, this kind of issue that I'm bringing up about restraints of trade and the—[Time expired]
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Tuatahi, Madam Chair, e mihi ana ki a koe mō tō kaha ki te whakaputa i tō whakaaro e pā ana ki tō hoa. Ngā mihi aroha ki a koe.
[Firstly, Madam Chair, I would like to acknowledge you for your strength to express your thoughts about your friend. Heartfelt acknowledgments.]
Just speaking to clause 4, supporting the Hon Phil Twyford's view—his amendment—in terms of Māori, Pasifika, women, and those who are under the age of 30 or disabled, I was the employment Minister for three years. I was wanting to ask the Minister: as she looked at this, did she have a look back at some of the work we did with these groupings? We had employment action plans for all of those groups. We had a Māori action plan. We had a Pasifika action plan, a women's one, a disabled one, and I think it would be incredibly helpful for the Minister to have a look at those reports, which told us about the different disparities, about the problems particularly that Māori workers have faced over the years.
When I became employment Minister back in 2017, the Māori unemployment rate, for instance, was close to three times what the mainstream, or Pākehā, unemployment rate was at the time. It's really important for our Minister here to get her head around, I suppose, some of the barriers and some of the problems that so many of those Māori workers were facing and have faced. Under my chair, we got to facilitate the Māori strategy with a woman by the name of Janice Panoho, who was a very senior union organiser within the Public Service Association, and a very dear friend of mine, too, might I add, having organised with her many years ago. I think that this—
Hon Member: Is this relevant?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, I'm talking about this amendment that has been put up by Phil Twyford, which identifies Māori, Pasifika, and women as groups who need the support and who will be disproportionately affected by this bill.
As we know, lower job security particularly impacts these groups, and the question I have for our Minister is: is she going to go through those reports that were put up—the employment action plans that were put up by each group—that traversed all the different areas? When you look at the disabled report, you will see what some of these workers had to face. They couldn't even get through the door sometimes—they couldn't even get through the door. Never had a chance. It was terrible, and I think it's emotive reading for a lot of us. We don't actually understand, and then when you see the barriers in terms of these trial periods, it can be heartbreaking for so many of them. And, of course, the percentages are weighted so much against Māori, against Pasifika, against women, against the disabled community, that we had to put in targeted programmes.
I ask the Minister: will those types of programmes still be receiving support from this Government—programmes that looked after young people, looked after women, looked after Māori? Mana in Mahi was one of the big successes. That can be a success for everyone, which is something I worked on with one of the current coalition partners—He Poutama Rangatahi, getting nephs off the couch. These supported the Māori rural areas very, very much. So I ask again: will the Minister be looking at these plans, talking to some of the chairs, a number of them women who have done extensive work in our communities? I think that it could be good for all parties if she was able to do that.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to take the chance to respond to a number of members and their queries, starting with the Hon Willie Jackson. I won't go over my previous response to the Hon Phil Twyford's amendment. I've already done that, so we are repeating ourselves, but I also note that contributions about his past works as a former Minister are not actually relevant to the bill.
I also note, speaking to the questions from Helen White about restraints of trade, I really commend the member for wanting to talk about her own member's bill which is at select committee—love the opportunity—but that's also not part of the bill and it won't be after this goes through.
I'd like to take the chance to respond to Camilla Belich, who had a number of amendments. The first was to extend the 90-day trials to contractors, and I'd just like to alert the member to the fact that contractors are not employees and don't have employment agreements, and so that's not really relevant to this bill.
We had Arena Williams talking about wanting employees to only be able to use a trial provision to dismiss an employee if they can prove that the employment of that employee has caused immaterial, financial, or reputational harm. The whole purpose of this bill is to reduce red tape, reduce regulation, reduce bureaucracy, and make our labour market more flexible for employers so more employees are given an opportunity. This is a significant procedural requirement and so we do not support it.
I also wanted to take the opportunity to briefly touch on the fact that she's talking about the word "fewer" or "lesser" when it comes to 90 days fewer or 90 days or less. Look, you might want to bring up a talking point with the legal drafters of the laws around this place but I'm not in the position of wanting to do that. I think the purpose of the draft is pretty clear.
Talking to Camilla Belich also about her amendment to suggest that after an employer in the clause 67A(1) would also have an employer using a different name or legal entity but conducting the same or substantially the same work in the same location, I understand this is purporting to try and limit a trial period if an employer has multiple businesses but this is not actually changing the definition of an employer. The bill extends the availability of trial periods to all employers and doesn't change any of the other settings. So it's pretty clear.
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm really chuffed that you chose me to take a call on this bill, the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. I have a couple of amendments to clause 4, and I just want to clarify that they are to clause 4, and they are on the Table. I'm quite a pragmatic person, so for me it's about providing an alternative solution for the Minister, and I want to understand the Minister's views in relation to my amendments.
My first amendment would replace all references to a "maximum trial period of 90 days" with references to a "maximum trial period of 45 days." So that is a shortening of the 90-day trial—it would be a 45-day trial. So if you go to the regulatory impact statement and you work through the problem definition: employers not able to use the 90-day trial period—so maybe a 45-day trial period—because they weren't hiring new employees due to the risk that new employees may not be a good match and could result in an unproductive employment relationship. OK—tick.
So let's have a look at the options. So if you go to the regulatory impact statement, and I'm going to use the same criteria that officials used in their regulatory impact statement, the options that were provided by officials, and I'm not talking to their options; I'm talking to my 45-day trial and the options have been assessed against the following criteria. Does the policy encourage employers to take on more employees, particularly disadvantaged job seekers? I believe a 45-day period does provide that, because it still allows employers to take on more employees but also the ability for it to be reduced to 45 days means that there's still a bit of balance on both sides, not just for the employer but also the employee.
A shorter period means it's a shorter cloud, a shorter grey area, for employees around the unjustified dismissal element. The second criteria that officials used to address the policy problem is: does the policy reduce the process costs and risks of a personal grievance for employers? Well, yes, because I'm not saying it's 90 days. I'm saying it's still 45 days; it just half the time. It is ultimately a little bit more balanced on the employee's side, but it is still 45 days.
The next question is: does the policy increase security for employees when beginning a new employment relationship? In some ways it could seem contradictory that I'd be saying that, actually, for employees it's 45 days so therefore there is almost less security. But, actually, it's just greater certainty for them. It's 45 days. I know people who have got married after knowing each other for 45 days.
Hon Members: What!
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Not me. I'm saying that 45 days is still a period of time whereby the employee and the employer get to know each other, the employer gets to understand if the person is the type of person that matches the job expectations in the description. So I believe that in some respects that third criteria that officials have used to basically analyse their different options does weigh towards the employee a little bit more than the employer.
The next criteria that officials use is: does the policy provide certainty for employers and employees regarding their employment rights and obligations? Yes, it does. It just makes it really clear it's 45 days. So it's similar to everything else that's been covered in the regulatory impact statement for the 90-day period but it's shorter at 45.
And is the option simple to implement? I believe it is. We currently have a framework, and the Minister is obviously looking to implement parts of that framework. I think that having a shorter period of 45 days is a way to balance it up a bit more. Currently, as the Minister just responded to a number of questions, she said it's about reducing compliance costs and—a number of things, actually; I only heard the first one about compliance costs.
I believe that this is a bit more balanced in that it's 45 days. For the employee it means there is a shorter period of harm for them because they understand really clearly. The employer knows whether it's working or not for them in that first month and a half. I'd really like to know the Minister's views on whether a 45-day period could actually work.
I also want to speak to my second amendment, which is on the Table. It's not 45 days; it's even shorter. My second amendment to clause 4 replaces the reference to the word "days" in section 67A with "hours". So it's a similar argument except that instead of 90 days, how about 90 hours?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought I'd take the opportunity to respond to all three of the member's amendments and say that we will not be supporting any of them. The time period is at 90 days; it makes it pretty straightforward. It will be 90 days for small and medium, 90 days for larger, so therefore 90 days for all employees. But also, reducing that amount of time by the extent that she is desiring—within a few days—doesn't actually give the opportunity for an employer and an employee to form a relationship, and to see whether or not they are a good fit for each other.
MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak again on this clause. What I wanted to clarify is, respectfully, I think the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has misunderstood the amendments that I've tabled in clause 4. The Minister stated that contractors are not covered by 90-day trials, which of course I know. There is no need for a contractor to be covered by a 90-day trial, because they have no employment rights because all of their rights are bound up in the interpretation of their contract.
The point of my amendment was to state that if someone is to follow the policy of the clause—which was, essentially, if someone had been previously employed by someone else, by a company, then they're not able to be covered by a trial period. So my proposition, with the amendment, was to state that if they had been engaged in another capacity as a contractor, then, by that same employer, even though that was a contractual relationship—as a contractor and not an employment relationship—surely the same logic applies: that they shouldn't be covered by a 90-day trial. And that is what I explained in my first contribution. The purpose, as the Minister had stated it, of the 90-day trial period, was, essentially, to get to know, find a good fit—I think she's used that term—get to know one another, make sure that they work with the team, that they can undertake the jobs well. And a lot of that, if not all of that, would be just as easily obtained as knowledge by the employer in a contractual relationship. I did state in my first contribution that of course that wouldn't necessarily be exactly the same, but it would be sufficiently similar, I believe, that it could be considered to strengthen this particular piece of legislation.
The second matter—which I don't think, perhaps it was in the way that I explained it, was not fully grasped by the Minister—was the amendment that I had raised in relation to people who may work for a company and then that company either dissolves or is insolvent, and a new company jumps up in its place that is, essentially, run by the same people, starts trading, and then is, essentially, considered to be a new employer under the legislation. I don't think it's the intent of this legislation to cover people in those situations. Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act covers a number of these employees in these types of situations, where there's often, you find—in cleaning companies, for example, you might have people continuing to do the same work but their employer might change. There's provisions within the Principal Act that this bill amends to deal with them. I was talking about that type of situation, where, genuinely, the person isn't really, if you look at it, actually in new employment. They're, basically, continuing their same job, although the name of their employer on their employment agreement might be different.
So those were the amendments, and I just felt that the Minister hadn't grasped the intention of those. They are made in good faith and I do think they would strengthen this piece of legislation, and they're in line with the principles of the legislation. So those were the clarifications that I wanted to make in relation to that.
I did have another amendment in relation to clause 4, to change section 67A(2)(c) to replace "not entitled" with "not required". Now, you may say that that's not within the spirit of this Act, which seeks to not allow personal grievances, but I would say a legal interpretation of that change would be to allow personal grievances, yes, but on a slightly lesser basis than they are currently permitted to people who are not covered by trial periods. So that amendment to clause 4, I think, would perhaps achieve the policy objective that the Minister intends to achieve with this piece of legislation, by kind of not really encouraging a personal grievance in that particular situation, but not going so far as to say that they were totally prohibited by it. And so that's why I think that additional amendment that I proposed to clause 4 is also helpful to perhaps meet the policy objectives, but with not such a harsh piece of legislation to actually remove the rights of personal grievances within trial periods.
I think it's really important—and I wonder if the Minister could reflect on this a wee bit. I don't feel that she fully addressed the point that I made around the ability to bring personal grievances and have that consistent with good faith, and to bring a personal grievance where there's discrimination, but to be dismissed. I don't feel that that has been answered by the Minister yet.
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Chair. I move, That debate on this question now close.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Point of order, Madam Chair. I just want to note that there are still a number of amendments tabled on the Table with content—including mine and I've been seeking the call—that haven't been addressed yet on amendments, and I think that we are calling this debate to a close too early. There are amendments still to be discussed.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I thank the member; that's not a point of order. I have made sure that everyone with amendments on the Table has had a chance to speak in this debate. The question is that the debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams' tabled amendments to clause 4, the heading to section 67A and 67A(1), are out of order as not being serious amendments.
The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 4, amending section 67A(2)(c) to delete the words "or other legal proceedings", be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams' remaining tabled amendments to clause 4, section 67A(2) are out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.
The Hon Phil Twyford's tabled amendment to clause 4, setting out that an employment agreement cannot contain a trial period if it is to apply to certain types of employee, is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.
The Hon Barbara Edmonds' tabled amendment to clause 4, replacing the word "days" in section 67A with "hours", is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.
The Hon Barbara Edmonds' tabled amendment to clause 4, replacing all references to a maximum trial period from 90 days to seven days, is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.
The question is that the Hon Barbara Edmonds' tabled amendment to clause 4, replacing all references to a maximum trial period from 90 days to 45 days, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich's tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting words into section 67A(1) after the words "by that employer", be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich's tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting into new section 67A(1) the words "or engaged as a contractor", be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich's tabled amendment to clause 4, replacing in section 67A(2)(c) the words "not entitled" with "not required", be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Helen White's tabled amendment to clause 4, requiring trial provisions in employment agreements to be lodged with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in a prescribed format, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Helen White's tabled amendment to clause 4, requiring employers seeking to implement trial provisions to provide employees with a form approved by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tangi Utikere's tabled amendment to clause 4, setting out criteria for valid trial provisions, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Rachel Boyack's tabled amendment to clause 4, limiting trial periods to employment agreements with a salary in the top income quintile, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Rachel Boyack's tabled amendment to clause 4, limiting trial provisions to employees who earn more than the New Zealand median wage, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti's tabled amendment to clause 4, enabling a dismissed beneficiary turned employee to bring a personal grievance, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti's tabled amendment to clause 4, enabling dismissed Māori, Pasifika, women, and disabled people to bring a personal grievance, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 4 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 Section 67B amended (Effect of trial provision under section 67A)
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to clause 5. Clause 5, "Section 67B amended (Effect of trial provision under section 67A)". The question is that clause 5 stand part.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I waited until after the vote because I thought that was the appropriate course of action. However, last evening, earlier in urgency, I raised a point of order when a closure was accepted, pointing out that there were a number of spokespeople and a number of outstanding questions. At the end of that point of order, you replied that that was a fair point, and now, we find ourselves—when a point of order was raised by Rachel Boyack, your response was that all those with amendments had spoken to those amendments. Now, if the response was that there was repetition or that there were issues around relevancy, we absolutely accept that, as that is your call as Chair. But the reason that everyone had spoken to their amendments is a new one to me, and so I was hoping you could point us to the relevant Standing Order or Speaker's ruling around those with amendments, please.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I thank the member for his point of order there. If he could see my run sheet, he will see that I have noted the relevance and the repetition. I was helping the member by explaining that I had made sure that everyone had spoken to their amendments, but there was starting to be repetition. So I feel valid in the call that I made. Thank you.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is it a new point of order?
Hon Kieran McAnulty: It is. It's a question.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I want to know if this is a new Speaker's ruling, and whether we can expect that whether those that have spoken to their amendments is going to be a reason for closure moving forward.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That's not a point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty. We're going to move on to clause—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Point of order.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a new point of order?
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It is. I think you'll find, Madam Chair, that asking if a ruling from a presiding officer is a new Speaker's ruling is entirely appropriate and has been done numerous times.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Just to close off this debate, it is the Chair's discretion to take a closure motion. I have done that. We are moving on to clause 5. The question is that clause 5 stand part.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): New point of order.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): It is a new point of order?
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: It is a new point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have been asking this because I feel like it's still unclear to me on which clause we can genuinely, meaningfully impact all the things in valid questions that we would have had in the select committee stage. We know that there's no select committee stage, but there's a lot of things that we normally—and answers would have happened, Minister, that may sit outside of those clauses that are valid otherwise. So I was just checking: would that be in the following clause, because the opportunities to unpack those things are running out, and I'm really concerned about—
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That's not a point of order.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Madam Chair, I do have a further point of order to raise because I do want it to be noted that despite the claim that all speakers with amendments were able to speak to their amendments on clause 4, I was not able to speak to the two amendments that I put forward on clause 4. I did speak earlier, not on amendments, but on other matters on previous clauses. But I was not granted a call on clause 4 where I did have two amendments, so I do want to put that on record.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that clause 5 stand part.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Topical. I'd like to speak to my amendments that relate to clause 5. One of the things that we know is going to be an issue going forward, and it's been an issue, is the lack of reasons; the fact that employers don't have to give a reason when they dismiss workers under the trial. One of my amendments which, after clause 5—sorry, we actually repeal section 67B(5)(b). It would require employers to give a reason when people are dismissed as part of that 90-day trial.
I think why this is quite important is because the Minister has previously spoken to the fact that she wants the 90-day trials to give that greater flexibility and to address issues when what she describes as kind of not a good match between employers and those workers, right? But for that workers' professional development and for that worker to find sustainable long-term employment, it's then really hard to identify what is it, then, that that worker needs to change to find suitable employment and a better matching with future employers. So my amendment would then be able to at least add that safety net and that ability for that worker to have that professional development embedded in, because if that employer thinks that there is not a good match between themselves and the worker, that worker should at least be given that reason for why they were basically terminated under the 90-days trial. Without it, sure, there may be that greater flexibility for that employer, but the issue that she has described throughout the debate, of wanting to address in terms of the poor matching, isn't therefore being addressed in any way in this bill. So I think my amendment could actually support the Minister, making employers give those reasons.
The other amendment I had in relation to this clause was to do with giving back the ability for workers to take some of these issues to the Employment Relations Authority, and this would basically be a check against the use of trial provisions by unscrupulous employers to dismiss employees unreasonably. It still remains that it is for the Employment Relations Authority to assess whether this application would be granted, and so there's still a level of discretion. But I hope the Minister can at least realise that there will be some employers who will be unscrupulous in their use. Even if we were to take the Minister's words in good faith around what she intends to do with this bill, which I personally disagree with, then we ought to believe that there will still be some employers who will be unscrupulous. I mean, members from the Government side have spoken about unscrupulous employer initiatives like migrant exploitation, and therefore there surely will be some that will be part of the 90-day trials. So I would love to know whether she thinks there should be that opportunity to grant the Employment Relations Authority to assess whether some employers have been unscrupulous in their use of the 90-day trials provisions.
The other question I wanted to have was in relation to one of my other amendments which also would have added some extra safeguards and also would have addressed the points that I've been raising throughout the debate around this not just being about a good match between the workers and the employers but also about having better management. One of the things that my amendment aims to create is alternatives to just dismissing those workers, and for employers to be required to explore alternatives other than just dismissing those workers. I think that would, in my view—again, if one was to take the Minister's words in good faith—actually help address those issues around good matching between employers and workers. So I'd be keen to get an understanding, just to surmise, whether she thinks there should be other options that employers should consider as part of this before dismissing people and whether employers should be required to give a reason to workers, and, if not, why not? Because of that power imbalance that exists, I think it would be fair to have those reasons being given out.
I also wanted to address and ask—which I would have been able to do in the select committee stage—whether a trial impact assessment was done, because this bill has the potential of having—
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to quickly respond to the member Ricardo Menéndez March, and I suspect this may come up quite a lot in the debate, so I wanted to start off in the way I intend to continue. I have already addressed the issue of whether or not employers should be forced to give reasons for dismissal in clause 4.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Speaking to clause 5, which amends 67B—and I appreciate there was a little bit of uncertainty in relation to the overlap between clauses 4 and 5. So just to be clear, in subclause (1) of clause 5 it says "In section 67B(1), replace 'a small-to-medium-sized employer' with 'an employer'.", and also, "In section 67B(5)(a) and (b), replace 'small-to-medium-sized employer' with 'employer'." So, effectively, what this provision does is make that transition to just those small businesses—which we know do take up a large proportion of the businesses in New Zealand—with all employers.
So I would just like to ask a question in relation to some of the material traversed in the regulatory impact statement. I would like to note also that given the short period of time that officials had to prepare this regulatory impact statement, and given the fact that there's quite a few bills going through this House lately without any regulatory impact statement, they've done a pretty good job in highlighting what are potentially some of the deficiencies in passing legislation so abruptly without a full submission period at select committee. It's really important to note that in the regulatory impact statement, which I think directly relates to clause 5 of the bill, it says, "We consider that smaller employers are more likely to benefit from trial periods because they are less able to absorb the costs of a poor match or dismissal. In comparison, … employers can be more equipped to manage any dismissal processes and absorb the costs."—so, obviously, by having an HR person or having a department on board. The regulatory impact statement notes that "We therefore consider that there are diminishing benefits from increasing the availability of trial periods to larger employers".
So given the fact that the Minister's own regulatory impact statement clearly states that there are diminishing benefits in increasing the applicability of the 90-day trial from small to medium enterprises to all businesses, I would be really interested to understand the rationale for this piece of legislation.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I will respond directly to the member so that we can get this one out of the way. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment did have a preferred option in the regulatory impact statement to maintain the status quo, but I also want to note that the analysis said it was also a finely balanced weigh up between the status quo and the Government's preferred option to extend the 90-day trial periods to all employers.
One of the reasons that they gave, which the member has spoken to, is that larger employers are better placed to absorb the costs of dismissal. But this Government does not think this is a good way of approaching regulation. If there is a way for businesses to, you know, afford the cost of unnecessary regulation, that doesn't mean that they should afford the cost of unnecessary regulation.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The honourable, sorry, the honourable—I know him well. It's just the name's not really—Duncan Webb.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thanks. Thank you, Mr Chair—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Don't be insulted, Mr Webb. I've forgotten names that are much better known.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, no. Look, it's a bit of levity in a very serious matter, because this bill—I mean, I guess I have two, possibly three questions to speak to, and the amendment in my name. It strikes me that there's a continuum of egregiousness when an employer chooses to dismiss someone in the 90-day period. At one end, you know, there's the obvious: they can't do the job—nothing wrong with that at all—and then, further down the continuum, "We really rub each other up the wrong way. It's not going to be a great relationship.", and I can see something in that. But if we go right down the other end, "I don't like Muslims" is absolutely egregious and clearly a breach, and a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Act. Or "he's a bloody union member"—again, clearly a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the right of freedom of association.
Now, whilst I can understand, if not agree, with the views at one end of the spectrum, the idea that there are no repercussions whatsoever under this proposed clause 6 amendment seems truly extraordinary to me. It may well be that the Human Rights Review Tribunal would have something to say about it, but, really, that is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, which brings me to my proposed amendment, which is to insert into the proposed amendment section an additional subclause (6) that any disagreement between an employer and an employee about the use of a trial provision in an employment agreement must be referred to a mediation services resolution.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Dr Webb, are you talking about clause 6 or clause 5?
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: New clause 6, sorry, sir—inserting a new clause 6. So this is the, I understand, new clause 6. This is the appropriate point, I'm pretty sure, at which to—no, that's right. There is no clause 6. But there will be.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Some of the amendments we're discussing on this particular part are pertaining to new clause 6 as well, but they also pertain to clause 5. So I just need to be just a little bit specific, because we will be debating a clause 6 shortly.
Camilla Belich: Point of order.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): If you can help with the explanation here, I'm quite happy to hear that, Miss Belich.
Camilla Belich: Yes, I believe so, Mr Chair. Prior to your arrival in the Chair, a discussion was held about this particular issue in relation to how we would deal with new clause 6 issues, or perhaps amendments, which purported to be new clause 6 but actually, in the view of the staff at the House Office, related more to clause 5. We're informed that almost all of the Labour amendments were relevant to clause 5, bar one in the name of Ginny Andersen, and a number of the Green amendments were relevant to clause 6. So my understanding, from our discussions earlier, was that the amendment in the name of the Hon Duncan Webb is very much within clause 5, which we are currently debating. All of the other Labour amendments would be in clause 5, apart from one in the name of the Hon Ginny Andersen. Additionally, there are some very good amendments from Ricardo Menéndez March that would come under new clause 6, which, I understand, will be voted on separately.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Yeah, actually, that's been very useful, and the Clerk tells me that is actually—I'm now caught up, so thank you very much for that, and thank you to the committee for their patience. I'm aware that with the change in Speaker there's always going to sometimes be an issue, but I believe I'm caught up. So if we can start Dr Duncan Webb's time again.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I'm sure I won't need another five minutes to really conclude my point, and I thank my most excellent whip for that clarification as well. But the real point is this: that it's clear that there can be a use of a 90-day clause which is a breach of rights and would lead to remedies in other fora such as the Human Rights Review Tribunal. But the point is really that that is really disproportionate, costly, time-consuming, and would be extremely unwieldy, so a much better approach is for those kinds of issues to be worked out in, I guess, the mediation service, where the parties can, essentially, sort out their differences and in many cases go their separate ways.
So I guess I have two questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The first question is does she accept that there are some uses of 90-day trial periods such as those where there's a breach of human rights? My examples I gave, you'll recall, were firing someone because they're a Muslim or a union member. The second questions is if that is the case, does she agree that those kind of extraordinary tribunals are the appropriate place to resolve those issues, or would it be more appropriate to be undertaken in the very much more affordable and approachable mediation service?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Chairman. God, it's depressing that the parties of the right in this House think that taking away the work rights of New Zealanders is some kind of trophy to be celebrated in the first couple of weeks of this new Parliament. Utterly depressing that they are so bereft of any kind of economic development vision for this country that they think making precarious workers more precarious is some kind of development strategy for the economy of this country—God awful. My amendment, which I—
Hon Member: Stick to the bill.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I very much was sticking to the bill. The amendment is a new clause 6 that we're discussing in clause 5, that would insert this following clause: "Repeal section 67B(5)(a)". Now, let me take a moment to explain that. Section 67B of the Employment Relations Act exempts small and medium enterprises from the requirement in section 4(1A)(c) of the Employment Relations Act, which requires employers who are about to make a decision that, in the words of the legislation, "may have an adverse effect on the employee's continuation of employment"—i.e., they're about to get the sack—and in that case, it requires the employer to provide access to information about that decision. That's the first thing. The employee is about to get the boot; they've got the right to request information about that decision.
Secondly, they have under the Employment Relations Act, which has been settled in law for quite a long time in this country, the opportunity to give comment to the employer before a decision is made—all right? They have the ability to ask for information about their impending sacking, and then they have the right to provide comment to the employer before a decision is made. Now that is pretty much the definition of due process.
Katie Nimon: Are you mansplaining?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yeah. Well, apparently, some people in this House need it—apparently they do. It's due process, but this bill takes away that fundamental right for—God knows how many; hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders at work—and I ask the members on the other side of the Chamber, who think this is hilarious, how would you feel in that situation? You think it's hilarious that this is happening. How do the members on that side feel about that? How would you feel if your daughter or son at work gets the boot within 90 days, and they have no right to request information about the decision; they have no right to provide any comment to the employer. Put yourself in their shoes—put yourself in their shoes. Do you think it's OK to deny due process to hundreds of thousands of Kiwis at work? Basically, under this bill, they can be sacked on a whim and the employer does not have to provide any information about it—they do not have to give any information.
This Government is taking us backwards. It is taking us backwards, and I ask the Minister: would you consider removing that exemption and supporting this amendment?
Of course, we oppose the bill in its entirety. It's a nasty, tawdry bit of legislation. We have no desire to support it, and, in fact, if you asked members on this side of the House, we'd get rid of 90-day trial periods altogether—altogether. Ask New Zealand First: they'll give you the answer. They'll give you the answer, and, believe me, you'll find out how that feels very shortly. This bill—[Interruption]
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Short, sharp, preferably witty, and not disruptive.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Why would you—meaning members on the other side of the Chamber—why would you give employers—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Twyford, just to the judicious use of the word "you", can you just actually use another word?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It was in the same breath as—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Don't bring the Chair into it. So just—
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yep.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): You've been in the House long enough to know that rule.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Why would members on the other side of the House choose to give employers—and, of course, the bad ones—a free pass to actually sack people on a whim and not have to provide any information to the worker who is affected? Why would that be done? What's the reason for it? They wouldn't actually subject themselves to that denial of due process, and if they thought about it for a nanosecond, they would realise that people in their lives who might come up against an unscrupulous employer—they wouldn't want them to be subject to this kind of Draconian process. It is a step backwards for employment law in this country and it's a step backwards for New Zealand.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I very much appreciate the opportunity to take a call, and I want to speak to the first of two amendments that I have on the Table that are relating to new clause 6, although noting that my amendments are considered more of an addition to the existing clause 5. So I am looking forward to being able to take a couple of contributions, the first one just to speak about the amendment that I have, which is "After section 67B(2) insert '(3) employees who are dismissed under a trial provision are entitled to a termination payment of three months of ordinary pay by their employer, to be paid out over the three months following termination'."
Now, a clause such as this would achieve a number of objectives. First, I wish to note that, as other colleagues have mentioned, for many people who are employed under these provisions, they are often precarious workers. We've heard examples tonight about my own family member and about the devastating example used by my colleague Jan Tinetti, around young people being employed under a 90-day trial and then losing their job within that 90-day period. Those of us in the committee will be aware that a person in that situation would likely then have to turn to Work and Income and could be subjected to a 12-week stand-down period. It could be very difficult for that person to access funds during that time.
This is very much around fairness and ensuring that vulnerable workers aren't then left without any access to income, after having been dismissed under a 90-day trial. I say to members opposite that, actually, all members of this House have a clause of this nature in our agreements as members of this Parliament. Any of us who are turfed out after an election are able to access a three-month payment, so I say to members opposite: if it's good enough for us, surely it's good enough for some of New Zealand's lowest-paid workers? We don't have redundancy provisions in this country. We have a stand-down period for accessing Work and Income support. So, for vulnerable workers who perhaps have given up being on a benefit to go and try a new job—which is something we would all encourage—to end up potentially without having income for a period of time, as a result of what this side of the House believe is bad law, is around fairness but also ensuring that there is that financial support for people.
Also, a clause such as this would also have a precautionary effect, I believe, on employers, to just take that extra piece of care—to consider whether a 90-day trial is the best course of action in the first place; furthermore, whether a dismissal under a 90-day trial is a fair course of action. As we all know—well, some of us in this House know—there are existing trial provisions in the law. From my experience, those existing trial provisions do work. They allow a proper process to be followed. So a clause of this nature would, basically, say, "Look, if that employer was going to take a less rigorous approach to the dismissal of someone who may not be working out, well, then there would actually be a financial consequence to them." So, in my view, a clause such as this would really encourage employers to think a bit more carefully about whether they would use a 90-day fire-at-will, no-process clause within an employment agreement, versus a trial period that does require there to be a process, that does require an opportunity for the employee to improve, and that does require feedback and further training to be given so that that person on a trial period would be able to engage in a more rigorous and fair process as the employer is considering their suitability.
So a clause such as this—such as my new clause 6, which would insert after section 67B(2) a provision for three months of ordinary pay to be paid out—in my view, would achieve two outcomes. One would be to ensure that that vulnerable employee, if they were dismissed, wouldn't end up being financially disadvantaged, especially if they were having to wait to receive support from Work and Income, and it would also, I believe, give employers just some time to consider what would be the better option for them, to ensure they're running a fair process within their business. I look forward to a further contribution on my other amendment. Thank you, Mr Chair.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the Minister's previous comment that she feels satisfied with having spoken to the idea of, basically, that there's no need to give reasons. But she didn't really address my other two amendments, so I just wanted to remind her that there are these other two amendments: one on the Employment Relations Authority, and the other one around making sure that employers who are too hasty with dismissal under trial periods have considered all options before ending someone's employment.
The other thing before I was interrupted in my call that I wanted to check was around the child impact assessment, and whether that had been done. As I have mentioned in previous clauses, I kind of started with saying that I would have had the opportunity to have had this raised at the select committee stage, and also with that, there is the impact that adding it to larger businesses or otherwise may have on child poverty reduction targets, and I ask whether she had considered whether this has an impact on child poverty altogether. I think that the clause that we're in best reflects that because of the language around where they're expended to. And the reason why I'm asking about the relationship to child poverty reduction targets and child impact assessment is, as has been canvassed, because of the benefit levels but also the period in which then someone may not have an income if they transition to that benefit.
There are those kinds of just real household, material issues that I think should be addressed in this debate, and, no doubt, if we'd had a select committee stage, those communities and people who advocate for them would have had the opportunity to raise the impact that they believe this bill would have had. So I'm looking forward to the Minister addressing my other two amendments and speaking to what she considers to be the impact on working families with children.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I wish to speak to my amendment to clause 5, which would be to insert after the amendment to section 67B(1) a new subclause (2), which says that "Employees who have a legitimate trial provision in their employment agreement are exempt from legal proceedings against them from their employer for wage recovery."
I think this is a useful amendment for the committee to consider. There's an issue here. Essentially, if employers were to use their new powers under the amended Act, as the Minister is proposing to dismiss workers within the 90-day period, then there would also be this further power for employers which creates a pretty terrible situation for workers—especially vulnerable workers—where they then might enter into proceedings to recover overpaid wages. That is something that employees may face when they're faced with dismissals. It is a way for employers to recover costs in situations where there has been some sort of mistake or an overpayment. But it's also just a really bad situation for a young employee to find themselves in, where if you're paying your bills based on what you're getting in your income, you're probably not checking exactly on your payslips and you're probably living on exactly what your payslip is, and then to be faced with proceedings from your former employer who is trying to recover some of those wages, it just seems to be an extra level of unfair in this situation.
So let me take the committee through those wage recovery provisions. They're found in the Wages Protection Act of 1983. Usually, it would require an employer to seek the written consent of the employee whom they are trying to recover wages from, but in certain circumstances the employer can either begin proceedings under the Employment Relations Act or obtain a court order to look for a remedy and to recover wages.
Sometimes in situations where there is a power imbalance between employers and employees, those proceedings are also entered into by employers to make a point. The point being made there is that the employer has the power to pursue the employee—
Carl Bates: And the point you're making?
ARENA WILLIAMS: Was that a point of order?
Carl Bates: And the point you're making?
ARENA WILLIAMS: Did I hear a point of order, Mr Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I didn't hear a point of order. Carry on.
ARENA WILLIAMS: OK, thank you. The purpose of these wage recovery provisions that we need to put into this bill would not allow employers any avenue for pursuing employees who are dismissed under the 90-day provisions that the Minister is seeking to put in, because that adds, essentially, this extra level of unfairness whereby an employer, who has these extra powers—because it's not the right fit, as the Minister has told us, because of the need for more flexibility within the employment market—could then sort of add the costs back on to the employee who has been let go. This is a useful amendment for the committee to consider, and I hope that we can consider putting it in.
There are also two other amendments in my name that I hope the Minister will consider. They are about allowing the House to be clear about the number of employees to whom this new provision would apply. Thanks, Mr Chair.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thanks very much, Mr Chair. Now, I have two drafted amendments for a new clause 6. I've got advice to understand that the first of mine will be debated under clause 5, and the second one subsequent to voting on that clause. So the new clause 6 proposes that section 103 be amended, which refers to section 103 of the Employment Relations Act. So in section 103, following section 103(1)(k), my proposed amendment is that a new section would be inserted after paragraph (k), which would be paragraph (l), "that employee has been dismissed unfairly under a trial period".
Now, that section of the Employment Relations Act, which this bill, the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill, amends, basically lays out the grounds for a personal grievance for all of those different reasons why an employee may take a personal grievance against their employer. What the extension of the 90-day trial period to all businesses—what this amended bill essentially does is remove all grounds for a personal grievance.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Sorry, Ms Andersen, can I just interrupt. I think this particular additional clause of yours is actually part of clause 6, because that will actually trigger a new clause 6.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: So we did seek advice. The whip sought advice from the previous Clerk and we showed both amendments and we wrote that that was actually the advice we received, that this should be debated under clause 5. I'm happy to take it at a different point, but the advice we did receive—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well, look, we'll continue on now and then we will actually—you've got another couple of minutes to go, but it will actually also be relevant to clause 6, because it will actually trigger a new clause 6.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: OK, thank you. So the point I would like to have an answer from the Minister on is: would she be open to inserting an additional clause under section 103 of the Employment Relations Act that would add in that an employee has been dismissed unfairly under the trial period? Essentially, that enables those rights to continue if there are grounds that the employee may feel that there's been either discrimination, unfair conditions—there might be a whole range of reasons why they'd believe that they have been unjustifiably dismissed—by adding in the additional provision into the legislation that would enable a greater strengthening of workers' rights, and it would stop the erosion of workers' rights, which this bill so dramatically does for New Zealanders.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. There are a couple of things I wanted to mention in my first contribution to this clause 5. This is really the operative clause, in a way, of the entire bill, as the main change that means that the effect of this bill can be carried is the change in section 67B(1) to replace a "small and medium sized employer" with "employer" in general, and also the change in section 67B(5)(a) and (b) in the Employment Relations Act. Without those changes, there would not be a bill to really discuss in this debate. So thank you, Mr Chair, for having a view to take some comments on that section, which go to the purpose and nature of this piece of legislation.
I did also want to touch on, after I make my comments in relation to those sections, an amendment, brought by my colleague Jan Tinetti, that not only looks to what occurs once a trial period is inactive within an employment agreement but adds in an additional clause—it says clause 6 but, as we've discussed, it would be under clause 5—to allow an employee to be entitled to benefit payments if, in fact, they qualify for that after a trial period is enacted.
My first comments really are in terms of the—as I've said, this is really quite an important operative section, this clause 5 of the bill. I just feel I would like the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to respond to exactly what evidence she believes and, apart from the conversations that she's had with people, is there any evidence to suggest that this is something that will make a difference to New Zealand as a whole? You see, that's her responsibility as workplace relations Minister. All of the evidence seems to suggest that it doesn't make a difference to include larger businesses within trial provisions. It seems to suggest that there isn't any impact at all on those larger businesses, apart from the obviously terrible and devastating impact that it can have on individuals when they are covered by a trial period and they have no recourse to challenge a dismissal. I know that that's a big question, but I really feel this is an operative part of the Act, and I don't really feel that, from the Minister, we've got a significant or substantive response on that.
I have heard that there was an election and they have a mandate for this. My comment has been that an electoral mandate does not justify bad lawmaking. The issues that we have with this section really are: why, and what's the evidence? I know that in the coalition agreement it states that this is to be a Government that bases their decisions on evidence. What evidence is there? Further to that point, why has she decided to implement this when it appears not to make a bit of difference in terms of the studies that have looked on the wider impacts? I mean, I do appreciate, and I don't at all discount, the fact that it may be that the Minister has had individual conversations with individual business owners and they've suggested this. But, of course, we need to look at the overall impact of how a policy like this will affect New Zealand, and whether it does indeed lead to people being hired more regularly. The evidence seems to suggest that, no, it doesn't.
I did want to touch on the amendment before my time in relation to this particular call is over. It is a big problem for people if they are unable to access payments for benefit if they've been dismissed in a timely manner. Of course, in this situation, it could be without any fault of their own. It could be for any reason at all. I mentioned a few of those: hair colour, weight—whatever. They just take a dislike to you. They don't like something to do with your name. It could be for any reason. So what protections are there in place for people, now that we're expanding trial provisions to the majority of the population? An additional 78 percent of all employees will be covered by this. So what protections are there for those people who are at the sharp end of this amendment? Are they, in fact, entitled to benefit payments? I'd appreciate the Minister's clarification on that. Are they entitled straight away? Is this something that will be available to them? Is there any other additional support available to people subjected to this provision?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thought I would get a few of these queries and concerns under way within my allocated time. Speaking firstly to Rachel Boyack's two amendments, the first of which was about allowing employees to be entitled to termination payments of three months—well, this amendment would add a huge, significant cost to businesses and does not align with the intent of the bill, which is to reduce cost and risk and restore employer confidence. The second one was about allowing for any dismissal under a trial provision in an employment agreement to have the written agreement of both the employer and the employee. I just note that dismissal processes aren't undertaken with consent of both parties. If we took that to its natural conclusion, it just means no one would ever be able to leave an employment agreement—that's quite a deviation from employment law.
Speaking to the Hon Duncan Webb's amendment where he wanted to talk about the mediation services that would be available for resolution, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) already has a dispute resolution service available to employers and employees, and we're not proposing to change the Act's existing provisions for mediation, which is voluntary between both parties under the current law.
Speaking to the Hon Phil Twyford's amendment, the substance of that amendment I have discussed at length in clause 4, which I'd already discussed about Ricardo Menéndez March's. Ricardo Menéndez March had another amendment which was about people bringing personal grievance proceedings if they have the leave of the Employment Relations Authority. The issue that we take with this one is the whole point of this trial period is to increase employer confidence to hire a new employee, and that's why—removing risk. This adds more risk into a law, and we don't believe that it will actually help streamline the labour market but make it worse off. So we oppose that provision.
Arena Williams had an amendment which talked a little bit about "exempt from legal proceedings against them from employer for wage recovery"—so trying to make it about wage recovery. But I just have to note that that's not part of the Employment Relations Act; that's part of the Wage Protection Act, so that's outside the scope of this bill.
Ricardo Menéndez March also had quite a few more Amendment Papers, which we'll get through, requiring MBIE to monitor and report on the use of trial provisions, and then also another one requiring a report from the Minister three years following the commencement of this operation. I don't support either of these amendments. As I said, I think, back in the title clause, I will be looking to further work in the labour market space but I don't believe these sorts of provisions need to be in this law.
Then also speaking to Camilla Belich's last suggestion there about welfare benefit payments, I just note that this is the Employment Relations Act. We're not really talking about benefit payments, which is not under my purview in my portfolio—
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Just asking if it had an impact on that in terms of the rules around benefits and when people lose jobs. It's a relevant question.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: And then we also wanted to talk a little bit about this issue here—
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: It's something she should go and find out, as Minister.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: —thank you very much for your contribution—about whether or not a business can afford the cost of unnecessary regulation. It doesn't mean that they should afford to do it.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, can I thank the Minister for providing the regulatory impact statement. It seems to be something of a rarity before the House under this Government these days. I note from that that when we're looking at paragraph 32 in it, it does provide the overarching sort of focus, or objective, really, of this regulatory system when it comes to employment relations. It says in there that it is "to enable productive, mutually beneficial employment relationships" and that, "As such, the system assumes an ongoing relationship between the employer and the employee."
Again, that sort of lends itself that the process around this in this clause is obviously pretty important. I note that my colleague Camilla Belich referred to the global context, and the regulatory impact statement also does touch on some of the international context in the sense of arrangements. My question to the Minister, firstly, is around her comfort in that this proposal sits or aligns adequately with other international jurisdictions and contexts when the regulatory impact statement itself points to, for example, the fact that in the United Kingdom there's generally an agreement between the employer and the employee. When we look at Germany, there is a discretion about a probationary period. In the Netherlands the probationary period must be agreed in writing.
That brings me to two amendments in my name. The first one is, I guess, a pre-emptive one. It seeks to amend section 67B, which falls under clause 5, and seeks to insert a new provision, which is: "Any employer seeking to utilise a trial period must first"—so there is the timeliness—"meet with the employee and consult on the decision to implement the trial period." This includes seeking the employee's feedback on other options that do not include utilising the trial period.
I'm interested in the Minister's thoughts around whether that is something that she would accept, because it might be that in an employment situation those other options could be things like starting out with some other level of support. It could be around putting in place some guidance for the new employee, and while many think that that is automatically something that would kick in as part of a new employment relationship, it may be that if there is agreement between the two parties, actually, there is no need to utilise the trial period. It also, I think, goes back to what has been covered in this Chamber tonight around the tenet of good faith and that being a key provision. So I'd be interested in the Minister's thoughts around that.
The other amendment is an additional amendment to section 67B, and that is inserting an additional provision which is "employees have the right, at no cost"—which is important because it is about it being accessible—"to seek a determination from the employment authority that a trial period used to end their employment is valid and has been used correctly and appropriately." My question for the Minister is: what comfort in this clause, as currently drafted, is there to ensure that there is an adequate process that allows for the employee to understand what is happening? We've talked about the fact that there are many individuals who are in employment situations who would not be familiar with legalities, familiar with contractual law, familiar with contractual obligations, and so this amendment is really focused on ensuring that if an employer does seek to action that part of the agreement, there is an accessible avenue available to any employee to effectively seek the determination from the appropriate authority or agency, which in this case would be the employment authority that exists, to ensure there is a sense of validity to it but also that it has been used correctly and appropriately.
These two amendments are about process, both pre-emptively, before engaging a trial period, and also in circumstances where a trial period may actually be utilised so that there is an accessible avenue available to the employee, as part of the employment relationship, to seek some validation that the process, whatever may have been followed, that has been taken by the employer has been done so correctly and appropriately.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to propose a clause that I put in in handwriting and it will be on the Table. It's a clause that I think goes to the debate we've heard tonight, in particular the comments of the Minister, so I am listening. What I understand the Minister is suggesting is that this is good for New Zealand because it's good for employees who need to be given a chance, and those employees are the ones who are the most precarious, the ones who are seen as risky by employers.
Now, my concern is about the chilling effect that this kind of trial period has on a whole lot of employees who don't really fit into that category at all. They tend to be workers who are already in employment, and what this does is it puts them into a position where they can't move across into another employer without significant risk.
Now, the statistics—and, yes, it is based on the research that I have seen from America with regards to a concept called portability of employment—are that it is an issue particularly for women, and women actually seem to significantly be more conservative and less risk-averse when it comes to moving from one job to the other, sometimes because they're not the primary income earner and their job needs to fit in with their family, etc. So they are less risk-averse and they don't move easily, and if, in fact, there's an impediment to the moving, which is the risk that they may suddenly lose that job, then they're not likely to leave.
I am concerned that they aren't taking the advances that they can get in a new job because of things like trial periods, so I wanted to know whether you'd looked at that issue of the chilling effect, and whether you'd consider my amendment, which targets your proposed change to the law, but it actually does it so that it cuts out and carves out this provision in so far as it affects people who are already in gainful employment, and I've spelt out the reasons for that. One is the fact that it's contrary to the stated object that you've got—that it would actually really work best, in your view, on those employees who needed a chance to get into the workforce. Another is that there is a huge financial loss in that situation to an employee, which is an injustice itself, and so there is that. The third, of course—in fact, I've spoken about this in speaking to an earlier clause—is I'm very concerned about the cost this visits on taxpayers, because when people lose their jobs, they don't fall in to a void. The taxpayer has to pay them a benefit. So it's not even good for the taxpayer to do this.
So, really, I am concerned, and I'd like to hear why is this OK. Why is it OK that the taxpayer ends up picking up the tab every time a big business—we're not talking little businesses—decides that it wants to jettison an employee in 90 days without any reason given? Why is that OK? Why are we just picking up the tab for what employers do in that situation, given that, I understand, the new Government is committed to people being responsible for their own situation? I would have expected a Government that was made up of the ACT Party to be one that was supposed to be sitting on "Employers pay their own way here", not "The taxpayer ends up paying for all those employees." So I'd really like to know the answer to that question, because there's very good research, and I'd like to know what the Minister's done about finding out about that research into the chilling effect.
Now, my second amendment on the Table is one that's about the pattern of behaviour. I am concerned about employers overusing this clause. So, again, you've talked about, Minister, these employees being just the precarious—the ones that you wouldn't give a go otherwise. Well, one of the problems is the habitual use of the clause: the four people in one month all being terminated, each one being substituted with the next one who's willing to hope and then be dismissed.
So my suggestion in my second amendment is that you make a provision here that only one employee out of every 50 in a 12-month period is able to be terminated under this clause. I'd like to know why not, because what has the Minister done in terms of looking at the pattern of abuse?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I want to thank the advice that I received from the Clerk, who clarified that, actually, the amendment that I have tabled—I should actually discuss it in this part of the debate.
Following on a couple of weeks ago in my reply to the Speech from the Throne, one of the queries I had was around the vision that this new Government has for our country, and my concern has been, over the last couple of weeks, that there has been a lot of urgency, there's been the inability to be able to actually scrutinise particular bills, except through here in the House. I thank Mr Chair for allowing us to be able to speak to the different amendments because, as you can see, there are a lot of amendments that a number of members on this side of the House do want to be able to speak to.
One of the issues that I did have in relation to this bill, other than the fact that it's reinstating those trials, is the imbalance of that policy decision. The imbalance of it is that it weighs heavily on the employer's side, so one of the solutions which I have tabled is to be able to provide a safety net for the employees who have been subject to this trial, because, ultimately, again, if you look to the regulatory impact statement, it provides—further to what Tangi Utikere spoke of earlier today—the purpose of the employment relations regime, the framework in which this particular bill sits within.
Therefore, my new amendment, which I have tabled, is that following the new clause 6, section 67B be amended: "(Effect of trial provision under section 67A). After section 67B(5), insert subsection (6): 'Any employer that wishes to use trial periods into their employment agreements must register with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment'."
Some people may say that, well, that's just providing an additional compliance cost. However, one of the very new features that had actually come through—and I think it was around 2015-16—was the New Zealand Business Number (NZBN). Now, that was a policy that the previous National Government had put through. Obviously, businesses are applying to get New Zealand Business Numbers through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). Again, this would be the type of advice that you'd want to seek from officials around: could this work—sort of leveraging off the NZBN—so that you'd ask employers who want to use those 90-day trial periods that, as part of that process, they just basically tag on to their New Zealand Business Number that they're using the trial periods.
Then I look to the second part of my amendment around subsection (7), which is "Businesses registered with MBIE under this clause must pay 1.39 percent of the salary of the FTE employed at their business into a fund overseen by MBIE and ACC." Again, that is a new regime; there would need to be some real thought around the implementation. Obviously, like when you have tax, the incidence of tax and where that falls, the incidence of this particular levy might fall on the employee; however, it is for the employee's benefit. Again, similar to the ACC system, where a collection of a levy is used for the greater benefit of ACC provision, this now leads to subsection (8), which is what I've tabled, and this will create a fund that will be used to pay workers dismissed under trial periods 80 percent of their wages for up to seven months.
This may sound controversial; however, I believe that the reinstatement of the trials is imbalanced; it totally balances and weighs in favour of the employer. Therefore, this particular tabled amendment is about providing additional balance for the employee in the respect that, because they are unable to put forward a personal grievance because they've been dismissed, they aren't able to actually ask as to why. They could ask why, however. There's been a number of amendments where members have tabled, asking them to be able to provide a reason. This provides an additional safety net. Again, the Minister will probably have to work through the incidences as to who this falls on, but, again, if businesses have to comply in other aspects of the regime, particularly when they're touching base with MBIE in relation to the NZBN, my suggestion is that this particular tabled amendment is just another way to be able to rebalance it, to allow employees to have a safety net in relation to the reinstatement of these 90-day trials.
My question, really, to the Minister is if she has any particular views. If she doesn't agree with my Amendment Paper, then what is her proposal in order to rebalance the 90-day reinstatement to help our employees?
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. It's been canvassed in previous debates as to disabled people, and with regard to clause 5, with the expansion of 90-day trials to those bigger businesses, I wanted to check whether the Minister had sought any views from Whaikaha, or whether that was explored, around the impact of the expansion of 90-day trials on disabled workers, particularly because of the minimum wage exemptions and other kinds of specific interactions that disabled people experience in the workplace. I ask whether she had sought any second opinions there or, in fact, from any other ministry that are population-specific.
Particularly with regard to disabled workers, I did want to see if the Minister had any reflections around the fact that there are specific discriminations that are already felt in the workplace, both in law but also in practice and in culture. I think, if there were no opinions sought from Whaikaha, just what are her views on how this may impact disabled people more generally? I know that she's talked about the flexibility element, but with it being extended to those larger businesses, not all of them have the management practices to support new disabled workers into the workforce, and so I'm interested to see how she thinks those 90-day trials may impact disabled people.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I'd like to speak to my proposed amendment for a new clause 6, and this is the second one. So this is the implementation of this bill contingent on a review in three years' time. The proposed amendment is made subject to a review being undertaken in three years in order to investigate how trial periods and employment agreements have improved the outcomes for workers.
Tim van de Molen: Point of order, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): If this is a point of order regarding the relevance of this, that is a job for the Chair. I'm well aware of what's going on. If that's your point of order, there's no need. However, point of order, Tim van de Molen.
Tim van de Molen: OK—all right. My point of order is to seek consistency. What we heard from Ms Belich earlier was a clear agreement that had been reached that Ms Andersen's amendments were not part of clause 5; they were part of clause 6.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That's correct.
Tim van de Molen: Now, I'm interested in whether your view now is that that's incorrect. If they are to be in this part, then presumably they will not be available for debate in the next—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The member is actually speaking to another part from the part that actually became part of clause 6, but thank you for your assistance. Carry on.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. This amendment is made subject to a review being undertaken in a period of three years in order to investigate how trial periods and employment agreements have improved the outcomes for workers in employment. The report of this review will be important information to understand the impact of what this legislation has done to those New Zealanders it directly impacts. My amendment also stipulates that this must be provided no later than six months following the three-year anniversary of Royal assent of the repeal bill, and it also states that the Minister must, within 60 working days of the day the review is provided to the Minister, present it to the House of Representatives.
The purpose of this amendment really speaks to that part identified in the regulatory impact statement that says that there is simply very little evidence that New Zealand has right now that indicates what the impacts are of this, not only to businesses but also to working New Zealanders. The regulatory impact statement lists three different sources of information that have been made available to try to understand the impact of what the legislation will do, and it's quite clear that that is scant and that there is insufficient evidence to fully understand what this will do to the rights of working New Zealanders over time. So I think it's only right and fair, if we want to learn from our mistakes, and if we want to learn what the outcomes are and how this directly impacts upon people in New Zealand, that we build into this hastily made legislation a built-in clause that we can take a look at it after a significant period of time and understand how it has made an impact upon that.
Taken alongside of some of the other recommendations which are to require the recording of information, this is a really important step to make sure that in 10 or 20 years' time, when we are going through processes such as this again, as we go in political cycles—to understand, when we go to do this again, what the impacts of the law we make today are and how that impacts upon workers' rights and the employment relationship, because that goes right to the heart of the Employment Relations Act, which is that fundamental good-trust relationship between an employee and employer. My real fear with this legislation is that it fundamentally undermines the good faith that underpins that critical relationship between an employee and an employer.
So I think that we have a fundamental responsibility in New Zealand, as good lawmakers, to understand that if we are taking this step and if we are undermining that fundamental right within the Employment Relations Act, then surely we should take it upon ourselves to check back in in a period of three years and understand exactly what is the damage that has been done in terms of workers' rights and in terms of the rate of unemployment in New Zealand, and in terms of the ability of people who are in precarious work situations to still pay for their rent and meet their bills each week. What are those implications when we have introduced every business in New Zealand having the ability to fire workers at will within a 90-day period? If we're going to make sweeping changes that fundamentally undermine the balance that exists in the Employment Relations Act, which is already tilted in favour of the employer—if we're going to be doing that, then we have a right and a responsibility to all those New Zealanders whose lives will be impacted to take a look at what has been done after three years and learn from the mistakes that we've made.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on my other amendment. I note that the Minister made some comments in response to this amendment, but I do note that I hadn't actually had the opportunity to put my case to the committee and to the Minister for this particular amendment, so I'm going to take that opportunity now. This specific amendment would insert, after section 67B(2): "(3) For employers who employ 20 or more employees, any dismissal under a trial provision in an employment agreement must have the written agreement of both the employer and the employee, and the employee's representative where they have one."
Now, I want to make some particular points about what this clause would address, because throughout this debate there have been references made by my colleagues about two matters which I think are important at the heart of this debate, and are relevant back to this clause that I would like to introduce. That is around the object of good faith but, furthermore, the objects of this Act about the power imbalance in the relationship. I want just to mention this because I heard an interjection from a member opposite earlier tonight, and I'm not sure which member, so my apologies to the member. I heard an interjection stating that it was a perceived power imbalance, but, actually, that's not what the Employment Relations Act states. The Employment Relations Act is very clear that there is an inherent inequality of power in the employment relationship.
The reason I note this is that it's relevant back to my clause, because what the bill that the Minister has introduced tonight does is that it takes away and undermines the object of the Act. So what my clause would do would actually add back in a mechanism to address that power imbalance that has been taken away through the bill that's been introduced tonight.
The reason I bring up the fact that this is what's stated in the Employment Relations Act is that this particular clause and object was included in the original version of the Act when it was introduced by the fifth Labour Government, when Margaret Wilson was the Minister of Labour, and this particular clause survived the previous National Government that came in after that, prior to the sixth Labour Government. It is not a clause that has ever been removed from the Act. Every Government of every colour since the introduction of the Employment Relations Act 2000 has accepted that there is an inherent inequality of power in the employment relationship; not, as a member opposite interjected, a perceived inequality of power. The Act is very clear, and as parliamentarians, as lawmakers, it's important to us that any amendments we make to that Act don't actually undermine the objects of the Act.
So my point to the committee tonight and to the Minister—and so my question, again, for the Minister—is that I'd like her to reconsider this. There is a power imbalance being reintroduced through introducing 90-day trials to employees who work for employers where they have 20 or more employees. It is the view of this side of the House that upholding and maintaining good faith and upholding and maintaining mechanisms that address that power imbalance are important for all of us as parliamentarians to uphold. Otherwise, I would suggest that, actually, the other side of the House should change the objects of the Act. If that is how they really feel, show New Zealanders what they really feel: show New Zealanders that, actually, they believe that employers should be allowed to have significantly more power in an employment relationship. If that is how they feel, they should say it—change the Act. Don't just tinker with it; come on out there and tell us what you really think.
So the reason why I've introduced this amendment is because I believe that having a written agreement between the employer and the employee, and the employee's representative where they have one, would help to ensure that there was some understanding, a process to acknowledge why that person was dismissed, and reasons given for that person to have been dismissed, so that there was actually a proper acknowledgment and a proper agreement so that that person—as many of us have noted tonight—will not be left sitting in limbo, wondering, "Well, why was I dismissed?" This clause would assist the parties to that employment relationship to have a proper understanding and for there to be an agreement, so it would actually address that power imbalance and ensure there was a fairer process involved if a dismissal were to occur under this new bill.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the member Rachel Boyack for that very fulsome contribution, but I also remind her—as she also noted at the start—that I have also already responded to that particular clause. I always just want to take the chance to talk about Ginny Andersen's amendment, which talked about requiring a review of the impact of the 90-day trial periods. I remind the member that I have already spoken on that, on a previous amendment doing the exact same thing.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the amendments to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 9 in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the amendment to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 10 in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the amendments to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 11 in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Arena Williams' tabled amendments to clause 5 to replace "employer" with "employers who employ fewer than 20 employees" are out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.
The Hon Kieran McAnulty's tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 67B(2) to allow an employee to revoke a trial provision at any time is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.
The question is that Helen White's tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 67B(3A) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(2) requiring employers to use a trial provision only if they can prove financial or reputational harm to the employer, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Tangi Utikere's tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(5) to require any employer wanting to utilise a trial period to consult with the employee, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Tangi Utikere's tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(6) to enable employees to seek a determination from the Employment Relations Authority, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty's tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(6) to require an employer to pay legal costs to a dismissed employee, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Rachel Boyack's tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(3) to entitle dismissed employees to a termination payment, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Barbara Edmonds' tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(6) to (8) to establish a fund for dismissed workers, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Rachel Boyack's tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(3) to require written agreement between an employer and employee for any dismissal, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Phil Twyford's tabled amendment to clause 5, repealing section 67B(5)(a), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(6) to require any disagreements about trial provisions to be referred to mediation services, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen's tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(2A) requiring employers to keep records of dismissal processes under trial periods, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 5, exempting certain employees from legal proceedings being brought against them by their employer, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Helen White's tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(6) limiting the number of times an employer can utilise a trial period, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich's tabled amendment to clause 5, exempting workers listed under Schedule 1A of the Employment Relations Act from trial periods, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Helen White's tabled amendment to clause 5, limiting the number of employees that an employer may dismiss under a trial provision per calendar year, be agreed to. All those in favour, say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Noes have it. A party vote is called for. Please conduct a party vote. [Interruption] Whoever the member is who's trying to be a budgie over there, stop it please. This will be—[Interruption] Sorry, who was that member whistling? Stand, withdraw, and apologise. That's the second time you've done it.
Ryan Hamilton: Sorry, Mr Chair, I do apologise for that.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich's tabled amendment to clause 5, requiring third party witnesses to verify trial provisions, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich's tabled amendment to clause 5, barring employers from using trial periods for three years if they are found to have previously used them unlawfully, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti's tabled amendment to clause 5, proposing a penalty regime for employers who unlawfully use trial periods, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti's tabled amendment to clause 5, providing for dismissed employees to be retroactively entitled to beneficiary payments, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Helen White's tabled amendment to insert new clause 6 is out of order as being contrary to the object and principles of the bill.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 5 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Clause 5 agreed to.
New clause 6 New section 67BA inserted (Monitoring and reporting on use of trial provisions)
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to new clause 6, set out on Amendment Paper 7. This is an amendment proposed by Ricardo Menéndez March requiring annual monitoring and reporting on the use of trial provisions and their impact on the labour market. The question is that the amendment inserting new clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 7 in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. We know that the coalition has agreed to follow the best available data and evidence and wants to be guided by the facts. My amendment is an opportunity to honour that commitment by ensuring that we monitor and report annually on the use of these trial provisions and their impact on the labour market, to see, then, if what the Minister has spoken about actually comes to fruition. If the Minister is very confident on what the coalition campaigned on, then there is no reason to fear having this reporting and monitoring in place.
What we hope that we can then achieve via this reporting is the effects of the trial provisions on things like wages. I've spoken about wages and about a couple of concerns we have around the negative impact these trials could have—things like job security, so these provisions, for example, enabling people to stay longer or shorter amounts of time in those jobs, and the terms of conditions of those employees. Are we improving health and safety standards in the workplace as a result of these trial provisions, particularly the effects on Māori, Pasifika, women, youth, and disabled employees? I've canvassed some of those population groups in previous contributions, but I think it's really important that we do have information on how specific population groups are affected, and I think, particularly when it comes to Māori, that we also remind ourselves of our Tiriti commitments and therefore make sure that we are taking due diligence when it comes to policy making.
The other component in my amendment is for the department to prepare a report every year and for that report to be publicly available within three months of the end of the financial year. This is also important for public scrutiny and for the public to have access to that information about how those trials are going for employers and workers, as they are people we serve and they deserve to have that information made available to them. As part of my amendment, an employer "must—(a) provide information that is reasonably required by the department for the purpose of the reports;" and then we establish that link between those relevant departments and the employer, and we think that's really important. Also, the employer must "(b) notify the department as soon as practicable if the employer becomes aware that the information they have provided is or has become inaccurate." I think this is important as well, because we can't just take that feedback about the impacts of those 90-day trials in good faith. We have to have those protections and safeguards to address information that may not be presented.
I cannot emphasise enough how much I think that the Minister should take on board these suggestions in good faith. If we are to be guided by the facts, and if the Minister is confident on what she's spoken to, then this will just further add to her statement. It will further add to everything she has said, and there should be no concerns about this amendment, because sunlight will end up giving us clarity on the impact of the 90-day trials. It's been well canvassed that there's limited domestic evidence on the impact of 90-day trials here. Whatever little we have would not really be supporting what the Minister has brought forward, but I do think that amendment on the reporting would help guide us as legislators to make better decisions going forward.
So I'm really interested in hearing exactly what steps she wants to take if she doesn't want to take this amendment on board. I know she talks about investigating it, but what does that look like? Can she give us confidence that the reporting and the monitoring will be thorough and that there will be resource allocated to this? Otherwise, I think this amendment presents a really good opportunity to be guided by facts and evidence.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the member for his suggestion, but as I've suggested in clauses 4 and 5, and now in clause 6, I will consider any research and evaluation plans in the context of my wider work. However, I don't consider it appropriate to include these provisions in this legislation.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would also like to speak to the amendment before us in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March looking at monitoring and reporting on the use of trial provisions. One of the things that members who have read the regulatory impact statement on this bill will note is the lack of information about how trial provisions are used, and I think that this particular amendment goes quite a long way to making sure that that information would be recorded.
One of the issues is that we can do studies on the relative impact of hiring, and there's been quite a bit of a reference in this debate and in previous readings to the research commissioned by the Treasury that showed there wasn't an uptake, an uptick of hiring even though that was the intention of the trial provision. But one of the things they did note is the actual use of trial provisions within individual employment contracts is not something that is centrally recorded in relation to if—so it's really difficult to know to the extent that this is actually included within employment contracts in New Zealand.
So I think that this would be a really useful thing. I know the Minister has responded to Mr Menéndez March to state that she doesn't think that she wanted to include this particular provision at this stage. But I think I would ask her to reconsider that because I think this is very sensible. I don't think it goes against the policy of the Act at all. In fact, I think this would strengthen the bill that she has in front of her because it would show that she's open to receiving additional information on the efficacy of the lawmaking on which she is endeavouring to put through the Chamber at the moment.
I support this particular provision, and I am interested—I found the responses from the Minister, although helpful, a little bit vague in terms of the actual concrete steps that she's looking to take. So I'd just like to say that from my end, I support this amendment and I think it would be incumbent on the Minister to go into a bit more detail on the actual steps that she'll be taking in order to monitor the various labour market impacts that extending the trial period as much as this particular bill does extend it from a very small section of employees, about 28 percent, to every employee would have on the employment market. So I support this amendment.
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): I too stand to support the amendment that's been put forward by Ricardo Menéndez March. As the previous speaker Camilla Belich has asked the Minister, she's asking for a bit more detail as to how this forms as part of the Minister's business-as-usual (BAU), because the amendment that the member has put forward is not BAU. There is no monitoring BAU as part of a portfolio to be able to provide each financial year, make it publicly available within three months at the end of the financial year to which this report relates, which the amendment speaks to.
I also wanted to ask the Minister, again, adding on—can you provide more detail as to how much you will report as part of your BAU or monitor as part of your BAU? The Natural and Built Environment Act repeal that went through—was it yesterday or this morning; sorry, today, because it's still Tuesday—had a specific post-100-day assessment clause in it. Now, it wasn't part of the bill, but it was part of the disclosure statement. Apologies to the Minister; I wasn't able to find a departmental disclosure statement. I wasn't sure whether one was needed for this bill. But in that particular Natural and Built Environment Bill that was put through, it actually had a specific clause which said, as part of the 100-day initiatives—so the Government's 100-day initiatives—there would be an assessment or monitoring of the bill because it had gone through urgency.
So my additional question to the Minister is—she has made clear that she is not supportive of this amendment. We are asking for a bit more detail as to how this comes within her BAU, but also, one, whether there was a disclosure statement prepared for this bill; and, if not, what is her intention in meeting the Government's post-100-days monitoring evaluation—which we have seen in other bills—because this bill has gone through urgency? So those are the three various questions that I would like some answers from the Minister, please.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I just want to add one simple thing to this debate, because I think it is very important. We have about 80 percent of employees who are on individual agreements. We have absolutely no idea what's in those agreements, and this work about trials mainly fits into that area, because it won't be something that is very happily adopted in the collective agreements. The collective agreements are things we have some sight of because they're collected centrally, and so we can see those—we can see what's in them. But what we can't see is the complex situation in an individual agreement, which may be made with an employment builder or it may be something that's entirely original.
What I've found in those agreements is that there will be clauses that say what you expect them to say, and entirely new clauses which you haven't ever thought of, which might actually affect how these things are working. I've given you one example tonight, which is the restraints of trade that are increasingly used to tie up employees so they cannot go and work for others and they cannot ask for a pay rise, because they cannot afford to leave. In combination, a trial period in those agreements is a problem, and I haven't heard an acknowledgment that it's a problem. I've heard that it's another piece of work, but it's not another piece of work; it's a way of finding out—monitoring this piece of work and its impact, and what's impacting on it and what isn't.
So what I'd like to know is: have you got a plan to have a look at the effectiveness of your legislation in this case? Have you got a plan that involves seeing the whole picture?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): "Has the Minister got a plan?"—don't bring the Chair into the debate.
HELEN WHITE: Sorry—has the Minister got a plan? I apologise, Madam Chair. Has the Minister got a plan to look at the overarching work and the place of trial periods within the context of an individual agreement? And are we going to see what impact that clause is having in conjunction with other clauses? What is the plan to monitor the performance of her Government and her decision here to make this a policy, given that she has made a strong argument and she has pinned her flag to the mast that this will help a particular section of New Zealand? How will we know who it helps and who it does not help?
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the amendment inserting new clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 7 in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
New clause 6 New section 67BA inserted (Review of operation of section 67A)
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to the debate on new clause 6, set out on Amendment Paper 8. This is an amendment proposed by Ricardo Menéndez March requiring a review of the operation of section 67A three years after the bill's commencement. Just before we start taking calls on this, I just want to note that it's a very narrow clause, just like the last one, so we don't want to see anything repetitive; we just want to stick to the point of the clause.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, again, I don't mean to sound repetitive; it's just that we haven't had the select committee process. But I think what this seeks to add in this amendment under my name is the ability for the House—and I make the difference compared to my previous call, and I talk about the House because this amendment does have a requirement to report to the House as opposed to just kind of publish the ongoing review each financial year. So there are those differences about the reporting mechanisms that are being presented in this amendment that I'm proposing.
This is a three-year proposed review, and particularly when it comes to any effects on outcomes for workers when it comes to employment—so it could be quite broad, and it does then allow for some discretion about the scope of what we would be looking for. It's a bit less prescriptive—well, it's quite a lot less prescriptive than the previous amendment that I put previously.
Then it also gives the Minister discretion, while requiring the Minister to "ensure that the persons and organisations"—including representatives of employees and employers—"that the Minister thinks appropriate are consulted during the preparation of the report" about the matters to be considered in the report. That should, in my view, allow the Minister to freely canvass what she has previously spoken about in terms of the needs of employers and that flexibility that she seeks to embed in the bill that she's put forward. But it also then allows that worker's voice to be present, right, which we didn't have because there was no select committee report, and the Minister has been unable to present that worker voice.
Then, lastly, there's a requirement for the Minister to present a copy of the report to the House of Representatives, so then this allows for us to have that more substantive debate on the issue. No matter what the make-up of Parliament is, it just allows those debates to continue to be carried, and then it allows that report to then be used by the public as well. And it gives the public confidence that when we are introducing something that has such a big material impact, that they can use the report that is being presented to the House for research and for that public discourse. I think that's, again, really important. In my view, it also addresses some of the previous things that we've debated around the lack of awareness that was identified on any policy that changes employment law. Because by having an amendment that requires that public discussion in the House, you are also kind of lifting the awareness constantly each three years for it to be then debated in the public.
So I think this, again, reinforces what the coalition set out to do, which is to make decisions based on facts. This allows for evidence gathering and those facts to be out in the public, rather than making decisions without that information being available prior. So I think it, in my view, should be considered by the Minister, and I think, in fact, it's in line with the goals of the coalition, despite myself not agreeing with the intent of this bill.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to respond and thank the member for his contribution, also noting that I responded to this in clause 4, clause 5, and in the previous amended attempt at clause 6—and will repeat it again—that I will work to consider my research and evaluation plans in the context of my wider work programme in further months. However, I do not believe that there is an appropriate need for a review provision in this bill.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a contribution on the amendment in the name of a colleague from the Green Party, Ricardo Menéndez March, introducing a new clause 6. I guess I just wanted to put to the Minister the importance of including some provisions within the bill that would provide the Government and the Minister and the ministry that monitors this legislation with the evidence base that is needed in order to properly monitor the impact of this bill.
Throughout the debate tonight, we have heard about some of those impacts that colleagues have raised, one being the mental health impacts. We've heard some quite distressing stories about the mental health impacts of those who have been subject to a dismissal under the 90-day trial, including a very serious result, which my colleague Jan Tinetti shared with the House this evening.
There have also been questions raised around the cost to the taxpayer. For those who exit an employment relationship who have been dismissed under a 90-day trial, there's a likelihood—quite a high likelihood, I would say—that they then become subject to receiving a benefit, and that is a cost to the taxpayer. So it will be useful to be able to do some evidence gathering, and we're just noting the clause, in particular, is looking at any effects on outcomes for workers in employment. That would be the type of impact of someone who had been in employment who was leaving their employment, but also those who are within the employment, whether they are more likely, for example, to try to negotiate a higher wage rate, whether they may be more likely to join a union, whether they may be more likely—colleagues in previous contributions have talked about workers being willing to leave a job that might be safe; you know, they've gone past that 90-day trial, but they might be seeking to, for example, apply for a role where they would be having a higher rate of pay and they may be less willing to do so if that presents a risk that they would then be subject to a 90-day trial.
These are the kinds of matters that it would be very useful, I believe, for the Minister, for the Government, for the House to have some evidence of. So just reading out the amendment, which is that after three years following the commencement of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Act, require a report to be prepared "on the operation and effects of section 67A, in particular any effects on outcomes for workers in employment."
I just really take note on that point around outcomes for workers, because throughout this debate, the other side often raise the issues that employers may raise, but this specific new clause would be specific around potential outcomes for workers in their employment. I'm very interested in the impacts, particularly for women workers, who—as my colleague Helen White pointed out earlier—are often less risk averse around actually looking for another job. There were some amendments I put up tonight that would have limited the scope of this bill to those earning over a certain amount, and, again, that's often because—[Interruption] Yeah, we're getting to that clause. We're looking at the outcomes on workers and it's very clear we're talking about the outcomes on workers.
The point I'm making is that there could be an outcome, and one of the things around research is that you put out a hypothesis and then you test it. One of the hypotheses I'd like to put out is that those on lower wages may well be in a position where they're less likely to negotiate for a pay rise and they may be less likely to apply for a different job with a different employer. So I would say to the members opposite who seem to be interjecting a lot tonight—I mean, if they're so interested in this clause, then maybe they should take a fulsome five-minute call. I'd encourage them to do that. They've been, well, I wouldn't say quiet tonight; they've actually certainly had quite a bit to say, and I'd really encourage them, if they've got—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): To the point.
RACHEL BOYACK: —something to say, stand up and say it. So just responding to the interjections, Madam Chair. So I think this is an excellent amendment in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March. It would insert a new clause 6. It would allow us to have, as soon as is practicable after three years, a review. One of the things the Minister will be required to do would be to not just hear from employers but to hear from unions and others that might be interested. You could have employment consultants, for example. People who work with people with mental health could be consulted. So it's an excellent amendment and I commend it to the House.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to take a call from Camilla Belich, but I want this to be very strictly to the point of the clause, please. Thank you.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Noted, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the amendment in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March, amending 67BA which is a new clause to be added in at clause 6 of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill.
There are three parts to this particular amendment, and I won't take the full amount of time, but I want to make a few comments on the operative parts of it. The first one is, as we know, a review provision. However, the member has set down a review in three years and, in my mind, I think that's probably a bit too long. I think it would be preferable to have a review after a shorter period of time, possibly one year or two years. I would like to ask the Minister if she—she's obviously indicated she's not interested in this particular provision as it stands at the moment. However, if it was amended to change the number of years, in fact, to make it a shorter period of time, would she be more open to it? Alternatively, in fact, a longer period of time would also be better than nothing, in my view. So we've got three years at the moment; would she be minded to agree to review provision if it was five years? So that's 67BA(1) of the amendments in Menéndez March's name.
The second part of that provision is looking at the people who should be consulted as part of the review, and we have had, I think, some very relevant and useful contributions on other people that could be included in that provision. But I wanted to take the time just to note that this bill is going through without a select committee process. I did read, when I was looking at my phone briefly in between taking contributions, that when this bill was first introduced it was also introduced under urgency. I wondered if she had information about that or whether this is, in fact, the first time urgency has been used in a trial period bill. As we know there have been—and she stated in her first reading speech—four different iterations of trial period legislation as they've been through the House. It hasn't been to a select committee, and I think clause 2, 67BA(2), addresses some of the issues relating to the fact we didn't have a select committee.
The third provision which would be useful I think for the House would be to present a copy to the House of Representatives. I'd go a little bit further than my colleague Mr Menéndez March and just say: would it be, in fact, more appropriate for us to actually have a special debate on that report when it was tabled? I won't be tabling a separate amendment to make that suggestion, but I'd be interested in the Minister's thoughts. If she was to be agreeable to perhaps a shorter or longer period in clause 67BA(1), in that operative provision of three years at the moment, would she be open to having a debate in the House looking at this report that he has suggested?
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the amendment inserting new clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 8 in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
New clause 6 Section 103 amended (Personal grievance)
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): 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.
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): 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.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): 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?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): 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?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: 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.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): 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.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): 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.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): 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.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): 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.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): 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.
CAMILLA BELICH: 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.
CAMILLA BELICH: —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.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): 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.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): 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.
CAMILLA BELICH: —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.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): 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.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): 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.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): 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.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): It's me!
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yes, the Hon Willie Jackson, it is you at 11.25!
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: 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.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: 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.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: 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.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —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?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: 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!
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: 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?
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I call Grant McCallum. Let's hope you read this out right.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen's tabled amendment inserting new clause 6 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): 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.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Third Reading
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
The Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill extends the availability of the 90-day trial periods to all employers, repealing the Government's policy that restricted it to just small and medium sized businesses. Under the current law, only employers with fewer than 20 employees can have the option of a trial period for up to 90 days within their employment agreements, and this Government is extending that provision to all employers. That will make a huge difference because larger businesses employ around 72 percent of all employees.
This Government has inherited a very bleak economic outlook and it's of utmost importance that we give businesses certainty and confidence for the new year so that both employees and employers can hit the new year with certainty about the labour market, but, more importantly, that employers have confidence to give a new employee a fair go. So we're wasting no time in making sure that we have changed the law before Christmas so that both employers and employees can keep their heads above water.
It doesn't matter to this Government whether an employer has two or 200 employees. Every new employee that's taken on is taken on with risk. It takes time, it takes money, and it takes energy. There's a lot of relationship building, and both people want that relationship to work. We want an employment environment where people are the right fit for the right job, and we believe, as a Government, that this law will allow for employers to take a chance on more employees.
Apart from the cost of the dismissal process, retaining an employee who is a poor fit is not just costly to the business in terms of the dismissal process, but costly in terms of the whole culture of that workplace. Any employee—just one person—can really have a detrimental impact on everybody in that employment process. So we're wanting to make sure that when it comes to that workplace, that we're not seeing companies be less productive than they could be because of a poorly fitting employee. That's because the costs and risks associated with dismissal can lead to a labour market with fewer employment opportunities, especially for those trying to get a foot in the door.
This issue of 90-day trials for small and medium or larger sized companies has been well canvassed through Parliament through the history of this institution. But we have heard from businesses, time and time again, that expanding the availability of their 90-day trials is one of their top priorities. It will help lift unnecessary regulation. It will help business owners across the New Zealand economy, which will help more job opportunities for employers, which will help employees and help their families and help all of New Zealand.
This bill is intended to encourage employers to take on new staff by reducing risks in the hiring process. It's not particularly the case where employees—sorry, it's getting a bit late. This is particularly the case where employers are considering employing someone that does not tick all the boxes in terms of their skills and experience, but they might have the right attitude. So I commend this bill to the House.
Debate interrupted.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Oral Questions—Question No. 1 to Minister, 13 December
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Point of order. I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation regarding question time on Wednesday, 13 December.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: During question time on Wednesday, 13 December, I made comments intended to challenge the content of the Prime Minister's answer to oral question No. 1. I can understand how this statement could be interpreted to be a personal reflection against the Prime Minister. It was not my intention to make a personal reflection on the Prime Minister in this House, and to that effect I apologise to this House. I recognise that that should have happened at the time.
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (TRIAL PERIODS) AMENDMENT BILL
Third Reading
Debate resumed.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, here we are at 20 to 12 on the same day that this bill was brought to the House, under urgency, removing again—the second week in a row—fundamental rights of working people.
Hon Members: Shameful!
CAMILLA BELICH: It's absolutely shameful of this Government to prioritise taking away rights to natural justice for the majority of New Zealand employees through this piece of legislation.
There's been quite a few comments on where this new Government is going. One of the common themes has been backwards, and there isn't a clearer example than in this particular bill. This particular bill that the Government intends to pass tonight, but maybe they won't quite get there, is exactly the same as a bill that was passed in 2011—exactly the same. Where's the vision? Where's the learning? Where's the looking at evidence to see if this policy actually works? Where's the consideration of how New Zealand has changed in 2023? It's absolutely nowhere to be found in this piece of legislation. There is no vision about how a 2023 labour market is different from the labour market in 2011. If you just think about the technological changes, if you just think about how the world has moved on, you will realise how ridiculous that is.
We talked a lot in this debate about red tape. That's what we heard from the other side. The Minister just said in her short contribution—I note all of her contributions have been extremely short, because she has nothing good to say about this bill, because there isn't anything good to say. She calls the natural justice rights of employees to ask their employer why they were dismissed, to ask to be treated fairly, to ask for natural justice—she calls that red tape. I think that's shameful. The right and access to justice is not red tape; it is a human right, and a lot of these things which are repealed through trial periods are actually human rights as well.
She didn't have a lot of answers to our questions. We asked a lot of questions in the committee of the whole House stage and we were left with nothing. I asked about the contradiction, which I wonder if her colleagues are aware of, where people on accredited employer work visas are not covered by trial periods, but New Zealanders working here already are covered by trial periods, effectively giving people on those visas more access to rights than people here. I wonder if she has explained those differentiations to her colleagues and I wonder whether they in fact support that.
We also asked her questions about the benefits system. Would people who are dismissed—and there will be, make no mistake, more people dismissed because of the law that this coalition Government is passing; more people dismissed and not told why. So would they be entitled to some kind of support? What do we expect to happen to these people? All employees in the whole country are now covered by trial periods. What do we expect when they lose their jobs? We were not given any answers. We were told she's not responsible for that, so she doesn't know. Is that good enough? I don't personally think that's good enough.
There is no evidence for this particular piece of legislation. The world has moved on. Just like the fair pay agreements legislation that we were discussing only last week, there seems to be no recognition from this coalition Government of actual studies and evidence about workplace legislation and how effective it is or not. And in this case it's not effective.
I want to take a moment just to thank the officials who have worked here, who have been here until 11.30 at night; the staff in Parliament who have been here through to 11.30 at night—quarter to 12 now—helping Parliament to debate this under urgency for no reason. The Minister has not given us a reason as to why this needs to go through urgency, why it's so important that it has to happen under urgency, and with no select committee process.
I have read, in the previous readings, points that people have wanted to raise if there was a select committee process, but they've been unable to do that, and I just say again that an electoral mandate does not justify bad lawmaking—an electoral mandate does not justify bad lawmaking. I have not heard a single argument on the other side to justify why you couldn't have a select—Christopher Bishop said you were going to have one, and now we're not having one. Why? Where are the answers to these important questions? We certainly didn't get them from the Minister.
I thanked the officials, but I also want to thank them for their sage advice that has been included on the regulatory impact statement. I want to take a moment to read this important clause. This is the conclusion in the regulatory impact statement: "We therefore consider that there are diminishing benefits from increasing the availability of trial periods to larger employers (from 89 percent of employers under the status quo to 100 percent of employers) and that this would not outweigh the costs of insecurity to a greater number of employees." That is right—that is 100 percent correct. This is not radical thinking; this is sage thinking based on evidence, and there is no evidence that extending these trial periods works. It's a step backward and it will simply make people more insecure in their work.
I also want to mention something else that has been mentioned a lot in this debate but perhaps hasn't been given the exact attention it deserves so far, and that's the study that Motu Research did after they were commissioned by Treasury. They found that 90-day trial periods, in terms of their objectives, have little effect. So it's not helping anyone to do this. In terms of the macro scale in New Zealand, there is no impact of 90-day trial periods.
We need to look at this research and we need to see what the research has found. The main researcher, Isabelle Sin, who's done a huge amount of research into employer—
Arena Williams: She's awesome.
CAMILLA BELICH: Yeah, she is awesome. She said, "My research shows that the 90-day trial period isn't helping people get jobs." It isn't helping people get jobs. This is the justification we have been given for this bill, and the researcher who did an actual study into it says it doesn't help people get jobs. So why are we extending it? Why? Why does this coalition Government hate working people? Why does the Government hate them? I don't understand why you would extend a policy that doesn't work. It doesn't give more people jobs. That is what the research shows.
I'll tell you what it does do. This particular bill, for individual people, will be devastating. And I want to spend a moment just talking about that, because a lot of people, especially on this side of the House—and I'm sure maybe on the other side of the House too; I don't know—they come to this place to make a difference, and one of the main reasons that we want to do that is we want to make a difference to people who face injustice. My colleague Jan Tinetti gave the most convincing reason for that when she made a contribution in the committee of the whole House stage. She had had someone that she knew in her life who had been dismissed under a trial period and they had tragically taken their own life. It's not a joke. It's a real story. It's tragic. Everyone in this House agrees with that, and I don't pretend to think that anyone else would say anything else about that situation. The reason that we have to take these decisions so seriously is these are the type of impacts that can occur when we take away rights from people.
I have a previous career as an employment lawyer, and I saw how important jobs were to people. Jobs are part of self-esteem. They're part of how you identify yourself, how you find your place in the world, who you are. For many people, their identity as a human being is tied to the work that they do. To make it possible and to extend a policy that just doesn't work for the objectives that this Government wants it to achieve, so that more people are in the situation where they may lose their job for no good reason and have no recourse—it is just a terrible policy to be putting on New Zealanders.
Let me tell you, every member of this House should be aware that you will soon get stories about trial periods. More and more people will be using them and more and more New Zealanders will be coming to your office and saying, "I was treated unfairly, and for some reason I'm told that there's nothing I can do." That is an absolute travesty and it's an absolute tragedy, and we're all going to have to look hard at the Parliament that we're in at the moment that is passing this regressive law and justify to them why they don't have any recourse to challenge unfairness. That is going to be something that everyone in this House is going to have to address. I don't look forward to it. I think it's going to be a sad day.
So I think this is a terrible bill. I think it takes New Zealand backwards, and I do not commend it to the House.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ninety-day trials are hurting workers, and the extension of 90-day trials to larger businesses will hurt workers even more.
The previous speaker, Camilla Belich, was very generous in presenting to the Minister and to the members of the Government the evidence as to why 90-day trials have not resulted in higher wages, have not resulted in greater retention of workers, and have hurt people. I think it was very generous because it's almost like we're pretending the Minister doesn't know. It's almost like we're insulting the Minister's intelligence by assuming that she didn't know any of this.
The Minister knows—she does not care. She came into Government to undermine workers' rights. She came to Government to serve the interests of big businesses, and this bill is a statement of the Government's intent to lower working conditions, to have a low-wage economy, and to put workers in a vulnerable position where employers are able to dismiss them at will in those first 90 days, without an ability to take that in a way that allows for justice.
Throughout the committee of the whole House debate, the Minister was unable to substantiate her arguments. She spoke in platitudes about how this will increase the flexibility in the labour market without actually speaking about the direct material outcomes that these workers will have as a result of this policy. The members opposite to me, all they could do, instead of taking calls in the speech, they just clap like seals to a nothing speech from the Minister.
Our communities deserve far more than a Government that is hell-bent on ramming through legislation that will hurt our workers—the same workers that serve them at the cafes, the same workers that serve them at the restaurants, the workers that serve the hotels when they travel around the country to do their mahi. But they do not care, because these members did not come to this Chamber to serve the workers; they came to serve the interests of businesses.
So, as we look forward, the Greens will continue fighting to put forward amendments to this legislation to expose the truth, which is: we gave the opportunity to the Minister to put in place reporting mechanisms. Because if the Minister was so confident that this bill would have resulted in better outcomes for workers, she would have not been afraid of having those reported. Because she claimed, and the members of the Government claimed that this Government was founded and was built to honour the facts and the evidence and the latest available research. But let's face it: that is not a commitment that is being put into action, because the Minister could only speak in platitudes; could only speak in vague terms when she talked about the future work she may or may not do to ensure that there's information gathering.
Chlöe Swarbrick: It's all vibes.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: So it is all vibes, but it is more than just vibes: it's cruel, neo-liberal, already-proven-to-not-be-true vibes, and our workers do not deserve this.
What we are creating is a condition where we're not setting up young people to succeed. We're not creating the conditions where those young people going into their first job are supported to succeed. We're creating the conditions where young people going to their first job can be dismissed at will without any reason for them to even—if they had an issue that they genuinely had to resolve, we're not going to give them the opportunity to genuinely give them that recourse. Something that we actually did try to negotiate with the Minister, but she wasn't even willing to meet us in the middle. Because, again, she knows what she is doing. She knows that she came here to hurt workers' interests, and throughout the committee of the whole House, she has proven all of that to be true.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Yes, she's cruel.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yes, the Minister is cruel. The policies are cruel, and it is a bit of a change of tune, right? We had what we called the "politics of kindness", and the Greens were always quite clear that the politics of kindness needed to be matched with changes into material realities. But this Government has done a full 180 and has now instilled the politics of cruelness and the politics of greed—and this bill, again, speaks to that.
I want to mihi to the workers who, as they change employment, will now be subjected to this policy. I want to assure those workers that the Green Party will be here to listen to the experiences of those workers who are now undergoing 90-day trials in larger businesses. I want to honour the contributions of countless workers who made submissions back when the 90-day trials were being clawed back, who made submissions to remind us that 90-day trials were not working.
We've already heard the voices of workers. The Minister is not interested in hearing the voices of workers. She thinks that she can justify poor policy making, poor lawmaking, poor process because it's in the coalition agreement. But let me tell you what: there's a reason why we have these processes. It's so that we can't hurt our communities through just going through the whim of a paper that was signed by three parties that all they want to do is serve the interests of businesses and the service of workers.
As I have this privilege of taking the last call of the night, I want to remind the members that as they go forward and debate these issues in relationship to the workers, they may want to consider adding some substance to their words. I listened very carefully to the contributions they made—and sure, some of them may have been in a rush to go back home to spend time with family over the holiday period, and some of them will get a holiday period with family and friends. But those workers who are now going to be subject to those policies, they're going to be subjected to potentially feeling they're going to have to work longer hours and be subjected to strenuous conditions over the Christmas break—and the summer period—particularly as this policy comes into place. Because if they don't take these strenuous conditions, they could just be fired at will with no good reason.
One of the other things we tried to put as an amendment was the ability to make it clear that employers would have had to add justification, to add a reason at least that they were dismissing those workers in a 90-day trial. We thought that was a reasonable thing for the Minister to take up because, once again, if the Minister is so confident that when there's not a good match, 90-day trials are a way to actually get rid of those workers that are not a good match, then there is nothing to hide. Those employers should give a reason to those workers, and she didn't even want to compromise in that regard.
Those amendments were not for us to be happy with a middle position. They were there to expose the Minister's intentions, but she was not interested in any of the evidence. This was not at all about reaching a sort of middle ground with the Minister: this was about showing the Minister her own true colours of greed, of her inability to see workers in the face. I hope that our workers confront the Minister throughout the term for her decisions; that they are able to tell her directly what impact this policy is having on them, because she clearly was not interested in hearing this through a select committee stage.
Look, I finally just want to pay tribute to our union movement, who—
Hon Member: Of course you do.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: And of course we do, because this side of the House supports our workers, Because that side of the House only wants to listen to the business interests. That side of the House, at no point in the debate talked about workers—the people who actually build their economy, the people who actually create the profits of the employers that talk about the people who are foundational to our society. The employers that the people on the Government's side talk about should be reminded that without their workers, they are nothing—without their workers, they would have no profits. And they should be careful, because the more they undermine workers' rights, the more they're eroding social cohesion, and the more they're creating a situation by eroding social cohesion, we're continuing to have discontent.
They themselves are manufacturing a crisis of inequality by keeping wages low, by preventing working conditions from improving, and the next time they talk about their concerns about social cohesion—and I hear the next lot of National Party members making maiden speeches about their concerns about discrimination and racism and inequality—they need to remember that it was their parties who created the conditions for those things to happen.
The Green Party will continue fighting throughout the term against the politics of cruelty. All the snarky comments that this side may make can't hide the fact that they have no substance to add to this bill. All they had to add to this bill was snark. It was baseless arguments, and yet they're quite willing to put in the energy to go until midnight to add their pettiness to the debate instead of being able to put the facts into this place. The Green Party will fight this till the very, very bitter end.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is suspended until 9 a.m. this morning. Haere ki te moe. Pō mārie.
Debate interrupted.
Sitting suspended from 12.01 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Parliament Buildings’ street address

Listen

Listen

Tuesday, 19 December 2023 (continued on Wednesday, 20 December 2023) - Volume 772

Question No. 1—Health

Question No. 2—Finance

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

Question No. 4—Finance

Question No. 5—Finance

Question No. 6—Health

Question No. 7—Immigration

Question No. 8—Transport

Question No. 9—Environment

Question No. 10—Rural Communities

Question No. 11—Education

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety