The lines are drawn. Labour attacks National’s “outrageous arrogance” in ramming through an Employment Probation Bill introduced – in 2006. The old ritual begins once more.
At first, it seemed like Phil Goff was suffering a short-term memory lapse.
The new Opposition leader opened his address in reply to the speech from the Throne with a long recital of government promises – National-led government promises.
- Close the wage gap with Australia
- Reduce serious crime
- Cut waiting times for elective surgery
- 20 new operating theatres
- Lower greenhouse gas emissions
- Increase investment in infrastructure
- A police officer for every 500 people…
Wow! But there’s more!
The Labour-led Coalition, Goff said, has left the economy well placed to survive the international crisis – and, implicitly, the new Government well placed to deliver those bold promises. That brought the House down.
When the laughter subsided, Goff got serious. His opposition is going to hold the new Government to account for delivering its promises – except the ones that Labour opposes.
Most specifically, Labour opposes National’s plan to pass legislation under urgency providing for employer-employee agreements on a 90-day trial period for new employees in businesses with fewer than 20 staff.
Goff tried to represent the new employees’ probation provision as a sneaky bolt out of the blue, pointing out that it had not been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, or National’s First 100 Days plan.
The public has been “blindsided”, he huffed, and the people should have their say on a piece of law that removes basic rights and will be rammed through Parliament with no opportunity for public input.
“This 90-day hire and fire bill will place even more stress on workers at a time of rising unemployment and uncertainty,” he puffed.
Goff’s themes are echoed in a series of supporting statements from trade union leaders.
“The National-Act Government’s move to take rights from vulnerable workers by ramming through its fire at will policy under urgency is a betrayal of working Kiwis,” choruses Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union national secretary [and Labour Party president-designate] Andrew Little.
Other critical comments have come from the Council of Trade Unions, Finsec [the bank workers’ union], the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Tertiary Education Union.
In fact, National’s new employee probation provision comes as no surprise at all.
During the last election campaign, it was the first item on National’s labour policy agenda, and the policy was based on a private member’s bill considered [and rejected] by Parliament’s Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in 2006.
The reasoning behind National’s decision not to take its new employee probation legislation through the select committee process is that has been through it already, and the flaws that were identified then have subsequently been addressed.
The 90-day work trial process is implemented by agreement between an employer and the new employee. Good faith provisions of the Employment Act and rules of natural justice and human rights legislation will all continue to apply. Mediation will be available in disputes. Employers will not be able to hire and fire the same employee every 90 days.
Furthermore, this is not an unprecedented change. New Zealand and Denmark are the only nations in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development not to have a new employee probation provision.
The introduction of the change under urgency should also be no surprise – given the current level of economic uncertainty, the longer term projections for rising unemployment, and the significant decline in hiring intentions among New Zealand businesses as we go into the New Year when new workforce entrants are looking for jobs.
Having the probation provision in place by April – at the time when the tax cuts that are currently being addressed by Parliament under urgency also come into effect – makes sense in terms of confidence building.
Goff’s declaration of war on National’s probation plan needs to be seen for what it is – a signal of Labour’s intent to realign itself with its traditional worker-union support base, more than a principled statement of opposition to any inequity in the new employee probation provision.
He has obviously read the depressing details of the election results in South Auckland – the Labour-voting fortress that delivered his predecessor’s skin-thin victory in 2005. In 2008, the fortress locked Labour out.
This is a time for Goff-led Labour to dust off the old Workers’ Flag and fire at will – again.
Comments (5)
David, even if I did agree with your analysis on the impact of the bill, I don't think there is any great need for the bill to be passed under urgency, in just a couple of days.
What, apart from pure political expediency, is the reason for passing it before Christmas?
Why, when the legislation doesn’t take affect until April, does it need to be pushed through now?
Why not subject it to the scrutiny of the select committee process and to public debate?
Even at the height of Labour’s *arrogant* use of parliament in the last term, which the media went feral over, they didn’t pass whole pieces of controversial legislation under urgency – the EFA and ETA both traversed the select committee process.
This is a disgrace and democrats here should be outraged. Given the Herald’s indignant editorial the other day about decorum in parliament, and last year's front page campaign against the EFA and the “abuse of democracy", can we expect a similar campaign against National’s latest moves? I doubt it.
Even at the height of Labour’s *arrogant* use of parliament in the last term, which the media went feral over, they didn’t pass whole pieces of controversial legislation under urgency
What was the constitutional crisis requiring the Electoral Act to be ammended under extreme urgency (and without select committee scrutiny or public submissions) to avoid a by-election in New Plymouth when Harry Duynhoven fell foul of the rules? Or retrospectively erasing any taint over unlawful electioneering on the public purse? Hardly
As a matter of principle, I'd agree that urgency has been abused by successive governments for a very long time. But pardon me if I find the outrage from the Opposition benches a little too theatrical for words...
Conor, good questions deserve answers
Q: What, apart from pure political expediency, is the reason for passing it before Christmas?
A: Because we have a looming unemployment boom.
Q: Why, when the legislation doesn’t take affect until April, does it need to be pushed through now?
A; Because the legislation is ready to roll and there's a very full agenda waiting for consideration..
Q: Why not subject it to the scrutiny of the select committee process and to public debate?
A: Because it has been - through 619 written submissions, 51 witness submissions, and select committee hearings in Wellington and Auckland.
Cheers.
David,
Thanks for your proper replies. Mine below:
Q: What, apart from pure political expediency, is the reason for passing it before Christmas?
A: Because we have a looming unemployment boom.
- I heard an employment expert on the radio say that this kind of legislation is important at the top of an employment cycle when employers have a smaller pool of labour and therefore the need to employ a higher “risk” employee. At the bottom it further reduces security in the employment relationship for already exposed workers.
But pay that no mind. I hope you do not believe that simply allowing employers to take on people, without having to worry about labour rights, will save us from the “looming unemployment boom” as your answer seems to suggest. Current economic circumstances are not a function of current employment relationships – reversing the power dynamic in boss-worker relations isn’t going to solve the problem.
I believe our current employment/economic model actually relies on people feeling confident enough to move easily between jobs. Giving people a reason not to move, especially during a downturn, is a recipe for stagnation – which will also have the effect of allowing wages to languish.
Q: Why, when the legislation doesn’t take affect until April, does it need to be pushed through now?
A; Because the legislation is ready to roll and there's a very full agenda waiting for consideration..
- Let’s hope this isn’t the new standard for incoming governments. Election in November. Government formed six weeks from Christmas. New legislation pushed through completely under urgency during the first week of parliament before everyone goes away. Surely not...
And are you sure the legislation is “ready to roll”? I hear the Nats are only just getting around to naming some of their bills and opposition members are getting bills to read as the first debate is starting. Crikey.
Not only that, if it is such a “very full agenda” as your describe – and as outlined by Key’s busy 100 day plan – then it’s a bloody disgrace that they have to push it through before that “very full agenda” is even started... And the Nats have gone about putting this legislation before the house, before that very full agenda, without even needing to highlight it in the 100 day plan and the speech from the throne. That is pathetic.
Q: Why not subject it to the scrutiny of the select committee process and to public debate?
A: Because it has been - through 619 written submissions, 51 witness submissions, and select committee hearings in Wellington and Auckland.
So it’s all sorted then? Again, is the new standard that if a private opposition member’s bill goes through the house, through the select committee, is then defeated, then there is an election, a change of government, the introduction of a new government bill, with many new provisions, then that it is deemed to have been vetted? No questions left around the bill at all? Crap.
If a left wing opposition party puts up a member’s bill introducing legislated industry award floors, which is then defeated, which then comes back to parliament as an amended urgent government bill when the party is re-elected, would you be so happy to go along with it or see it as an abuse of power?
"New Zealand and Denmark are the only nations in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development not to have a new employee probation provision"
The Dept. Of Labour's website section on probation/trial periods under the ERA would seem to suggest otherwise:
"Employers and employees may agree to an initial probationary or trial period."
Ah, but here's the rub, at the end of the trial period:
"If the employer thinks there are problems, the employer still needs to follow a fair disciplinary or dismissal procedure. The employer cannot merely tell the employee to go at the end of the trial period. "
Blasted fair procedure!
Post new comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.