Employment Relations Amendment Bill

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) Link to this

The Employment Relations Amendment Bill, which we are presently considering, in no way resembles what this country needs to reinforce the words that were spoken in the Speech from the Throne this year. We need robust and vigorous laws that will encourage an economy to grow. What we are still confronted with is a Labour Government waxing lyrical in terms that would put the average working New Zealander to sleep. We are certainly nowhere nearly as motivated to the level we should be. The Employment Relations Amendment Bill is undoubtedly dumbing down the ambitions and enterprise of a whole generation. It is with much concern that National opposes this amendment.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that this is the 15th amendment to the Employment Relations Act, and it reminds me of that Simon and Garfunkel song about how many ways there are to leave one’s lover. In actual fact, this Employment Relations Amendment Bill in effect is “15 ways to screw the nation and its enterprise”. It is hugely concerning. It reminds me very much of the Garfield comic strip. We see Garfield the cat, yawning away, dreaming about warm fuzzy moments and notions of self-interest, which serves only to reinforce bad behaviour. That is what we see within this Employment Relations Amendment Bill. In no way does it stir up and conjure enterprise within this nation. What we see is very similar to what we see in old Garfield the cat. Inside this tired and lazy Labour Party is corruption, slothfulness, and wastefulness. That tone is set from the very top, and it is flowing through society.

When we look at what is across on the other side of the Chamber, in a tired and wasteful Government, we see there are some old, burnt-out MPs whom the electorates said they did not want to see again. They voted them out. We see them sitting there, dormant, tired, and sleepy, although the electorates have said they do not want them. We now have in front of us legislation that New Zealand does not want to see. When we start telling an employer who he or she should take on and employ, it cuts across the enterprise that this country needs.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this

This bill, if ever a bill was, is truly legislation for money. Here it is, and this Government gets money from the trade unions. It knows that, and it delivers legislation—cash for policies, if ever there was such a case. A lot of people would say that is corrupt. When we pay money to a Government and get legislation, there is no other way to describe that than as a corrupt practice. We are getting used to that.

I want to say something to three Labour members sitting across the Chamber on the Government benches. They are all new, and at least two of them will be gone at the next election. So I say to them they should enjoy their 2 years or, more accurately, suffer their 2 years, because today’s question time is merely an example of what they can expect. We are angry, and the public are angry. They are saying to this Government it should be honest with the voters and pay the money back. The Government should listen to the 81 percent of the public who say that, because the public have no patience at all with a Government that would basically take money and deliver legislation.

The policy behind this bill is, in any event, fundamentally flawed economically, because the Government is trying to get new business owners to take on old employees under the same terms and conditions they had previously, or else to pay them redundancy. That is the choice. This Government obviously has not heard of the last 20 years of economic reform. Do those members not know how greater productivity is actually achieved? It means that we have to get more work—more productive output—from each employee. That is the only way productivity is increased. It may mean providing more capital or it may be a case of adopting better management systems, but whatever it means, it means change. We do not end up doing exactly the same job in the same way it was done before. We heard submitters say: “Woe is me, because in the last 20 years, my job has changed.” I would say to those submitters that they should get real and come into the real world, because work does change. There are more efficient systems, new technology, new machinery, and new management systems. Actually, that is how the economy was turned around over the last 20 years.

Government members have some fatally flawed idea of paying the unions back and adopting, until the point of bankruptcy, the ideology of their trade union mates. Here we have in the Chamber two members of that Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—trade union officials—delivering to their unions policy that the unions paid for. That is my definition of “corruption”. They are delivering here not just corrupt ideas around Government but also bankrupt policies, as well.

National is fundamentally opposed to this bill. We even suggested—and my colleague will talk about this—some modest changes to the bill in our minority select committee report. We said that we should at least exempt smaller employers, because we are faced with an absurd proposition. A small firm, probably consisting mostly of family members, will tender for a contract. It intends, of course, for its employees and team to take over the contract. But what does the Government say? It says the firm should forget about its own business, all the capital it has at risk, and all its new initiatives, because it has to take the old people on. Well, the very reason the contract is being changed is that the person who is changing the contract wants there to be a new team: the team presented to the person who is changing the contract by that new small employer to do the work—to do it more efficiently, effectively, and cost-effectively. My colleague David Bennett will talk on his proposition as to why the proposed change to the bill to address that issue is so desirable.

I do hope that New Zealand First is sympathetic today to the ideas and values of small businesses, particularly of family businesses. The New Zealand First member on the select committee, Peter Brown, well knows—because it was discussed in the select committee—that the proposal is aimed precisely at that group of people. I hope the New Zealand First members will stand by their ideology and support small business.

PAULA BENNETT (National) Link to this

I rise today to speak in opposition to this bill, and it absolutely appals me to hear yet again the sort of language coming from the other side of the Chamber when Government members talk about protecting vulnerable workers. We have to realise that it suits Labour members to have workers feeling vulnerable. It suits them to have them needy and in a lesser situation, so that those workers feel indebted to the unions, and those workers do not have the means to be able to speak up for themselves and say what they really need. This bill is just another example of the sort of language coming from the left that likes to see everyone in a position of neediness and vulnerability, as if we cannot help or look after ourselves. What an absolute load of hogwash that attitude is!

One need only look at the unemployment figures these days to know that there is an across-the-board level of unemployment relating to cleaners and those affected by this bill. Those who have the means and are doing a good job will move into other work with no issues, at all.

I can see some understanding and logic around the district health boards’ position, which was aired during the select committee process. I personally have not had much to do with the district health boards and the workers involved with them. We heard arguments from them, and I certainly heard the argument from Labour members, about those workers who are going under six different contracts and who have their terms of employment changed six different times. Without a doubt, Opposition members have some sympathy for those workers, and we felt that that issue needed to be addressed. But, as usual, we have the big stick and the blunt instrument from the Government for a problem that will now affect all other small businesses, and we certainly have a high level of concern about that.

Small-business owners, often family-owned businesses, will be affected detrimentally by this bill, and the Labour Government simply does not care. It is not interested in those small businesses, and does not grasp the concept that they, too, will be affected by this bill. It is as simple as that, I tell Labour members, and they just need to listen to the argument that family businesses will be affected by this bill.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this

It is probably true that the Government has fixed the Employment Relations Act 14 or 15 times. That is only slightly more often than the National Party has had changes of leader and deputy leader since Helen Clark became the leader of the Labour Party. I think National has had about 10 or 11 new leaders and deputy leaders. What were those members doing then? Were they fixing something—was that a stuff-up?

New Zealand First will support this legislation with the Supplementary Order Papers. I will address the Supplementary Order Papers, because it is true we have concerns about this type of legislation, but we also believe there are vulnerable workers who do need a bit of legislative protection. So we have insisted, with the Labour Government, that there will be one Supplementary Order Paper, in my name, that will allow for a review of this whole amendment within 3 years. The second Supplementary Order Paper, which is produced by the Government—and which the Minister and I spent some hours negotiating—allows for full disclosure, and we will be supporting that.

The third Supplementary Order Paper is in my name, and it is a result of Mr Blumsky’s concern. I think his concern might be wrong, but he raised it while speaking in the Chamber, I interjected on him, and he approached me afterwards and elaborated on it. I think he is wrong. I spoke to the Minister as I promised Mr Blumsky I would. Both the Minister and myself believe there is no cause for concern, but we thought it was an issue that might arise if we were dealing with a devious or underhand employer. I do not know any such employers, but possibly National members do. So we took it on board, and in my name there is a Supplementary Order Paper that will amend the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper along the lines that Mr Blumsky suggested. So I want to see how National will vote now, because it knows that this Supplementary Order Paper will improve the situation for employers, and that it had a hand in this. I would not mind betting that National will vote against it.

I want to talk about Mr Bennett’s Supplementary Order Paper. Mr Bennett approached me the other day and asked whether I would take it to my caucus. I did so, but the Supplementary Order Paper is flawed. I have explained that to him privately, as I have explained it to Mr Wayne Mapp. It is flawed, because it basically says that nothing in this part of the bill applies to small employers with under 10 employees—I think I have got that right. Well, excuse me, but the most vulnerable of vulnerable workers are probably those working for a small company. That Supplementary Order Paper just does not do the job.

New Zealand First members are, by natural instinct, not supportive of this type of legislation—I have to be honest—but we have listened intently to vulnerable employees. They can negotiate their wages and conditions up, and if we open the door for anybody to take a new contract or take over the firm—which is already covered in the earlier legislation—then those guys will start right on the bottom again. When one listens to their cases and the situations they have been in, one has to have some sympathy. People have told me privately that they had been doing their jobs and were regarded highly, but when a new contract emerged, one way or the other, they were told they could still carry on working there but would get paid less, or they would get paid less and have more to do, or things would be made much more difficult for them by undermining the very conditions they worked under. That is not fair. There is a genuine concern in New Zealand First for those people.

This legislation closes the Gibbs and others v loophole. We recognised that the Government produced legislation last term that addressed the principle of what happens when one company is sold to another, and we thought that on merit it is worth positively addressing this part of it. We were aware that the Government had the numbers, so our attitude in New Zealand First was to get the best possible deal.

MARK BLUMSKY (National) Link to this

It is a big concern when I hear my fellow colleagues talk about 15 amendments to the Employment Relations Act. A bigger concern, and an even stronger message that this Labour - New Zealand First Government does not like small business, is that we are still, even today, making amendments to this legislation on the hoof, in order to crucify small business.

Let me explain exactly where I am going with this point. I stood in this Chamber just short of a week ago, and I raised some issues regarding the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by Minister Dyson. I raised some issues to do with the fact that there was no protection for small businesses if they were taking over the employment entitlements after successfully winning a contract. My friendly colleague on the other side of the Chamber, Peter Brown, who has just spoken, shouted me down at great length during the debate, saying that I was wrong and that the Supplementary Order Paper would fix that problem. After I had delivered that speech, I had a discussion with my colleague Mr Brown, who then made a representation to the Minister. A Supplementary Order Paper in Mr Brown’s name has been presented today because of the discussion I had with him. Mr Brown then had a discussion with the Minister, who has agreed to support the Supplementary Order Paper.

No further proof is needed of the messy, disruptive nature of this legislation—which is on its 15th amendment—than what we are currently seeing. That has to be a signal the Labour - New Zealand First Government is sending to small businesses that it does not like them because a lot of the Government’s mates, who actually fund it, are in unions, and it has to look after what they want. The Government is saying it is important that its mates, the unions who fund it, are well and truly looked after.

As I indicated in my last speech to the Committee, I get a lot of correspondence from small businesses. I will read from a letter from a Wellington business—it has been in business for 14 years and has had 60 employees—because it just typifies and underlines what I am trying to say: “The past 4 years have been a nightmare for our business, and we believe the reason is partly due to the overall climate and tone that now exists in this country, created by a Government intent on pushing employment policies that are not necessary, and political correctness that is way over the top and crazy.” I will drop down to another line that I particularly like, which I will share with members: “We believe the only way to get New Zealand back on track is to get rid of the current Government.” I suggest that is an incredibly inspirational piece of writing from that small business.

At the end of the day, we should not be distracted from the fact that this legislation is not good for business in New Zealand. It is messy—there are 15 amendments to the Act—and this is Supplementary Order Paper number whatever because of issues that were raised by myself in the very last debate on this bill. As I say, that is not the way we should be doing business. This Parliament needs to make sure New Zealand is moving forward. This Government needs to look at how it can lower taxes, give people incentives to get ahead, and ferret out the waste and the very many low-value programmes in the public sector, so that the public gets good value. The public is not getting good value from this legislation. The Government needs to stand up and apologise to businesses in New Zealand, because it is not giving them the respect they deserve. If we were the Government, we would ensure that the right climate was there and that businesses got the credit they deserved. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this

I thank Mark Blumsky for that excellent speech. Today is a very disappointing day. A political party called New Zealand First campaigns year after year on keeping people honest, on standing up for individual rights, and on being there for all New Zealanders—and what has it done today? When it had the chance it just dumped the small-business man. New Zealand First members dumped the people who supported them, and they supported the Government in order to keep the baubles of power—so that its members could stay in the Cook Islands and sit on spiders. Well, that is not good enough for New Zealanders. We want to have a country that represents all New Zealanders. We want a Government that is actually prepared to make the hard calls—a Government that will move with the issues and with the people.

When we were in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, the issue of vulnerable workers was raised quite genuinely. There is an issue out there, and that issue will not be solved by legislation that is universal. There are two things that this legislation will not do, and those members opposite will destroy the vision and passion of ordinary New Zealanders—those people out there who set up a business to clean as a family unit, who employ fewer than 10 employees, and who want to transfer their business through. This bill kills them. They are stung by harsh legislation that puts far too many restrictions on them and their business capabilities. That is shocking. It is shameful, and there is only one word for it. It begins with “h”.

Secondly, this legislation indicates the intention of Labour and New Zealand First to keep the people under their little thumbs—to keep them under control. They know better than the people—that is their message. Labour and New Zealand First say that they know what is best for ordinary New Zealanders and that 60 of them can make a decision for 4 million people. They know, because they think they have this God-given right to tell everyone what they think. This is what they think, and that is what New Zealand First has been doing, just for the baubles of power. It has become part of the union movement now. It is part of the union movement; it is the Labour Government.

I refer now to some of the issues and numbers given to us in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and heavens above, to think that this question might have been asked by Peter Brown! He might actually have asked in the select committee how many small employers there were. The answer was that for 1,417 sole traders there were zero employees. There were 737 businesses employing one to five employees, and 153 businesses employing six to nine employees. That gives a total of 890 businesses that employ between one and nine employees, or a total of 2,307 businesses employing fewer than 10 people. The sole traders are not even in the legislation.

If we look at the number of employees, we see that for businesses employing zero to nine employees, there are 2,860 employees. That is for 2,307 businesses. But there are 16,180 employees for the other 451 businesses that employ more than 10 employees, and those 16,180 people are the people this legislation is for. They are the real vulnerable workers.

The other 2,000 people are people in small businesses who are trying to make a go of it. What then does the Government do? It just goes and shafts them. And what does New Zealand First do? It supports the Government in shafting them. What did we have to do? We put up an amendment that would have given the opportunity for the political parties in this Chamber to stand up for what is right, to stand up for New Zealanders, to stand up for those working people who are vulnerable employees, and to stand up for those hard-working New Zealanders who want to start their own businesses. What happened? Those parties denied it. They said no to it, and moved on.

This legislation would have supported 16,000 New Zealanders, but 2,000 have been denied that support through New Zealand First’s inaction. We had the numbers here today. We could have got that amendment through. The parties around this Chamber all listened, apart from New Zealand First. Why did it not listen? That is my question to that party.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this

I have some very simple questions for the Government and for its puppy, New Zealand First. I ask the Government why it hates workers but loves trade unions. That is the difference, is it not? The Government hates workers but it will do anything for its trade union mates. New Zealand workers have voted with their feet. Eighty-five percent of New Zealand workers in the private sector have said no to the unions, because New Zealand workers hate unions. The Government loves unions. Do members know what unions do? They put their lackeys into Parliament. I am looking at two of them now: Darien Fenton and Sue Moroney. Do members know what Darien Fenton did? She stole workers’ union money to pay for the Labour Party campaign. That is what she did. That is the exposé in Investigate magazine.

I have a question for New Zealand First. Why does New Zealand First hate small businesses? Why has it sold out to the party of the unionists? It is truly appalling. The party that calls itself “New Zealand First” is in fact “trade union first”. It has sold out to the Government. The New Zealand First Party—

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this

The introduction of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is quite specific. It states: “This bill is intended to protect certain categories of employees …”. When I listen to other people, I wonder, and I want to understand, why they have missed what this Government has done. Certainly, in relation to this bill, the minimum wage has increased six times in the last 6 years. The issues about employees’ rights are quite clear, and people revel in that. The macro level in this country—in the sense of small-business development—sings out and continues to say: “Long live the Labour Government!”. Well, I will continue to say that, because this Government has most certainly been the best friend of small and medium businesses that this country has had for a long time. What is so wrong with protecting employees’ rights? What is so wrong with doing that? What is so wrong with giving a fair toss for the workers? The Government is unlike some other organisations that have deep pockets of cash that they give away to run other agendas.

The bill is quite simple; it is no big issue. The bill is about people’s rights, and certainly the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has worked hard on it. This Government has continued to develop the macro level, so that the micro-business structure in this country will survive for a long, long time. The advent and the wish of people, in the sense of keeping a strong, entrepreneurial-type economy alive, is something that this bill supports. The unions have done well in terms of participating in the economy, and so have employers. That is what this bill is about; it is about continuing to make sure that workers’ rights are recognised.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this

It is amazing to hear a Minister—the Hon Parekura Horomia—talk about economic growth, when Labour is the Governnment that has managed to give us zero percent economic growth from last September to March of this year. This Government has given zero percent when our trading neighbours are growing at 9 to 10 percent a year. This Government has killed our economy. It has strangled what was a strong economy, good economic times, and good commodity prices. Now we are at the bottom of growth rates; at zero percent for 6 months. That is completely unacceptable. We need to be growing at least 3 or 4 percent to be competitive with Australia and our neighbours who are at 9 to 10 percent. Why are we growing at zero percent? It is because this Government has constantly fiddled with the economic fundamentals that National set up in the 1990s and Labour set up in the 1980s—the fundamentals that set this country on the right track.

Today we have seen a New Zealand First Party that has said that it was not going to turn its back on the small businesses of New Zealand, do exactly that. This is the New Zealand First party that voted against this legislation in the first place. New Zealand First members voted against this legislation, and now they are supporting it while they are in Government. Can members figure that? Why did they vote against it, and now why do they vote for it? Well, there has been a general election and they got the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; that is why they voted for it—

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this

I want to respond to some of the remarks that Wayne Mapp and David Bennett have made against New Zealand First. First of all, it is true that we voted against the Employment Relations Amendment Bill at the first reading and we are now voting for it, but there are some significant changes to the bill—

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) Link to this

It is interesting to hear comments by the member from New Zealand First. It is significant there will be some very hard calls required in the near future for his party, because it is facing a problem where it is seen to be in Government with Labour and therefore guilty by association. I do feel very sorry for that outstanding member Ron Mark from down my region, who is respected but is soiled with such filth and utterly deplorable legislation. It is very, very scary because it is against everything that has made this country great.

When we look at the way provincial New Zealand voted during the last election, I believe we will see the completion of the New Zealand convergence to come in behind National, to be the only solution to take this country forward and to maintain that high quality of life that we have become used to. When we see that we have had 15 moves to get this bill to a stage where Labour can be satisfied with it, knowing that 15 movements beforehand it was totally unacceptable to its comrades—the unions—we can see why one would call the bill the “Labour (Union Movement Close Relationship) Amendment Bill”. Certainly, it is nothing to do with looking after those people whom the Government labels “vulnerable”. The people whom I come across who are vulnerable are mostly those who are ripped off continually by the behaviour of the Labour Government. It is very, very recognisable that many, many people are coming to the understanding that the only way forward is through supporting the way forward with the National Party.

There are 300,000 businesses involved, and it is a bit of a shame when we hear the president of the Council of Trade Unions talking in glowing terms about innovation, productivity, and suchlike, yet enshrined in this legislation is the deplorable activity of beating up on business. The bargaining of an employee is open to abuse, when we get to a situation where somebody wins a contract, and I would be hopeful, from my own experience of taking over businesses, that it would be done with due diligence, and that one would convince oneself there was a degree of rigour inside the accounting processes, and that people came on board subject to their satisfaction and one’s own satisfaction over a period of time.

So on that basis I can see a lot of logic behind Wayne Mapp’s 90-day probation bill, on the basis that it gives everybody the opportunity of being comfortable. On that basis we look forward to that engagement as well. But I would imagine that the insidious behaviour of the union movement has so turned the tables on what is good for this country that we will be confronted again with this deplorable activity where we end up with consumption speeding away and burning up our economy, while the export base is eroded. So when we think about those sorts of things we can understand why the National Party is so clearly opposed to this legislation.

I would like to recall the situation with Garfield the cat—that deplorable beast that we all recognise within ourselves as that tendency we must resist, where we yawn and dream away about those warm fuzzy notions of self-interest. That is what we are seeing inside this sort of legislation—the “Labour (Union Movement Close Relationship) Amendment Bill”. This bill does nothing to create the robust, innovative, competitive environment with rigour and what is necessary to grow this economy. What we are seeing is Labour waxing lyrical in some dreamy fantasyland that will have us all come home rich and abundant, but just for the pure effort of keeping this Government in power. It has nothing to do with vision, nothing to do with leadership. Good, hard-working New Zealanders will recognise that.

When we look for examples of how we get performance, we look at the export sector of this country, and globally we lead the world around creating the incentives whereby we stand on our own two feet. At the end of the day, everybody on this side of the Chamber prays that we will continue to produce sufficient people in this country able to stand on their own two feet.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.