Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
I move, That the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. First of all, I thank my National Party colleagues for allowing me to put this bill in the ballot and for then supporting me—hopefully—when the time comes to refer it to the select committee. The bill’s title is the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. In a nutshell, it amends the Employment Relations Act 2000, to require unions to hold a secret ballot vote of their members to approve a strike before undertaking any strike action.
My key message to the House is that National has always believed that employment law should treat all parties fairly, with the focus on protecting employees and employers. National has been committed for a long time to creating a positive work environment, and I think that this bill supports that priority. I will not take up too much of the House’s time, but I will say in an overview that our nation is at a crossroads and that we need to get this nation back on a footing where we are concentrating on productivity. I think that the raft of measures that National has seen in, in the 18 to 20 months that it has been on the Treasury benches, has done that.
This bill requires unions to hold a secret ballot for their members when voting on strike action. Strikes can be incredibly stressful for both sides, both financially and mentally. One of the reasons why I suggested this bill to my colleagues was that one such person felt that he was under pressure when it came time to decide whether he would be part of the withdrawal of labour at his workplace. Not all workers will be in the same personal circumstances, so it is fair that any decision they make is free from judgment by anyone else. This bill will provide a protection mechanism for workers who may feel intimidated through the voting process. People must feel at ease with the process, whether it is about choosing to withdraw their labour or choosing their representatives every 3 years.
Chris HipkinsThat member was about 7 when that happened. This bill will ensure that a secret ballot before strikes is a legal requirement for all unions. It is nothing new. Actually, all that this bill does is to codify and standardise what is already occurring within some of the major unions of this country. I want to make it quite clear that this is not about a fight between right and left, or a fight between National and Labour; it is not even a fight between employers and employees. This is not an attack on unions. Rather, it enhances the processes that many unions already have in place.
We will get to that; we will get to the little squeak from the Opposition members.
I had a meeting today with Peter Conway from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, and it is very clear and apparent that the Council of Trade Unions does not have any problem with this bill. But it is also very clear and apparent to me that it wants to couch some issues in the select committee process, and I cannot wait for the council to come along—and for anyone else to come along—to make a submission on this bill. I think that the wars we used to fight have been won and lost. I will not say who won or who lost, but let us just say that those wars have been fought; those wars have been won, and those wars have been lost.
Absolutely; it makes us better people if we understand that history. It makes us better people if we know—
No, no. Again, you see, this is not about right and left; this is not about National and Labour. This is about protecting a person’s right to make a decision without fear or favour. Protecting a person’s right to make a decision without feeling that he or she is under the cosh, so to speak—
The bottle, as well. We have all done things in our pasts that we rather regret; I ask Trevor Mallard whether that is not so.
No, some people never regret what they have done. They continue to make the same mistakes as they have in the past. But that is different, and not what we are here for.
We are here to protect a person’s right to withdraw their labour in a way whereby they are fully informed and not under any threat, either physical or mental. So I have set out today, and in my talks with various people, to make sure that the bill is non-controversial. It is all about transparency; it is all about democracy. It is all about the rights of the individual person who is being asked to withdraw his or her labour. In fact, that is the only real tool that workers have in their kitbags, so to speak, to further their interests.
As I said, I will not speak for very much longer, other than to say that I received a very, very nice letter concerning legal advice in respect of the consistency of my bill with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I am glad to inform the House that there are no issues with my bill going forward. It certainly does not contravene, I believe, any of the rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I leave the House to consider and make up its mind.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I will state right at the beginning that Labour will be supporting the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is a pity that the member in whose name this bill is had not consulted his nephew, the list member for the Hutt Valley, in order to make sure that the bill was similarly consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Maybe his nephew could give him some lessons in that area.
It is an unusual position for Mr Henare and me, but there was almost nothing in his speech that I could disagree with. He summarised the situation pretty well. His bill will do effectively nothing. He is enshrining in legislation what is already codified in the vast majority of union rules. Again, I will do something unusual and take the language of Ruth Richardson to ask “What is the mischief in that?”. There is no problem in sending the bill to a select committee. I have a question in terms of whether Parliament would be better dealing with some other issues. I think there are some bigger issues in industrial relations and other areas, but this is an issue that would be good to get to a select committee. I think that as far as the member goes, there will be a degree of unanimity. I hope there will be a degree of unanimity in the House about the legislation, because all it is doing is reflecting the practice of modern unionism, something that has changed a bit in the time since the member and I were more actively involved in the union movement.
There is an area in the bill, though, that Labour will look to amend, or to see whether the bill is a vehicle for amendment—that is, a reflection or mirror image for employers, an area to make sure there are proper processes for employers before they lock out workers. I think there is a lot of unevenness in the employment relationship legislation at the moment. Generally in our industrial relations law we have rules that apply to employers as well as to employees. What the proper approach for employers should be, I am not entirely sure, but I think certainly for companies it will be appropriate for at least the board of directors to make a decision before workers are locked out.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Well, it might be good for the Business Roundtable to take a secret ballot on some of its own policies. It is interesting, as one goes around the Business Roundtable, to see how different the individual members’ positions are from the positions that have been put forward by Mr Kerr. But, as I say, that area is something that we will be happy to look at.
I say to the member that over a number of years there have been some real changes in practice from the time when we were both actively involved in the union movement. In that time there were probably a significant number of unions that did not have secret ballots, and people had different methods of enforcement—both employers and employees. They had different methods of dispute resolution over that time; I ask Mr Henare whether that is so. I think it is fair to say that people had different attitudes to transparency at that time, because when there were incidents within the union movement those incidents tended to be covered up, and some of the people who behaved badly, as Mr Henare did, tended to be protected. I do not know whether it was because of the union brotherhood that they were protected, or whether there was a special deal even in those days, under the United Nations or some other arrangements, which meant that Mr Henare had protection rather than prosecution in the way that everyone else would have had, if they had behaved in the way that he did as he exited the union movement.
Mr Henare knows exactly what the story is; he introduced the importance of transparency in union matters here. I am sure that over the next period of time we will enjoy him telling us the story of the way that he exited the union movement. I tell members that it was not a matter of ballot fixing. He did not get caught for his ballot fixing, although I think the union might have had a trouble or two in that area at one stage or another around the time that he was an official. But that was not the reason that he decided to resign from the union movement; it was something that was much more serious than that. I look forward to transparency.
As I said at the beginning, we are supportive of the bill. It will have almost no effect in its current form. It might be a bit of a waste of time. It is likely to get widespread support, but we hope to improve it so that it will be fair and will mirror the processes available to employers before they use their power to lock workers out.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
It is gives me great pleasure to support my very good colleague Tau Henare. He was once a union organiser and he has a particular interest in workers’ rights. For many years he has been advocate for those who need assistance. The Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill is part of his delivering legislation to the House for the people of New Zealand. This member’s bill will assist workers and given them the democratic rights that he knows they deserve. As a result of his very good experience in that field, we see this solid legislation coming through from a good member of the House who has an impeccable record and a future in this institution. He is also a good member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. If the bill gets through its first reading, it will go to that great committee and we will endeavour to look at all options, including those put forward by Labour, to see what can be done to make this legislation the best it can possibly be in the circumstances.
Basically, the bill gives fairness and equity to people in a ballot situation so they can have secrecy in making their decisions without feeling pressured in any way. That is crucial in a vital decision such as whether to undertake a strike action because not only is it possible that one might get some kind of pressure from colleagues, but also there is the potential pressure from those outside of the group who would be looking at the strike. It is important to have that secrecy so people can make a fair and independent decision because making the call to go on strike is a big decision. It can affect the livelihoods of many families, and many businesses can suffer dramatically from strike action. It is not an easy decision in any circumstance. If we can make that decision as fair and as equitable as possible at the time, then I think that is in the best interests for everyone. It is important to make the proper decision, one that is reflective of the circumstances, not one that has been pressured on to people for any other ulterior motive.
I congratulate my colleague Tau Henare on bringing this legislation before the House. It is something that the select committee will take a great deal of interest in, and we will work tirelessly to make sure we have the best legislation coming forward to the House for future readings. It is in the best interests of New Zealand workers, our business community, and our industrial relations to pass this bill. I commend it to the House, and I wish my colleague all the best as we progress it through the House.
Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
During my euphoria I forgot to mention which select committee I was going to send the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill to. I seek leave to move—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I think what the member is trying to do—and I will be helpful—is to seek leave to indicate which committee he will move the bill to at the appropriate time.
Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
I intend at the appropriate time to move that this bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I seek leave for what the House is about to agree to to be incorporated in the first reading speech of the Hon Tau Henare.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
I think it is very interesting that we are debating the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill on a day when it has been announced that work stoppages are at their highest level in 5 years.
Oh! So the National Government, the friend to business, is presiding over the highest rate of industrial action that we have seen in 5 years. It is no wonder the member Tau Henare is keen to have the passage of his bill. But it is very good to see that that member and the National Government have finally come out to support workers’ right to strike—because I have not been sure of that, particularly since the 1990s when that right was so curtailed—even though the timing of the bill is a little bit unfortunate. We are pleased to have a piece of industrial relations legislation that is not viciously attacking workers’ rights, because everything else we have seen from this Government does—for example, the 90-day fire-at-will bill, the Holidays Act review, and the pitiful minimum wage increases. They have all been about pandering to business and sacrificing the rights of Kiwi workers.
Although we are supporting this bill, we have to question whether there are not more pressing issues to consider. There is no demand or need that I am aware of for this legislation. Tau Henare said in the paper that the idea came from his time as a union organiser in the 1980s. I mean, things have changed quite a lot since then. Poor old clerical workers! What did they do to deserve that member as an experienced union organiser?
That is right. I have to tell that member of the National Government that there are not legions of union officials going around the country pushing reluctant workers into strike action. As a union leader over many years, I never had one complaint from one member about that. The member said he had one person come to him, so it seems like a pretty small and minor issue.
Iain Lees-GallowayWell, it could have been, too; that is right. I think, also, that in a modern union movement, workers make many decisions as union members, not just about whether they will strike or take industrial action but about whom they will elect as their workplace leaders. They also decide on collective agreements, which is usually the most important thing; the thing they are most interested in is what their pay rise will be. They vote on union rules. There are things such as union rules that are covered by the Employment Relations Act, and unions are required to have those rules. And they vote on the democratic governance structures. Workers are not stupid. They cannot be pushed into doing things they do not want to do. Anyone who thinks so should just catch up, because it is so different from what it was in the 1980s.
I have, and those workers are right behind me. If Mr Henare goes to talk to them, they will tell him that, and particularly the cleaners in this workplace whom that member has never supported.
I will raise some issues, though, because there are many issues in this bill, and I think, perhaps, that the member has not thought them through. Apart from the fact that the bill does not do anything, there are some issues, like the lack of balance that my colleagues have referred to. Why is there a duty on workers to have secret ballots for strikes but not one on employers, including a secret ballot of shareholders? When employers lock out workers it is vicious; lockouts are shocking and they take away the economic livelihood of workers. They have had absolutely enough. There are a whole lot of questions about this. As I said, I do not think that the member has thought through how this will work.
How will the secret ballot be conducted? Will it require a new army of labour inspectors to supervise these ballots? How will the Government pay for this out of its ever-decreasing public service funds? What will be the rules around the conducting of a ballot? How will the votes be counted? Will there be restrictions on the questions that can be asked? How will we make sure that employers do not interfere in the ballot? How will we stop that happening? What will happen if an employer says the workers cannot get together to have a secret ballot? What if they cannot meet? Will they be forced to use their paid stopwork meetings? Most important, what will happen to workers in health and safety situations? They currently have the right to go on strike if they are facing a hazard, and can walk off the job. Will they have to stop and say “Oh well, we’ll just take a secret ballot, and we won’t worry about the hazard.”? There are many questions that I look forward to addressing in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
The Green Party will be supporting the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. But whether we support it beyond that will depend on whether it is proved in the select committee that there is a real need for such a bill, and a way to handle some of the downsides of the bill that have already been explained by speakers, including the previous speaker, Darien Fenton.
The bill seeks to codify practices that already exist in unions to conduct secret ballots before engaging in industrial actions. In order to promote a legislative framework for that and, as Darien Fenton said, an army of bureaucrats becoming involved in the work of a voluntary organisation—and unions are voluntary organisations—a reason has to be provided. What is the problem that now exists that requires such legislative intervention? We do not make laws just for the sake of it. Sometimes National goes on about a nanny State; well, this would be a nanny State if we enacted a law for no good reason.
I think Tau Henare in his introduction indicated what lies behind this. He talked about the need to protect people from intimidation, and things of that manner, without providing a single bit of evidence of intimidation in the current union situation, and not a single bit of evidence has been provided by any of the National speakers. Essentially, this bill and the talk around it, without providing any evidence, are creating a prejudicial attitude towards unions, serving to soften up unions and workers for more attacks on them, and to create a public climate where they find it more difficult to resist those attacks. David Bennett talked about an ulterior motive for going on strike, but it is quite clear that when workers take the democratic decision, as they do, to go on strike, they are thinking and canvassing all the issues; nobody voluntarily takes a reduction in income for nothing.
Other negative problems are also associated with this bill, and they have been brought to light by unions such as the Service and Food Workers Union, which says that already employers sometimes try to take injunctions against unions to either prevent or slow up industrial action and to put unions off their stride, by saying “Well, you’re not obeying this union rule or that union rule.” The more we put a legislative framework into the union situation, the more likely it is for employers to try to use injunctions to say that “According to this law you did not conduct the ballots quite right. Were all the members informed?”, and all the rest of it. I think it is right, as Darien Fenton pointed out, that this debate is in the context of more industrial action caused by Government policy—for example, court workers in the Ministry of Justice went on a series of rolling industrial actions over the last 6 months and finally won their dispute, which originated in the Government not giving enough to the ministry to pay court workers properly.
The bill does not address the other side of the equation, which is that of employer lockouts. As has been pointed out—and the Greens would address this in the select committee as it would help us to determine whether we supported the bill beyond that deliberation—there should be a procedure to stop lockouts. There have been very damaging lockouts recently, in the dairy industry and so on, that have hurt workers and employers. In these days of computer technology it would not be at all problematic to email each shareholder of a company and each member of a board, to ask if they supported a lockout and to give the reasons, argue it out, and have a debate over email or in some form. There could be a special meeting and a secret ballot of shareholders before workers were ever locked out. It is probable that at the moment most lockouts are done autocratically by the chief executive officer, and even the board is not informed or brought fully into the discussion, in most cases.
With those few words, I say that the Green Party will be supporting this bill going to the select committee. But our support is conditional on proper justification being provided for it and on alterations being made.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. The Māori Party supports the right of workers to be treated fairly and with dignity, and we support their right to a safe and healthy workplace.
We are keen to hear what workers think about the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, which requires unions to hold a secret ballot before undertaking strike action. We understand that the Council of Trade Unions has said it would support the bill because that is what is happening in the workplace anyway, but we have also heard that the Service and Food Workers Union does not support the bill and that it has criticised the Council of Trade Unions over this issue.
We have some concerns, but we will support this bill at its first reading to ensure that it goes to a select committee for a wider consideration of the submissions from affected parties, and because Tau Henare said I had to. Kia ora tātou.
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this
It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of Tau Henare’s bill, the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. Like my friend and colleague Darien Fenton I say that it is nice—and I do not share the view of a previous speaker that this bill should not be supported—to see a bill that relates to workers that does not deal to workers. I congratulate Tau Henare on that; I think that is really commendable.
Members on this side of the House have been very supportive of Tau’s notice. Indeed, Trevor Mallard was very helpful in terms of supporting the member. With all sincerity, I ask that the member consider supporting another workers’ bill that will be coming to this House very soon. It is the bill about supporting the right of every worker to redundancy compensation. If the goodwill that I can feel flowing across the Chamber can be replicated for that bill, it would be a very happy day in this House. I do not think we see many happy days in this House at the moment.
This bill is nothing short of aspirational. It is not non-binding, but, in a funny way, it has that same feel about it. It is aspirational in that it does what is already happening in practice, and there is nothing wrong with that happening.
I also want to put on record—and I say this very sincerely to the member—that I remember that he was as renowned in the union movement for his contribution, his diligence, and the work he did, as he is in this House. Everyone on this side of the House—and I can see affirmation from other members—thinks that Tau Henare’s contribution is certainly up there in this House with what it was in the union movement. I say that with all sincerity to the member. [Interruption] Kia ora.
I wonder when the last time was in this House that we have been able to say anything positive about any of the National members of Parliament. Certainly, there is no time that I can remember. This may not be a huge issue, but it is something that is deeply felt by the member. It is something that he has held close to his heart since the 1980s. It is probably what drove him to stand for Parliament. I will make sure that I hear his speech at the end of his career, because I know that this bill will be up there as one of his achievements. It will go down in history. It is disappointing that the Māori Party is not supporting this bill at this stage.
I apologise. Despite the workers unions, the Māori Party is supporting this bill. Apart from, perhaps, the ACT Party—although, maybe even their members will support it—there will be a meeting of minds in the House. The aspirational member Tau Henare has brought this House together under this bill and it is very commendable.
It seems rather sad that I have to say this when we are being quite positive, but there are things that have come before this House in terms of workers’ rights that are not so aspirational and not so good. Those are things like the 90-day bill, which is now an Act. I wish that Tau Henare had applied his heart and soul and had stuck up and convinced his caucus, as he has with this bill, that it was something that should not have been done. Although we have seen the minimum wage go from $12 to $12.50 an hour, the cry is to get that wage to $15 an hour. There was the slashing of pay equity, which—hello, déjà vu—is exactly what happened in 1991. I urge the member—and I can see that he is listening really intently—to reconsider his position on some of those issues. In the future, I hope that we can see more of a meeting of minds on bills for workers’ rights. Thank you very much.
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this
I am delighted to speak in the first reading debate of the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, in the name of my colleague Tau Henare. The bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 to require unions to hold a secret ballot of their members before undertaking any strike action. I understand that this is current practice in the larger unions. I absolutely support that this is current practice, but it may not be the case in smaller unions.
I respect the work of unions and organisations such as the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. Their philosophy and driving force is that everyone has the right to decent and productive work in conditions of freedom, equity, security, and human dignity. Who would not support that sentiment?
When this bill was drawn from the ballot, it was somewhat controversial. Some Labour members and others said that it was not necessary as it was already current practice. When the bill was drawn from the ballot, the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union said that it was out of touch and not needed as secret ballots are already practised. That may well be case for the large unions and those affiliated to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, but it does not represent all unions. It represents only 80 percent of unions, and it does not speak for all.
However, I am pleased to see that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has come out in support of the bill in principle, and it is to be commended for that. However, it is concerned that the bill is not balanced and believes that it must be changed to also require employers to follow democratic procedures, including a secret ballot with shareholders prior to a lockout. That is what a select committee process is for. It is the right place to hear all the arguments and the evidence. The select committee will invite public submissions, work through the issues raised, and decide what changes, if any, should be made to the bill. The bill will be a better bill when it comes out of the select committee, as that is the place where amendments can be made to improve it.
I am pleased that our Labour colleagues are supporting the bill, as are our Māori Party colleagues. I am also pleased to see that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has indicated that it will be making a submission when the bill gets to the select committee. There is no point in making legislation for the sake of making legislation. Parliament needs to make laws to improve the current situation, and I am sure this bill will do exactly that.
Although this bill’s provisions may be current practice and no would disagree with that sentiment, why should that practice not be enshrined in law? No worker should be made to feel intimidated or under pressure to vote, or not to vote, for strike action. No worker should feel coerced to vote in a certain way. It should be a free vote, and it must be a personal choice. That is the democratic way, and I am sure no one would disagree with that. There is no doubt that when strike action is contemplated emotions run high and both sides feel aggrieved. Strike action is the last resort when all avenues have been exhausted, the parties are at a dead end, and no agreement has been reached.
The stakes are high when strike action is contemplated, and it is a tense time for all concerned. Objectivity can be lost in situations like that, and it is not hard to see that if there was not a secret ballot a worker could feel intimidated into voting in a certain way. Also, let us not forget that strikes can be stressful financially and emotionally for a worker. Not every worker will have the same personal circumstances, so it is fair that any decision a worker makes is free of judgment from anywhere else. People must feel at ease with the process, and this bill will ensure it is a legal requirement for all unions. I commend this bill to the House.
SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this
It is my pleasure to speak on this member’s bill, the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, although I am quite perplexed as to why we are taking up the time of Parliament debating an issue that is already fixed. I think that everyone who has already contributed to the debate has said that unions, because they are democratic entities, operate in that way, anyway. None the less, it is good to see a National member standing up for the principles of democracy, because that has not been the case lately. Democracy has seemed to take second place to what the Government thinks is right for communities such as Canterbury, for example. Democracy has taken a back seat when it comes to the good people of Canterbury and the environmental needs of their area. But, moving on from that, I thank the member for bringing this matter to our attention. This is about saying that when workers make the very, very important decision to go on strike—and it is the course of last resort—when they make the decision to go without their income, to not to be able to pay their mortgage, to not to be able to be sure that they can put food on the table for their children, that very, very serious decision should be one where they can ask themselves, through a secret ballot, whether they really want to take that course of action.
Today we heard that, sadly, more and more frequently under this Government workers feel forced to make exactly that decision. It was announced just today that under this Government the number of industrial disputes is at its highest level for 5 years. That is the issue that really does need addressing. Tau Henare can play around with the right of people to cast a secret ballot in order to make this terrible decision, but it is a terrible decision, and it is one that is happening more and more frequently under this Government. Workers feel forced to cast their vote to go on strike and to go without an income in order to fix up an inequity and unfairness in their workplace. No worker takes that lightly.
I speak from experience, not as far back as the 1980s—although some of it was during the 1980s—but I have more recent experience than that. The era that weighs particularly heavily on my mind—and I hope that one day I will get to bring in a member’s bill that will fix up some of the things that I have been harbouring for 20 years—was my experience as a union organiser during the 1990s for the nurses union. I know that employers stood over union members and forced them to sign pieces of papers saying they resigned from the union. They were then faxed through, one after the other, to the union office from rest homes. That was so that those rest home owners could ensure that they could take penal rates away from people who worked weekends and nights during the 1990s under a National Government, so that they could make more profit out of the care of older people and not pay for the people who had to work those unsociable hours to care for them properly.
It is important that we continue to discuss industrial relations issues, because the rights of workers to get fair pay for the work that they do is fundamental to this country going forward. We have not always done well in that regard in this country. Sadly, we are seeing more and more situations in this country where workers are voting to go on strike. It is not because they feel like going without pay, not because it is a great lark for them, and not because it is a holiday, but because something their employer has done under this Government has caused them such grief that they are prepared to stand up and fight for it. They are prepared to put their mortgages at risk, and they are prepared to maybe not be able to feed their children, because the inequity going on in their workplace under this Government is so serious that they will take that course of action. I say to Mr Henare that that is the real mischief that needs fixing.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) Link to this
I want to take just a quick call in support of this bill. I think that we may have unanimity on the bill, although I was not quite sure where the Greens were coming from.
I want to touch on a point that Ms Moroney made about employers standing over union members. In my experience in the health sector, that has occurred, but so too there have been union members standing over other employees, influencing their decisions and coercing them into supporting industrial action when the financial consequences on their families may be greater than the benefits of striking.
One of the other things I was surprised to learn was that, although we quote ILO conventions quite frequently, the right to strike is not set out in the ILO conventions and recommendations. A number of documents do set out the conditions for the right to strike, and they include the obligation to take strike decisions by secret ballot. So in introducing this bill we are lining up our legislation with that noble cause, and for that reason I support the bill.
Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
I am absolutely overawed with the 100 percent support that my bill will achieve tonight. It is something that has not happened for a long time. It is a very moving part of my parliamentary career. I will not say much. I could say a lot about the criticisms that have come my way from some people, but let us not ruin the moment. Let us all bask in the glory of the unification of this House.