10. KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Labour
Is she satisfied with the current level of work stoppages as reported by her department; if so, why?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this
It is never good to see any breakdown at all in collective bargaining but I am very pleased to see that work stoppages are at a lower level under the Labour - Progressive Government’s Employment Relations Act than they were under National’s Employment Contracts Act—a trend that is obviously beneficial for both employers and employees.
Does she agree with the statement of the previous Minister of Labour, Margaret Wilson, that the number of industrial stoppages will be one measure of success of the Employment Relations Act; if not, why not?
If the primary point of the question is whether I agree with the previous Minister of Labour, who is now the Speaker, the Hon Margaret Wilson, the answer is most definitely yes.
Sue MoroneyNoting the Minister’s response to the primary question, can she tell the House what the average rate of work stoppages is under this Labour-led Government’s Employment Relations Act as compared to National’s Employment Contracts Act?
Yes, I certainly can. It shows that the rate of total stoppages has dropped by nearly 20 percent. It shows that stoppages are shorter by almost a third on average. It shows that the rate of working days lost has halved, and it shows that the losses in wages and salaries have almost halved. That is without taking into account the significantly increased number of people who are in the labour market at the moment. Those results have been achieved because the Employment Relations Act is fair and balanced and the Employment Contracts Act was not.
Given that the Employment Contracts Act had only 88 actual work stoppages in its last 3 years and the current Employment Relations Act has had 136 actual work stoppages in its last 3 years, which legislation has therefore been more successful in keeping work stoppages down?
I am getting used to patsy questions from that member. It is a pleasure for me to repeat the information that I have just given to the House. Over a total comparison of the Employment Contracts Act as opposed to the Employment Relations Act, the rate of total stoppages has dropped by nearly 20 percent. Stoppages are shorter by almost a third on average. The rate of working days lost has halved and the losses in wages and salaries have almost halved. This is absolute confirmation of the success of the Employment Relations Act.
Peter BrownDoes the Minister recognise that nowadays the problem is not so much the number of strikes but more who is striking, as strikes that were once the domain of labourers have now moved on to embrace the medical industry in significant numbers; does she recognise that when the medical people go on strike it creates huge upheaval and there is much disquiet in the minds of many New Zealanders; and if she does recognise that, what will she do about it?
I completely agree with the sentiments behind the member’s question. It is never good to see any breakdown in collective bargaining, particularly in areas such as the health sector. That is one of the reasons that this Government has recently strengthened the code of good faith that is in the Employment Relations Act. I am able to give the House some further information about comparative industrial action within the health sector. The average number of health sector strikes per quarter under the Employment Contracts Act was 2.2, and under the Employment Relations Act it is 1.9—a 15 percent drop in the number of health sector industrial stoppages under our legislation.
Given that the last 2 years of the previous legislation yielded $6 million in lost wages and salaries in 2006 dollar terms and the last 2 years of the current legislation have yielded $10 million in lost wages, which legislation has therefore been more successful at preventing loss of wages and salaries?
At the risk of being incredibly repetitious, I am delighted to have that question, because, compared to the Employment Contracts Act, the Employment Relations Act has shown that industrial stoppages resulting in losses in wages and salaries have almost halved. To be precise, there has been a 48.3 percent reduction in lost wages and salaries under the Employment Relations Act compared with the Employment Contracts Act.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Does the Minister draw the conclusion from the questions being asked by Kate Wilkinson that the National Party is now prepared to support again the Employment Contracts Act; if so, does she welcome that decision by the National Party?
I do assume that that is the basis for Kate Wilkinson’s questions—that the Employment Contracts Act is now on National’s agenda once more. Although that might be very good for Labour in terms of campaigning, if we ever had a National-led Government it would be disastrous for the public of New Zealand, both employers and employees, given the figures I have already relayed to the House in terms of lost wages, total stoppages, and length of stoppages. Those figures would be doubled under the Employment Contracts Act, compared with the Employment Relations Act.
Madam SPEAKER
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would have expected you to intervene right from the point of Dr Cullen’s question, which specifically asked the Minister to comment on National Party policy. That question is clearly outside her ministerial responsibilities. I know that on every one of the tough questions today Labour has been very keen to talk not about Government policy but about National policy. But I would expect you as Speaker to enforce the Standing Orders and to keep Ministers within their responsibilities.
I thank the member. I interpreted the question to be a continuation of the line of questioning that had come from the previous supplementary question, and that it was not, in fact, asking for a comment on the policy of the National Party as such.
When will the Minister concede that the number of work stoppages and the amount of wages lost in the best 3 years under the Employment Relations Act is worse than the best 3 years under the previous legislation; and when will she stop scaremongering over a supposed return to the 1990s and begin proposing real solutions to the current problems of low labour productivity and high levels of industrial action?
I just repeat for the member, and for the rest of the House, that under the total time of the Employment Relations Act, compared with the total time of the Employment Contracts Act, the rate of total stoppages has dropped by nearly 20 percent. Stoppages are shorter, on average, by almost a third. The rate of working days lost has halved, and the losses in wages and salaries have almost halved. I would have assumed that the member would want to quit while she was behind, instead of continuing to promote what is clearly a failed policy of the 1990s.