Employment Relations Amendment Bill

I move, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This Government is laying the foundations for a modern economy. Part of our plan for this is to ensure that we grow and share prosperity fairly. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, we need to restore a human face to capitalism. One of the most important ways for us to do this is to ensure that hard work is rewarded.

For the significant majority of New Zealand households, wages from work make up most of their income. Too many people saw their real wages slip during the deregulation fever of the 1980s and 1990s, and inequality grew faster in New Zealand than anywhere in the developed world. The Clark Labour Government repaired much of this damage. One of the things they did was to recognise the importance of collective bargaining to increasing people’s wages.

People on collective agreements are more than twice as likely to receive a pay increase in any year than those on individual agreements. Along with this, unions help give working people a voice in their workplaces. Progressive, smart, and people-focused employers are realising the ability of unions to bring the workforce alongside the aspirations of business, generating better engagement, better safety, and better profits. This is why many of the most influential global bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and the OECD are encouraging the growth of collective bargaining.

The other side of the House has made their narrow and pinched ambition for workplaces clear. They would return New Zealand workplaces to the 1990s, or even the 1890s, if they could. The coalition Government knows that we can do much better for New Zealanders, and with the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, we are.

Changes made to the employment relations framework by the previous Government saw an erosion of working people’s rights and a weakening of their voice through attacks on unions. This Government believes that people should have a say in the running of their workplace and have the ability to get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We want to lift New Zealand into a high-wage, high-skill economy with thriving regions. To that end, this bill strengthens the role of collective bargaining, worker voice, and union rights in the workplace to deliver better wages and conditions of employment, and this bill lifts minimum standards for employees and delivers much-needed protections for workers, especially vulnerable workers.

This Government believes that bargaining in good faith means making a real effort to come to an agreement. This bill strengthens the collective bargaining framework to deliver more efficient bargaining and better outcomes. The bill also improves how multi-employer collective agreements (MECAs) are bargained by removing the ability to opt out of this process and requiring employers to come to the bargaining table. However, if, after bargaining, an employer has reasonable grounds for deciding a MECA is not right for their circumstances, the bill expressly provides for this and does not require parties to conclude a MECA.

Pay is a key term of employment, and the ability to exclude pay from collective bargaining runs against this very purpose. This bill requires that collective agreements must include rates of wages and salary. Changes made by National allowed employers to deduct wages for partial strikes. In some instances, this has resulted in employees losing pay for low-level action, such as wearing a T-shirt instead of their uniform. This bill removes that unfair system.

The bill provides new employees the protection of the terms and conditions of the collective for the first 30 days of employment by restoring the so-called 30-day rule. It also gives employees the opportunity to be provided with information about the role and function of the union so that they can make an informed choice about whether they want to join a union.

Union delegates play an important role in the workplace, including helping to resolve workplace problems before they escalate, helping members in workplaces make decisions, and supporting members who ask for help. This bill provides union delegates paid time off during work hours to perform their representative role, unless the time off unreasonably interrupts the employee’s performance of their duties or the employer’s business.

The bill ensures that where there are employees that are covered under or that are bargaining towards a collective agreement, union representatives are able to enter workplaces without consent. This can be critical if the situation is urgent. In all other situations, the current consent requirements will apply. Representatives will still be required to abide by reasonable security, health, and safety procedures and policies. They must also access the workplace at a reasonable time and in a reasonable way, having regard to the normal business operations of the workplace.

The bill restores an employee’s entitlement to a set number and duration of rest and meal breaks. The previous Government took this right away. We are restoring it. This will give employees enough time to rest, refresh, and eat during work hours and to be able to continue to work safely. The bill includes a narrow exception for those businesses that provide an essential service or that engage in the security of New Zealand.

The previous Government introduced an exemption to the Act that meant small to medium sized employers (SME) could be exempt from having to take on existing employees when a business is restructured or transferred. These rules provide critical protection for vulnerable employees such as cleaners and caterers by allowing them to transfer their employment, with the same terms, conditions, and entitlements, to an incoming employer when a contract that affects the work they are doing changes hands. The bill repeals the SME exemption and restores the right for employees to transfer on the same terms and conditions. We believe this is a fundamental protection, regardless of the employer’s size. This bill also sets out a clear process for other vulnerable categories of employees to be added to the list of workers that receive protections.

Finally, this bill also limits the use of trial periods to small and medium sized employers that have fewer than 20 employees, so that the majority of employees have access to the unjustified dismissal protections from the outset of employment. The bill retains the benefits of trial periods for those firms that face greater risks and costs associated with recruitment, performance management, and dismissal processes, compared to the resources that they have.

To conclude, this bill provides a package of measures that will enhance the employment relations framework to deliver fairer wages and conditions of employment. We are making things better for Kiwi families.

The bill was the subject of careful scrutiny by the Education and Workforce Committee. I’d like to thank the members of the committee for their work on the bill, and I’d also like to thank our coalition and confidence and supply partners for their constructive work and advocacy on this bill.

This bill is all about building collaborative and constructive relationships for greater productivity in New Zealand, and I think it is absolutely splendid that the way this bill has reached its final form is through the deliberations between the three parties of this constructive and collaborative Government. We are showing leadership in the way we do Government, and I hope that this demonstrates to the workplaces and to the employers and employees of New Zealand the benefits of working constructively together. I would also like to thank the officials who have worked hard on progressing this bill. Together, all of us, collectively, have made it an incredible bill. I commend this bill to the House.

It was telling that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety couldn’t even fill 10 minutes defending this bill—couldn’t even fill 10 minutes to defend this bill. This is a bill that the National Party fundamentally and absolutely opposes and objects to. I give fair notice, on behalf of the Opposition, to the Parliament of New Zealand and to the employers and workers of New Zealand that we will repeal this legislation at the first possible opportunity after we are re-elected in 2020.

The only thing that this bill does is fulfil a promise made by the parliamentary Labour Party to their trade union mates. It was a bill that was introduced in January of this year and then ran into heavy weather amongst the coalition partners. The fact that it’s taken us through till December to go through a process that the Labour Party really wanted pushed through very quickly is telling of how much tension there is within the coalition parties.

This is a bill that does pretty much just one thing, and that is that it grows the market share of the trade union movement. It’s designed to increase union powers, to increase union membership, to increase union influence, and, of course, to increase the cash flow that goes to trade unions through increased membership. In the last 30 years since the establishment and development of what we’ve come to know and rely upon as the enterprise bargaining model, union membership has plummeted—absolutely plummeted. It’s plummeted to the point where only about 10 percent—well, it’s actually 83 percent. Let me put it around the other way: 83 percent of New Zealand employees are not currently members of a trade union. And this bill is designed to try and remedy that, to try and take us back to the 1970s.

The collective proposition that’s put here by these changes in this bill will take us well back past the Helen Clark administration days. It takes us right back to the days of Tom Skinner, Ken Douglas, and the militant trade union movement. For those of us that are of an age to remember that, this is a very scary piece of legislation. Already we’ve seen trade unions this year flexing their industrial muscle in a way that we have not seen in three decades. There have been more strikes and more industrial action in the last 12 months than we’ve had in any year in the last 30 years. On that side of the House, opposite, they say, “Well, this is because of some kind of pent-up frustration.” Well, actually, no, it’s not. This is a result of a Government that has emboldened and empowered the trade union movement and created an expectation that going on strike is a good thing, and that going on strike is something that is laudable and something to be rewarded and welcomed. Well, exactly the opposite is true.

This is a bill that, amongst other things, creates an opportunity for trade union representatives to visit many hundreds, if not thousands, of workplaces up and down the countryside without notice, without approval, without consent, and without any regard to the appropriateness of that visit, and that just, if nothing else, breaches matters of common decency and courtesy, to say nothing of the health and safety issues that are involved in that. So this piece of legislation is, as I say, designed entirely to provide an opportunity for trade unions to recruit members and to grow their market share.

One of the interesting aspects of this bill is the so-called 30-day rule that’s being reintroduced, and that’s a rule whereby if a collective arrangement operates in a workplace and a new employee commences employment, maybe on an individual employment agreement, for the first 30 days that new employee will be on the union deal—like it or not, on the union deal. So what is the purpose, one might ask? Well, the purpose, obviously, is so that during that period of time, recruitment can take place, and during those 30 days, an employer will have to provide personal contact details to the trade union of that new employee, unless the employee opts out. Now, that’s a perverse and backwards sort of initiative that was incredibly scathingly criticised by our Privacy Commissioner when he came to the Education and Workforce Committee and said this was poor practice, this was poor privacy practice, and it was contrary to the provisions of the Privacy Act.

And so what’s been the response of this Government to that? Well, the response of this Government to this scathing criticism of the Privacy Commissioner has been in the departmental report back that this piece of legislation will be superior legislation to the Privacy Act. In other words, the Privacy Act will be subordinate legislation to this new industrial relations law that the Government’s pushing through.

This is a bill that removes the ability to take pay deductions out of an employee who’s on a partial strike. Now, we’ve seen a huge increase in the number of partial strikes over the last 12 months, and if there is no financial disincentive to go on strike, then that will simply lead to an obvious conclusion: there will be more partial strikes. And we’ve already seen that when the teachers have been on strike, and as they are going to go on strike, on the so-called mega strike, the super strike, when we’ll have both primary and secondary school teachers on strike next year, they will be losing presumably a day or a week’s pay, or maybe a month if they go on strike for a month—who knows how long they may strike? But they will be losing pay. If they go on a partial strike, like working to roll, or all taking a tea and meal break at exactly the same time, or maybe not wearing the company provided uniform—that kind of partial strike means that there will be no financial disincentive to do a partial strike or to go on a partial strike. So needless to say, there will be lots more of those.

This is a bill that is designed to make recruitment easier. Part of the ability for unions to recruit more easily will be that a union delegate in a workplace will be able to do, in an unquantified, undefined, and unmeasured way, union work—undefined—on the employer’s dime, on the employer’s time, and that is potentially a situation where union work could include things like campaigning. And we all remember that only 12 months or so ago, when the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party and the Labour Party were opposed to free trade and there were—they’ve changed their mind, subsequently, of course, and come around to the right way of thinking about free trade. But what they were opposed to then was the free trade, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and there were protests and petitions and all sorts of things up and down the countryside. Much of that work, much of that campaigning, was done by trade union representatives and delegates.

Now, this kind of union campaigning, potentially, will be done while on the employer’s time, on the employer’s dime, and I think that’s inherently unfair. But what’s even more unfair is that in this legislation, there is a provision that provides greater statutory protection for a union member than a non-union member. And why might that piece of statutory protection be in there for a union member over the rights and privileges of a non-union member? Well, it’s simply so that a value proposition can be put to a prospective union member, who is going to rightly question when the union representatives come along and stand over them and say, “Look, brother or sister, come and join the union.” And they then say, “Well, why should I join the union? Why should I join your union? It’s going to cost me $500, $600, $700, or $800 a year.” And the union representatives who are lurking around trying to twist the arm of the employee, who may be questioning about why they don’t want to join a union—they will say, “Well, look, if you join the union and you pay the $500, $600, $700, or $800 a year, you will get a greater level of statutory protection under this bill.”

What that means is that we just go back to the bad old days of the 1970s, when we had industrial disruption, a breakdown of economic growth, and a handbrake on the ability of businesses to grow and prosper, and all at a time when we have record low unemployment, when we have record high levels of employment engagement amongst New Zealanders, and when businesses up and down the countryside are saying that the greatest business challenge that they face is actually getting, recruiting, and retaining good staff members. And this bill just puts a handbrake on all that good stuff that helps add value to “New Zealand Incorporated”.

Some of the submissions at select committee were incredibly scary and very worrying on behalf of business. It’s part of the reason that business confidence is stubbornly low and will remain so under this Government. More multi-employer collective agreements, more strikes, more back to the future, and more trade union militancy and strike action will be the single result of this legislation. And I repeat: at the first possible opportunity—

I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to take a call on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, and I congratulate my colleague the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway for the fine work he has done, and our coalition partner New Zealand First and our confidence and supply partner the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand for getting the bill to this point.

It is very sad listening to the member Scott Simpson, who’s just resumed his seat, and to hear his speech, because that anti-union rhetoric—the idea that workers in New Zealand should not exercise their freedom of association and their freedom of choice—doesn’t take us back to the 1970s; it takes us back to the days of Sid Holland and the 1950s, and the dreadful scare campaign that the National Party of the 1950s ran about workers belonging to unions. And that’s where the National Party today is, sadly. They are stuck in a time warp of the 1950s. They do not get that in this day and age, workers are capable of making a decision themselves about how they want to advocate for themselves, how they want to join with their workmates and their colleagues, how they want to contribute to productivity growth and productivity improvement with their employer, and how they want to engage with their employer on those things that are going to enhance the business.

You always can tell, actually, where the National Party is at when they trot out the scare campaign over the right of union access to workplaces. Let’s be very clear where that argument comes from: it comes from a view that their workplace, owned by the employer, is solely the private preserve of the employer. It’s not just the workplace and the land and the buildings and the equipment that the employer gets to privately own; it’s the workers who cross its threshold to work there every day. When the National Party trots out an argument that the right of union access to talk to their union members in a workplace, where they have them, is somehow wrong, what they’re actually saying is the employer owns the workers—the employer owns the workers—and the employer should control what information those workers get access to; the employers should control the decisions they get to take. That is how morally bankrupt the National Party today is when it comes to understanding modern workers. New Zealand workers are better than that, and the rest of us have more respect for New Zealand workers and their ability to make decisions for themselves than the National Party has and has ever had.

The modern challenge of economics and economic management today is not just about economic growth and development, and that is vital. That’s why this Government has set out an ambitious path. It’s why the Provincial Growth Fund, stewarded by the Hon Shane Jones, is absolutely vital to get that economic impetus into the regions and to get enhanced economic growth across New Zealand.

But here’s the other thing: there is no point in trying to enlist the support of working New Zealanders into economic growth and development without saying to New Zealand workers, “You are going to share in the gains. And you’re not just going to share in the gains; you’re going to contribute to, and participate in, those gains in a very meaningful way. We are going to protect your rights in the workplace so that productivity enhancements can be negotiated with the employer and made in the workplace and everybody gets to gain.”

In the end, employment law and industrial relations is all about the balance of power in the workplace, and there is an inherent imbalance in the employment relationship. It’s another thing that the National Party of the 1950s and 2018 still does not get: that the basic employment relationship—that statutory law does not change. The implied common law duties inherent in the employment relationship define the imbalance in that relationship: the implied duty of obedience; the implied duty of confidence and fidelity. They are all things that are there to sustain and support the employer and which need to be balanced by good statutory law, and that’s what this law does. This allows workers to organise and to have their rights to organise and to associate with each other protected, because it can be easily eroded.

The member who spoke, Scott Simpson, talked about the outrage that it is that employers will have to allow the representatives of workers who have freely chosen to belong to a union to come on-site, and the outrage that is apparently felt by some employers that a worker representative, elected by the workers in the workplace, might actually be allowed to have some time—and protected time—to do the work of representing those workers.

Actually, if you talk to employers who are used to dealing with unions—and there are many of them—they will tell you that’s actually a good thing. That’s a natural product of workers who are free to choose to belong to a union, electing their representatives and having that representative be a go-between between those workers and the employer, and then call on the aid and the help of the union organiser from off site when that is needed. But good employment relationships don’t get hung up on that stuff. Good employers who want the best for their workers respect the choices that their workers make, including the freedom to choose to belong to a union, and don’t get hung up on that like the National Party. They say, “That’s good. That’s a reflection of the maturing of the workforce that I don’t have to worry about that stuff. If my workers choose to belong to a union, then I owe it to them to respect that choice and I’ll engage with that union. And look, sometimes there will be good days and then we might have a bit of rough and tumble, but, actually, if they are there to advocate for the best for those workers, I will engage on that basis because I want the best for those workers too, and I will engage with their representatives.”

That’s what the modern 21st century employment relationship looks like for those who choose to belong to a union. What could possibly be wrong with that? Well, the problem is you’ve got a party in Opposition that harks back to the 1950s because they are somehow kind of obsessed with what happened then. We just have to get over it.

We have some major challenges in New Zealand economically. We have some major challenges with lifting productivity. We have some major challenges with working with employers to invest in that next generation of capital equipment and new gear that’s going to need new skills but lift productivity and add new value. We’ve got to create an environment where employers can do that with confidence, but not only that, where workers can engage with the processes needed to lift productivity and to embrace new technology and new equipment, knowing that they will share in the gains and that they will share the benefits.

Right around the Western World for the last 25 years, Governments and civil society have been grappling with the issue of how we can make sure we allow economic transformation that frees workers up from doing the mundane, mindless tasks, allows us to take on new technology, embraces the digital transformation, and embraces the wonders of artificial intelligence, but makes sure that workers, whose jobs are going to change and will change, can negotiate the benefits and gains of that for themselves—that they can share in those gains.

That’s the magic we have to create. Good employment law that protects workers and their right to organise and their right to represent creates the conditions for that dialogue to happen. That’s why this is important. And so what if, from time to time, every now and again, the relationship between workers and employers breaks down and it gets a bit mucky, it gets a bit icky? Well, we have institutions to deal with that. That’s why we have obligations to work through those issues, and we have State-backed institutions like the Mediation Service, like the Employment Relations Authority, that allow them, in the rare times when those employment relations fall apart and the wheels fall off, to come back together again and to work those things through with the help of professional input. That’s what modern employment relations look like. There is nothing to fear. The very sad, misguided 1950s campaign that the National Party continues to run is just embarrassing, frankly, and embarrassing for this House. It ought to be embarrassing for them; they think there are a few votes in it, but that’s what they’re getting to.

This bill restores balance. It restores balance to the rights of workers to advocate and negotiate for themselves. It restores balance and those basic protections. The personal grievance regime makes reinstatement the primary remedy when there’s an unjustified dismissal found. Here’s the big irony: the personal grievance jurisdiction started under a National Government. It started in 1970 when a more progressive National Government realised the idea that workers, when they got sacked, had no meaningful remedy because it was way too expensive for them to take a wrongful termination claim, so they created the personal grievance jurisdiction, with a right to reinstatement.

And then the subsequent Labour Government, elected in 1972, created the Industrial Relations Act in 1973 that finessed it, refined it, improved it, and we’ve had reinstatement not only as a remedy but as a primary remedy since then. It’s been fiddled around with under the previous National Government, but putting it back in place is right. If you are sacked for no good reason, and that’s found out and the employer’s got it wrong, but you’ve lost your job, you should get your job back. This bill is about balance—balance in the employment relationship in the modern world—

I apologise to the member. Thank you.

The last speaker, Andrew Little, missed out a word in his last sentence. It is about balance: it’s about shifting the balance very much in favour of the unions. And the confusion in that speaker’s speech was very apparent in the opening salvo, when he talked about union members exercising their right of freedom of association, and in the very next breath considering them somehow trapped by their employers. It’s a contradiction because the freedom of association to join a union also includes the freedom of association, particularly in an economy like ours, to choose to leave an employer. But here’s what they’ve been leaving: they’ve been exercising their rights of freedom of association for years and leaving unions.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member. Could the members at the back of the Chamber please take the conversation out into the lobby. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. They have been exercising their right of association, or non-association, and I know where we’re going with this bill and with the next bill that the Minister will be introducing possibly before Christmas but certainly not too long after it, which will include the Government’s commitments on fair pay agreements, and that is back to the stalking horse of compulsory unionism.

Now, in 1989, I returned from the United Kingdom to spend about five months in Dunedin before returning, and I was a temp worker at one of the State-owned enterprises that Richard Prebble was selling. It was Telecom South, and I was being employed through an employment agency. I wasn’t even an employee of Telecom. The phone rang the day before I started, and the employment agent said, “Now Mike, I’ve some news for you. You’ve got to join a union.” I said, “But I’m not an employee of Telecom.” And she said, “It doesn’t matter. If you want to work in the chief post office in Dunedin, you have to be a member of a union. It doesn’t matter which, just join one.”

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: That’s fair enough.

Oh, and Willie Jackson says, “That’s fair enough.” So now we know where we’re going with this, because for the five months that I was at Telecom I was a member of the Public Service Association, and that was the last time. And Mr Jackson is absolutely right: that is where we’re heading.

If there’s any doubt, it comes from the New Zealand Labour Party’s policy platform that they passed at their national conference in Christchurch in 2013. It was signed off by David Parker as deputy leader of the party and as chair of the policy council. Now, remember, in the Labour Party, when the party speaks, the caucus has to comply. It says here, “The Platform is binding on the Party, including the Caucus. … the manifesto must be consistent with [these] provisions”—and these are the provisions based on the founding principle of democratic socialism. It says that equality of opportunity is not enough for the Labour Party; equality of outcomes is. In respect of employment relations, it says, “Labour is fundamentally committed to collective rights and responsibilities”—not to freedom of choice; not to freedom of association. The fundamental principle is collective responsibility whether one likes it or not, and in their workplace relations they were going to promote legislation that promotes collective bargaining, protects minimum standards, and guarantees unions a voice.

Does that sound familiar—because it’s in the preamble to this bill. It’s in the very purpose of this bill. The purpose of the bill is not freedom of association, freedom of choice; it’s collective bargaining at all costs. This is step one. We’re going a lot further. I don’t even hear a retort. This is chapter and verse. And why do we know this? It’s because in 2013 the Labour Party was so weak that they were propped up entirely by the union movement. And this is payback. So when I, as Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, talked about—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: We don’t hate the unions like you.

—every policy change—well, the member suggests I hate the unions. That’s not true, because I’m fundamentally lazy as an employer, and I had a very good working relationship with the nurses’ union of which the Minister used to be an employee, because it helped me out. It helped me negotiate several hundred agreements in one, but if any one of them wanted to go into an individual agreement, they were free to do so.

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Still are.

And, indeed, the 30-day—well, the Minister says they still are, and yet in the same breath as “freedom of association”, the Minister of Justice talks about the 30-day rule being changed. At the moment, the employer has an obligation to say, “Here is the collective agreement. Here are the contact details for the union delegate. Here’s how to get in touch with them.” But now that’s not possible. It’s not possible for an employee on day one to say, “Thanks very much. I don’t want to be part of that.” For the first 30 days of their employment, they have no choice but to be part of the terms and conditions.

There’s Mr Jackson nodding. I haven’t got it wrong. And how is that related to the principle of freedom of association? This is the stalking horse, this bit: the rights of union access, the responsibility, the requirement to conclude collective bargaining is all part of the precondition of a fair pay agreement which is coming to a workplace near you.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: We don’t hate the unions.

Now, a sector that contains—the member keeps saying it. What I hate, Mr Jackson, is people being told what to do, when to do it. They have the freedom to associate, to bargain, and if they choose to join a union, good on them, I say. But they should not be compelled to, and that’s where we are heading.

I want the Minister just to explain, because when he talks about the partial strikes, which are part of this bill, he always refers to things like working to rule and wearing red T-shirts. I want the Minister to nod or shake his head whether he believes that the current industrial action being undertaken by the midwives, where in each shift two hours is taken as a strike action, would meet the definition of a partial strike, because it strikes me—pardon the pun—that it would. The Minister isn’t even going to respond, so I’ll take that as a yes. So forget the T-shirts. Forget the work to rule. We have widespread industrial action in the health sector at the moment, and the midwives are taking two hours off several times between 22 November and tomorrow. When this bill is passed, who pays for that strike? The consequence of strike action is that it should be a sacrifice for a greater good. There’s now the goal of a greater good but no sacrifice.

My prediction is that the more than a million days of work lost in 1986, which was the peak of our industrial action in my working life, will come back very quickly, but it will come back in a surreptitious way. There won’t be full strikes. There will be a massive hit on this economy’s productivity by a series of partial strikes that the midwives are embarking on right now—and fair enough to them; good on them. But they did that knowing that it would come at a personal cost. In the future, it will come at no cost to anybody but the employers. And remember we’re talking about flexibility, freedom of association, freedom of choice. Well, the employers will have no choice but to take that and pay for it, and that will be the future of industrial action in this country.

The sad thing is that so much of this is unnecessary. If we take the flexible rest and meal breaks provisions, there were many employers around the country who were breaking the law prior to the change. I’ve described the hospital I ran, the night shift nurses, the staff that, for their own choice and for school arrangements or parenting responsibilities, wanted to forgo a rest or meal break. They’re now no longer able to do that. The Dunedin Airport air traffic controller—sole charge—

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Read the bill.

—now not able to be done in law any more, once this bill is passed. The Minister says, “Read the bill.” It’s a kind of “Oh, trust us. Everything will be fine.” And yet the very oxymoron there is the terrible lack of trust in this, and it’s a lack of trust in an employer group to do the right thing. I know that the overwhelming majority of employers in this country do the responsible thing. There are a few bad eggs, and that’s why we worked very hard to increase the sanctions on non-compliance with employment and immigration law. I stand very proudly beside the fact that every single member of this House voted in favour of legislation to get rid of zero-hour contracts, and good riddance to them. But this is a step far too far. It has no fairness for employers—or employees, for that matter, who want that freedom of association—far less flexibility, and we’ll see whether it’s a safety issue as well. But I stress: this is the first, the first of a series of initiatives that is going to take us far, far back to a place we shouldn’t be going in a modern and flexible economy.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the third and final reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I’ve been sitting here, quietly reflecting on some of the comments that have been made, and I think I might start my contribution from the back and work my way to the front, because some of the comments that Mr Woodhouse has made in relation to the flexibility around meal breaks, I think, are a good place to start.

I was part of the last Government when we put through some pretty hefty changes to the Health and Safety in Employment Act to make workplaces more safe and to ensure that workers that were going to put themselves in harm’s way came home safely at the end of a day of work or at the end of a week of work. Then, after we completed that monumental piece of legislation, it was in only a matter of months before the National Party, the then Government, stripped away the rights of those meal breaks, and I remember putting a contribution in this House, saying, “Oh, look, it’s dinner time.” In fact, I spoke just before six o’clock, and the bell went mid-contribution. I said, “Well, isn’t it great that we can actually take the time out to go and have a rest break, to go and refresh ourselves, and get ourselves back?”—and we have a sedentary job; it’s hardly a dangerous job, sitting here, pushing a few pens around, and chastising the lacklustre Opposition.

What we had here in the example that was given was in relation to air traffic controllers who now don’t have that flexibility to not take a break. That’s a perfect example, because those people who have that position aren’t necessarily putting themselves personally in harm’s way; what they are doing is potentially putting tens of thousands of people’s lives at risk by not taking those scheduled meal breaks. This legislation that we’re putting through today does not stop those employers from organising and structuring those meal breaks to ensure that the employees can take scheduled meal breaks at all, but it ensures that they have to, within the rules and confines of their obligations as an employer, ensure that those workers do take those scheduled meal breaks. There are some schedules there that do point out some of those jobs that need that flexibility, where meal breaks may not be quite appropriate, and so that flexibility is there, but to have meal breaks ensured—that they are taken—is absolutely critical to ensure we have a very safe and healthy working environment.

Now, I’m going to go back to the start of my contribution, where, just over a year ago, I had the great pleasure of standing with my caucus before the announcement of which parties we were going to coalesce with to make this Government. Everybody was sitting there waiting to hear the words from the Rt Hon Winston Peters—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m going to call the member back to the bill. He’s spent a few minutes talking about other matters, a little bit about the bill, and now he’s traversing some other historical context. So let’s come back to the substance of the bill as it was reported back to the House after the committee of the whole House. Thank you.

The substance is in relation to giving this Government a face for capitalism. So to do that we have to build our economy and build our society from the bottom up, something that hasn’t been done for a long time. To build our economy from the bottom up is to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society are looked after. Those people are our workers—largely the unskilled, uneducated, workforce—who are on low and minimum wages, who can sometimes be taken advantage of. This bill does do that. This gives capitalism a face. This provides for those workers who aren’t as fortunate as some of those other workers we have.

Now, getting the balance right over the last 12 months—and it was, literally, a week before we broke for Christmas that we sat down and we discussed what the 100-day plan was going to look like for a brand new coalition Government—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No. Come back to the substance of the bill. I’m sorry. A third reading debate—

💬 Dan Bidois: He hasn’t read the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): —Order!—is often relied upon by the judiciary to establish the intent of this Parliament. I would like you to come back to the substance of the bill. Thank you.

As I was saying, the substance of the bill—

💬 Andrew Falloon: Don’t rely on Clayton Mitchell.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

—then ensures that we have a multi-employer collective agreement that we have the ability for businesses to opt out of. Whilst we are trying to maintain a Government that is looking after the people at the bottom, building our economy from the bottom up, sharing that wealth through those workers—which is part of the bill—I have to say that this is an important part. We do not want to see the cost structures of our larger cities and centres around the country imposing those costs on to our regions and our businesses in the provinces. To enable the multi-employer collective agreement to be opted out of by those businesses after they have engaged in meaningful discussion to try the best that they possibly can to come to an agreement around a MECA—a multi-employment collective agreement—then that, to us, is a very positive outcome.

Another very important part of the bill, and I’ve touched on a couple of points already, is to do with the access to workplaces. We have heard a lot of fearmongering from both Michael Woodhouse and, of course, Scott Simpson in relation to unfettered access to workplaces. That’s not the case. For those workplaces where they are part of a MECA—a multi-employment collective agreement—those union delegates do have access to those workplaces to ensure that the work conditions that they are in are actually safe and that they are within the rules and regulations of what constitutes a safe and viable workplace. But where there isn’t a MECA, those delegates must go through the current process and practice of giving fair and reasonable notice. But even if there is a multi-employer collective agreement in place, the union members still must fit the test of what is fair and reasonable as far as access goes. They can’t show up at midnight and demand to speak to people. It’s not the fearmongering that has been pushed by the National Party; it is, actually, something quite different. So we believe that getting that balance right is something that we are very, very conscious of, and we have given it a lot of thought to ensure that that actually happens.

The public sector and the private sector are two areas that we are aware of where we have to get that balance right too. We understand that the strike action that we’ve seen over the past 12 months is directly a result of the settings of the previous Government, which we want to get right. And, yes, we have had nurses striking, and we’ve had teachers striking—in fact, my kids love it when the teachers strike, to be honest. When people are talking doom and gloom, it’s great to see some people in our society very, very pleased about it. But I have to say that that is one way of being heard, and if you can have a partial strike to get your point across—and the member across the House there was talking about taking hours off in a day. Well that, to me, is strike action. Partial striking is where you are doing very subtle things to get your point across, like wearing a T-shirt. That is about ensuring we have good productivity to ensure that our businesses can operate fairly. What we’ve got to make sure of is that we have an environment—a working environment, a business environment—that grows productivity and shares wealth amongst all those people—the businesses and the employers and the employees—fairly and equally. And that is something where I believe we have got that balance right.

We are going down a very good path when it comes to the 90-day work trials. This is something that, in the very early stages, myself and Iain Lees-Galloway and a number of officials sat around the table to discuss. I have had the pleasure myself of being in business for 25 years and understand that businesses are looking for good employees and are prepared to spend the money to upskill them to make sure that they can actually grow with them. As their skills increase, of course, so do the conditions that they work within—their pay conditions increase, and other perks come along the way: increases in time off and holidays, etc.

It’s not fair to suggest that employers use the 90-day work trials to get rid of staff—to fire at will, as I’ve had some people say to me. It’s actually a way to ensure you have the right balance. The right balance for us is ensuring that the person is a good fit for the environment that they work in. Now, currently, a small to medium sized enterprise in New Zealand is “under 20 employees”. Now, that, to me, I think, and New Zealand First believes, is something that we need to look at as a Government to see where that sits internationally. But the people in those businesses that are smaller don’t have the same sorts of resourcing that larger companies have. They don’t have the HR facilities available to them, and they don’t have the smaller work groups inside their businesses where those people who might not necessarily fit can be relocated to be in a more suitable working environment. It’s not about the skill set; it’s actually about finding the employees who fit with what we, as employers, are trying to do.

So we commend this bill to the House. We think it’s a great balance. We are very, very proud to be here today to announce this, and I believe we are much better off as a country now that this bill has gone through all three stages in the House.

Well, the bill hasn’t quite gone through all stages, and those of us on the Opposition benches still have some comments to make about this bill before it unfortunately passes into law.

I’d like to make a few general comments, if I may, before I have a look at some of the aspects of this bill. The overarching theme that I have picked up throughout the debates on this bill, particularly the committee stage and the second reading, is that this is an “us and them” piece of legislation. It’s not an “us and them” as in the Government and the Opposition; it’s a little bit an “us and them” within the Government, however. So it’s a little bit how the union-backed Labour Party brought the bill to the House in January and had its wings severely clipped by both the Green Party and New Zealand First on the way through, so that a number of their particularly egregious provisions have been moderated, which has got to be a good thing.

But the “us and them” aspect is mostly about pitching employer against employee. All the language in the bill and all the language coming from the various members, the various parts of this Labour-led Government, is all about “employers are bad and workers are good”. It’s a little interesting, perhaps, to hear members on that side of the House talking in terms which I recall from when I was a young person and when I was a child. This truly is an attitude that is flowing back to us from decades ago, where the workers are good and the employers are bad.

But one also has to remember this: only 17 percent of people who work—and I’m not going to call them “workers”—in New Zealand belong to a union. They do that by choice, because they can. They do have freedom of association, as my colleague Mike Woodhouse pointed out in his intervention. People who work in New Zealand, indeed, do have a choice, and 83 percent of them choose to have a great relationship with their employer, with full protections should that relationship break down—let’s not pretend that there aren’t good protections in the law already—but choose not to become part of a union. That is a problem for the Labour Party, and less of a problem but still a problem for the Green Party and for New Zealand First, because they rely on unions for party donations and support at election time.

Let’s not gild this in any other way. The purpose of the bill, and in the purpose statement—and I would find it if it didn’t take too long. Here we are: “to promote and strengthen collective bargaining and union rights in the workplace.” That is the purpose of this bill, so let’s draw the curtains aside on this. This is about building on—hopefully, as far as the Government are concerned—that 17 percent membership of unions, because membership is money.

If there’s one thing that the Government members are not so good at doing, it’s getting the support of wider New Zealand, so they must turn to support from the unions. If you want to see evidence of that beyond the purpose statement of this bill, one only needs to have a look at the 30-day rule, whereby if there is a multi-employer collective agreement in place and a new employee comes on board this place of work, they are regarded, for the first 30 days, as being a member of that union. So for those 83 percent of people who work in New Zealand who aren’t union members, they don’t get freedom of association—oh no. They don’t get freedom of association, because they are compelled and regarded and legislated as being part of that union until they opt out of that relationship.

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Wrong.

I have read the bill and it is in the bill.

But even more egregious than that—even more egregious than that—is their employer is compelled to pass over their private information to the union. Why? Why would the union want that private information? Well, it’s pretty obvious, and that is to assist them in their recruitment drive so that the real purpose of this bill is realised, and that is to grow union numbers, because at the moment, they’re failing. Unions are failing. They come back to us from the 1940s and the 1950s and the 1960s with their “us and them” language. They’re failing, because only 17 percent of people who work in New Zealand choose to become part of a union, so they’ve got to legislate to grow their membership.

So this has got nothing about freedom of association in the workplace and fairness to people in the workplace; this has got every single thing in it which is about growing funds for the Labour Party and growing union membership.

💬 Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would ask you to consider whether it is orderly for a member to suggest that other members of this House are passing legislation in order to procure money for their party.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I have been listening very closely—I thank the member for that—and I’ve been reviewing Speakers’ Rulings, particularly on page 49, and I know previous presiding officers have ruled on this. I’ve been listening very carefully to this debate, and the member has come close, and I think perhaps is slipping over the line of what is actually appropriate. I direct you to Speakers’ ruling 49/1, where it’s not right to suggest that the Government is acting under improper motives. Also, being unduly influenced is one thing, but, actually, when you’re talking about the payment to a Government, that is actually slipping over the line. So I think you’re skating very close. I just ask the member to stay within the bounds of what is proper and within Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I want to move now to one provision in this bill which National can applaud and support, and thank New Zealand First for making sure that this provision was retained in the bill, and that is the provision of the 90-day trial period for businesses with employees of 20 and under. We would have preferred, and our position would be, that the 90-day trial would apply to all business, but none the less it is a true back-down on behalf of the Labour Party because some grunt was exercised by New Zealand First.

It is a back-down for them. It must be embarrassing for them, and I acknowledge that, but none the less what the 90-day trial continues to do and will continue to do is allow young people—and I have heard the word “vulnerable worker” told at us a number of times in this debate. What this 90-day trial, which Labour didn’t want in the bill—they were trying to legislate it out of the legislation, but it is exactly what is allowing a number of young and not-so-young New Zealanders to be given a chance. It has allowed a number of young New Zealanders to get in the door of employment and have a chance to prove themselves. It has proven to be hugely successful. I was dismayed to hear the Minister last night—the union organiser now Minister—[Bell rung]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise—I should’ve pushed the button earlier. I apologise.

—oh, thank you—telling the House that there was no evidence of the benefit of the 90-day trial. I’m sorry—each and every one of us in our own communities throughout New Zealand has heard story after story after story from employees and those people who have worked for them about what a benefit giving someone a go has been. If it’s in regard to vulnerable workers, that is exactly why the National Government brought in the 90-day trial. So that is the one piece in this legislation that we can support.

We cannot support and will not support the measures in this bill which put a handbrake on productivity, which put a handbrake on small business and small to medium sized enterprises and large business all throughout this country. There is a reason for business confidence tanking. One of the main reasons around that is the added compliance costs, the added compliance requirements that will be brought on business, together with the uncertainty about what’s coming next from this Government. That is causing business in New Zealand to lose confidence in this Government.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s with pleasure that I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party at the third reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. It’s been a bit of a tumultuous journey to get to this third reading, and the mismatch between the actual legislation and what we’ve been hearing from the Opposition that this legislation does is as wide as the gulf between the parties in this House, it seems to me.

Before I get into some of the detail of the bill, I do just want to address one of the points around how this bill is about improving collective bargaining and union access. That’s true, and I will make no apology for that. I hear from the Opposition the view that this is for the benefit of the union, as if the unions are an institution separate from people in their workplaces who are trying to get by. That suggests to me that the members in the Opposition actually may not have been members of a union and may not have seen the benefits of coming together with their colleagues and actually considering how to create a productive, thriving, healthy workplace. That’s been my experience being a member of a union, where we’ve made significant changes and improved productivity in our workplace by coming together and having those discussions. The times where I’ve been an employer, I’ve taken huge benefit from my staff being able to provide me with the information and provide a check on my management practice through those conversations in union with their colleagues.

So the evidence is pretty strong around the benefits of unions, and that’s domestic evidence—it’s also international evidence—that it’s a benefit to those workplaces and productivity, but also that coming together with your colleagues to be able to negotiate for pay and health and safety is actually a really key factor in reducing inequality. The International Monetary Fund, who’s a conservative organisation—they’ve acknowledged that. So this isn’t about going back to some historic time of conflict; this is actually about bringing people together in union. That’s not about conflict; that’s actually about trying to create some harmony in our workplaces for the majority of the people in those workplaces.

I do just want to acknowledge that very recently, the New Zealander of the Year Kristine Bartlett—this is a woman who fought and put equal pay back on the table for this country through her union. That wouldn’t—and she says it continually—have happened without the support of her union. Coming together with others, and that union access, was a really significant issue for those caregivers, in being able to get others involved in that case. So it’s really pleasing to see an improvement in the ability for union organisers to be able to start those conversations in workplaces where they haven’t known about unions.

Actually, a lot of our young people in this country don’t really know what unions are, and the fewer members that we’ve had, the harder it has been to have that conversation. While union rates are going up, which is contrary to what the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, said, that’s on the back of these amazing examples of what joining a union can deliver for those workers but also us as a country. Actually, we know that we need to restore some balance here, that it’s been tipped against colleagues being able to come together and support each other and bargain for decent conditions.

One of the other points I would like to challenge where there’s been some misinformation has been the point that this legislation treats employers as if they’re all bad and we can’t trust them. Actually, I challenge that. I do not see that in this legislation at all. In fact, to my mind, the balance is still a little towards a distrust of the unions and working people. In the provisions around passing on of information about the union, we’ve had to build in here an ability for the employer to check that information, which is coming from an assumption that, actually, they’re not going to trust them, that they would be trying to do something that’s dodgy through that process, as opposed to just letting people know the benefits of joining a union. So I challenge that assumption or assertion as well.

We’ve been hearing that this bill is also about restoring minimum standards—so that’s around rest and meal breaks. It’s been annoying for me—I’ll be upfront—sitting and listening to the Opposition assert that now nobody will be able to have an arrangement with their employer to take their rest and meal breaks when it suits them, and that it will remove flexibility for working families in terms of arrangements for their children, when that is very, very clear in the legislation, that it’s possible to have an arrangement between the employer and the employee of when those breaks are taken. It’s very, very clear, and if the Opposition hasn’t gone to the effort of reading the legislation, then I think we’re in trouble, and they really do need to question their role in this House.

I also want to point out that we’ve been hearing as well that there will be no choice for people around actually being pushed on to a collective rather than an individual contract. They’ll get the conditions of a collective, but until they choose to join the collective, they will not be on a collective. It’s just to give people the experience of the conditions that they might get from joining together with their colleagues. They are different things, and this bill does not remove people’s agency at all. It, in fact, enables people to have more choices and to know what their choices are.

There’s another point in the bill I want to touch on briefly that hasn’t particularly been talked about, which is that the bill removes an exclusion for employers with fewer than 20 employees when there’s a business transfer—so when a business sells to somebody else, that their staff will now have the option to be employed by the new employer. This is a really, really important provision, particularly for women and Māori and Pacific workers, who are most affected by these changes in ownership of businesses. This was something where New Zealand, under the last Government—they were telling the UN that they’d done really great work around providing this protection, and they didn’t mention that they’d created an exclusion for businesses with fewer than 20 workers. So really, it did look to me, when I was looking at that, that they were misleading the United Nations on that. It is a very important point around the security, particularly for women workers. So it’s great to see that addressed in this legislation.

I also want to just finally touch on the 90-day rule provisions in this bill. It is a compromise for the Green Party. We’re willing to see it move forward, because it is progress for those who are on a collective contract, but really the idea that nobody would give anyone a chance, particularly if they were Māori or a woman or young, unless there was the ability to fire them without any excuse whatsoever is, frankly, ridiculous and, I would argue, offensive.

It’s a pleasure to bring this debate back to the House today, back to reality, and to oppose with vigour the third reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.

I oppose this bill because this is a bad bill. It’s a bill that is all about the unions. It’s very little about the workers, in fact. It’s going to cost the economy. It’s going to cost small business and large business. It’s going to cost opportunities for our young and for people who want to get ahead. And it’s also pitting employers against employees, taking us back to the 1970s, a period where it was about us and them. So that is why we oppose the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.

We have one of the best and most efficient labour markets in the developed world. We have the sixth-best relations between labour and employment relations, according to the World Economic Forum. We have a labour market that’s producing great results, and great results that this Government’s trumpeting: 3.9 percent unemployment, record high labour-force participation rates. Now, does that say that we need to change this labour market? Absolutely not. And the principles of our efficient, effective world-class labour market are very clear: it’s about good faith and it’s about mutual respect between the employer and the employees. And most employers are good employers in New Zealand. They take care of their workers, they pay them well, they are flexible with their working arrangements, and that is what we heard in the submissions that were submitted from the business community, but also that’s what we heard from this side of the House yesterday in the committee stage.

I’m very proud to see the colleagues that I have, many of whom have been employers, who have been in a position to offer people an opportunity to get ahead, to make them better off, and to give them the flexibility that they want. So we on this side of the House are very clear that it’s about the mutual respect between employers and employees. I just think we need to stop bashing businesses as this evil group in society that just wants to pin down the workers, that wants to extract as much value, because that is a shame for the whole business community in New Zealand. A lot of people, including my own parents, are hard-working small-business owners. My dad’s a truck driver and my mum owns a small sales business.

That is disrespectful to them, who are paying their workers well and want to get ahead for that.

That is why union membership is at an all-time low. Despite what they’re saying, if you look at the long-run trend of union membership from 1991 to 2017, we see that union membership has declined from 34 percent of the workforce down to—guess what?—17 percent. That trend reflects the global trend. Unions across the world are declining, and the real fact that this Government doesn’t want to acknowledge is that there is no relationship at all between union power and the level of economic development in a country—the level of economic prosperity in a country.

I want to acknowledge the Minister, Andrew Little, because he did raise a really good intellectual point about today’s modern challenge. I want to propose an alternative to what he proposed and to the modern challenge. The modern challenge that we face today as a country—and we do face some serious challenges with respect to our workforce—is to empower our workers, is to upskill the workforce so that they can get their fair share, and it’s to work in partnership between employers and employees in order to make sure we’re all better off. That is, I think, today, the modern challenge, and that is how we on this side of the House would be addressing that challenge.

Now, I just want to go into some of the specifics today about this bill and why we are opposing it. So I want to talk about the changes that are on the way for small and large businesses and the impacts that this is going to have on our economy. First, on the 90-day trials, what we’re going to see is fewer opportunities to take on workers in the business world. Next, we’ve got unfettered access to the workplace for—let me explain this—workforces and employers where there is a collective agreement or where they are bargaining for a collective agreement. That is going to, again, pin the employer against the employee, and it’s going to create a hostile environment, and that’s not the type of environment we on this side of the House want to see.

Third is around the paid time off for union workers. Now, this is just going to add on extra costs to business, because guess what? This all flows through to lost productivity in the workforce. So that is going to add on extra cost to business, and even though it’s reasonable, as it’s defined in the bill, that’s still very vague, and what we’re going to find is far more higher costs to business.

We’ve got another provision in the bill around the duty to conclude the multi-employer collective agreement (MECA). And, yes, you know, there’s been a small win from the New Zealand First Party that you can get out of these MECAs based on reasonable grounds. But what we raised here today and yesterday in the speeches is that that is still far too loose and vague of a definition. What are these MECAs going to actually mean for the hard-working businesses of New Zealand? It’s just going to add on more costs. It’s going to make sure that it takes choices away from businesses and away from employees—and not to talk about commercial sensitivity. We haven’t actually talked about that much in the House, that employers in the same sector are going to be exposed from commercially sensitive information.

Continuing on to the other points, we’ve got rest and meal breaks, which we’ve debated quite heavily in this House in the last few days. Now, no one wants a case where we’re not having rest and meal breaks in the workplace. What we’re calling for is a degree of flexibility, and it’s that flexibility that is going to create a thriving, dynamic, and productive economy.

Finally, on the reinstatement as the primary remedy for any disputes, and we’ve talked about this very loud and clear. There are many cases where reinstatement is just not acceptable—the workplace relationship has broken down—and we think that there needs to be much more flexibility on the table for that. So here, that is, in a nutshell, some of the changes that are on the way to New Zealand businesses. And now New Zealand First will sit here and they’ll say, “Well, yes, we’ve extracted some value from this bill.” And I saw Mr Clayton Mitchell debate in the House today. I don’t think he’s even read the bill. It was an appalling speech. He barely spent any time in the House today talking about the bill that’s before the House. So, quite frankly, New Zealand First got diddly squat out of their negotiations on this employment bill, and it’s really taking us back.

We’ve heard the Minister talk about “It’s taking us back to the 1950s.” We’ve heard another one talk about “It’s taking us back to the 1960s and 1970s.” I want to talk about the 2050s and the type of New Zealand that we want to live in in the 2050s, where our employment relationship is a flexible relationship, where it’s worker-centric not union-centric, and where it’s about a partnership between private enterprise and employers and, of course, employees. That is the type of vision that we have in the National Party for the future of employment relations, and I cannot wait until the day that we get back into office and we’re going to repeal this law by to and fro and work to that vision. So we will oppose this bill with much rigour in the House. Thank you.

After that speech that member should be removed from the Māori nation. It was a disgraceful speech. The Māori nation—I can say; I got a call while he was talking—are ashamed of him. Māori have been such a—he knows this. He’s a disgrace to the Bidois name, too.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At one point the member—through our member’s speech—talked about his parents disowning him, and now he’s talking about Māoridom disowning him, and I think that’s a step too far.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I think it’s unhelpful for the Hon Willie Jackson to make such statements. I don’t think it is actually out of order; however, it is unhelpful, and I encourage him to speak directly to the bill from now on.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I’ll take your advice on that.

I’m talking about this bill, though, because this is a bill where Māori will benefit. This is a bill where workers will benefit. And I have to say, I feel embarrassed and ashamed when I hear some of the speeches from the National Party today, because they are attacking good people in this country. Shocking speeches are coming across, where they’re trampling on workers’ rights. I have to say today: we believe in work, we believe in dignified work, and I think this bill gives us an opportunity to restore the balance. When I hear the rubbish, the nonsense, coming from Mr Bidois, it really is a worry—it really is a worry, because he should know better. Māori have benefited so much off unions—so much. And I stand today and I’ll say: I support unions. And we’re not embarrassed by that. If the bill—and I think it does—supports a lot of union rights, then that’s fabulous. There’s nothing to apologise about. It is a—

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: John Tamihere doesn’t support them.

Who cares about John Tamihere? You know that. Who cares about him? Anti-union—he should join the National Party, that bloke. But in some areas, and Mr Bidois was talking about it—meal breaks, for instance. I am so pleased that workers are allowed to have meal breaks—structured meal breaks. Under the previous Government, they didn’t know whether they were coming or going. Dan Bidois would have had them starving all day. We know this for a fact. The National Party don’t care about workers getting regular meal breaks. And it falls very much into our health and safety area. We must have strong and healthy workers who have regular breaks. I’m proud that we have incorporated that into this bill.

In terms of the 90-day trial period, again, we’ve worked well with New Zealand First on this. There’s no back-down. This is what Government’s all about. This is about compromise. And I understand some of the concerns for the smaller employers. So the 90-day arrangement that we have now fits nicely. I for one am tired, as are other people here who’ve worked in the unions, of watching rogue employers knocking off workers, getting rid of workers, at 89 days—using and utilising workers. That’s not the New Zealand workplace that I was brought up in. We have to give these workers security. We have to give them safety. We don’t want them to be on a National Party agenda. We don’t want them to be on Dan Bidois’ agenda, where they don’t know if they’ve got work the next day or the next week—

💬 Hon Member: Let them choose.

No, we don’t want it like that. We want them to have some security. So we’ll look after the smaller employers. We worked with New Zealand First on this. I’m very pleased with the compromise. The small employers, who don’t have the resources that the big employers have—and it’s a good compromise where we have employers with under 20 workers, and they have an exemption in this area. But we will protect and look after workers, unlike the Opposition on the other side.

Can I say I’m particularly pleased with reinstatement being restored as the primary remedy for an unfair dismissal. Again, Mr Bidois touched on this. That is the way to go. I was a union official for many years, and I started to get a little dismayed that we were going down the track that when someone was unjustifiably dismissed, we would say “Oh, you can have $2,000 or $3,000.” That’s not the way to go. What our people want is their jobs back. They want their jobs back. So restoring that as a primary remedy—you need to listen to this, Mr Bidois; we might take you back into the Māori nation if you listen properly—is the way to go, because it gives workers security. When a worker is unjustifiably dismissed, they deserve their job back.

So I commend Iain Lees-Galloway and particularly Jan Tinetti, who’s made a great contribution and—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s—[Interruption] Order! I call Denise Lee—five minutes.

What an extraordinary contribution from the Hon Willie Jackson. The first part of that reference to his name I struggle to endorse, given that he has supposed to speak on behalf of the Māori nation in reference to my colleague Dan Bidois, who gave an excellent contribution, and, as our chief whip referred to, referred to his own family. And what do we get from the other side of the House? Mr Willie Jackson, you do not have the mandate to speak on behalf of the Māori nation. You know it and we know it.

Now, I’m going to get on to the bill, unlike the previous member’s contribution. Industries are evolving, and, as my fantastic colleague Dan Bidois made reference to, there’s an evolution and there is a different set of expectations coming to our workforce. Basically, we’re modernising. We’re looking at global expectations, global examples, and we know that we need the flexibility in our labour, in our workforce, to respond to changing needs.

Now, for those of us that sat through hours and hours and hours of submissions on this bill as I and others did, unlike the Hon Willie Jackson, that’s exactly what we heard. Two hundred and forty-nine people opposed this bill, and dozens and dozens and dozens of them appeared before us at the Education and Workforce Committee. What we heard from them is that this bill goes back to a rigid and an outdated system encouraging business to take a risk-averse approach to hiring staff. It’s as simple as that: a risk-averse approach to hiring staff. It takes away people’s ability to decide for themselves what’s best for themselves. Now, how do I know that? Again, it’s because I listened to them in select committee—hours and hours.

When I think about the impact on businesses, I can’t help but think about my particular area in the electorate of Maungakiekie and specifically the Penrose business industrial area. Now, I’d like to think I have something substantive to say in that regard, because Penrose business area is the largest industrial area in the country. And it was only a few weeks ago that I was speaking, along with a Labour Party member, in a business forum, and we heard very clearly—and she would have, too—businesses speak up on the coming impact of this very legislation that’s about to be signed off in a few minutes. What they are saying is that in this legislation, not only has the Government disregarded the impact on them as businesses but also the impact on individual people, on individual employees, and, in fact, also the wider social impact of this particular bill.

Now, here are a few examples of why I say there’ll be wider social impact. Under this legislation, all new employees who are employed will be required to be employed under terms and conditions of the collective agreement for their first 30 days on the job, even if they’re not part of a union and they never intend to be. And then, if they don’t want to be part of that collective agreement, they’ve got to be part of it anyway. What sort of system is that?

💬 Kieran McAnulty: A good one.

No, it’s not a good one. Who are we to tell people, Mr McAnulty, that they can’t choose what works best for them? Why should they be forced, Mr McAnulty, to work under conditions that may not be suitable for them or their needs or their family needs?

My colleagues have spoken extensively about the removal of 90 days. Well, we heard from people in select committee—here’s a good example: Federated Farmers. They have taken on high-risk employees that have come out of ex-prison pathway schemes. These people are living on site in farming communities, and they’ve had to take risks of them living on site in a farm. We heard from them that they will not take that risk if the 90-day rule is not in place. They told us that very specifically.

This bill is pragmatic-poor—it’s not pragmatic at all. This is a handbrake on business. This country deserves better, and we will repeal all that is within this bill the moment we become Government in 2020.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Look, I can understand and I completely agree with the member Denise Lee that there’s some apprehension from some businesses all through the country, but that’s because they’ve had the Scott Simpson scaremongering sideshow go all through New Zealand and tell completely the wrong information about what this bill does.

I know the member Denise Lee asked the question about the 30 days, and I can actually clarify. I have done this a few times now with businesses, with employer representation, and with chambers of commerce, and they’ve all said, “Oh, now I understand what this bill does. That was never told to me when the National Party representatives came to talk to me.”

What the 30 days does is it covers new employees under an existing collective agreement. Now, listen up, because you might learn something. What happens is that the terms and conditions from a collective agreement are extended to new employees so that the employer cannot offer anything less. What happens when you offer anything less to a new employee? You are eroding the collective agreement’s terms and conditions. So, ultimately, as more and more people are joining on an inferior contract—an individual contract—that collective agreement becomes less valuable.

The problem is that nobody in this House would have received their sick leave provisions, received their holiday provisions, received a 40-hour working week, or received weekends without unions. Unions got the members in this House all of those provisions. So stop slagging off unions, because they are actually holding the line not only for their members but for all of New Zealand and all workers.

It’s a huge privilege to be speaking on this bill. I was a law student during the time of the undermining changes the National Government made between 2010 and 2015. I would never have dreamt that I would be standing here in this House one day to support a bill that is reversing all of those changes. Nine years of eroding employment conditions, and today we’re seeing the end of it.

We’ve heard from the other side that the payoff, evidently, has something to do with the increase of jobs. It’s mentioned a few times. “Look at our employment. Look at how many jobs there are.” It’s not just about the amount of jobs; it’s about the quality of the jobs. We don’t actually want people to have insecure, part-time, low-paid jobs. Exactly as my colleague Jan Tinetti points out, it’s about conditions. We don’t want low-paid, part-time, insecure jobs. We need to improve the quality and the wage level of that work, and that is exactly what this bill is doing. This bill is tackling the collective bargaining which will strengthen the union rights in the workplace.

Now, when these changes were made, the National Government really undermined collective bargaining, and you have to wonder why they actually did that. Well, they did it because that way employers were allowed to avoid collective bargaining, and collective bargaining lifts wages and conditions. So the result of the changes that they made over those years was actually a reduction of pay and conditions for all of our workers. “Workers” is not a dirty word. I think it was Jacqui Dean who said, “Oh, I’m not going to say the word ‘workers.’” These are hard-working, decent people putting in a fair day’s work, and they should be getting a fair day’s pay, and that’s what this bill is doing.

Over the years, we’ve seen less of a share of the growth in our economy go to working people. At the moment, I think it sits at about 40 percent. That’s roughly 20 percent less than those dreadful 1970s that the other side is talking about. Minister Iain Lees-Galloway mentioned it already: 1 percent—1 percent only—of people on collective agreements did not get a pay increase last year. That is versus 45 percent of people on non-collective agreements, who missed out on a pay increase. So the answer is really simple: it pays to be with a union. For that very good reason, this bill is promoting collective bargaining and strengthening unions’ rights in the workplace.

Some people might have noticed my badge. Yesterday, during the committee stage of the bill, the member for Clutha-Southland said he had googled my name. At first, I thought it was a bit freaky, but he actually said he had discovered I was a union delegate—as if that’s something to be ashamed of. Yes, I was a union delegate before I became a union president for four consecutive terms. I’m a solidarity member of E tū and a proud member of the union.

What the comments of the other side really clearly show to us is that they have no idea what it means to give service to working people. A large part of being a union delegate or being in the union as an organiser or an official actually means that you’re standing up for the colleagues and for their working rights, and that means that you are resolving a lot of the workplace problems as a delegate, with your colleagues, before they escalate. As a union delegate, that often means long hours, all hours of the day, and you’re missing time with your family. That is all because the person that is too vulnerable to speak up needs your support. So others are quiet and the delegate speaks up.

I know that the member for Coromandel spoke about greater protection for union members—such a bad thing! Delegates standing up for vulnerable people should not have their jobs put at risk for doing so, and it’s great to see that in this bill we have added protections to protect union members from discrimination just because they are union members. I find it actually really shameful that this perspective is shown from the other side to people who are giving so much to serving others.

It’s also really good to see the paid time for union delegates in this bill, but, again, the activities need to relate to the employment of employees by the employer. So it’s not just anything they’re doing; it’s actually beneficial for their employer as well. I said before, unions are holding the line for the members, and it’s called a spill over effect because all workers in New Zealand benefit from the union-negotiated wage increases and wage trends.

We actually had quite a few submissions to our Education and Workforce Committee—455 submissions, and we heard 86 of those in person in Wellington and Auckland. The Council of Trade Unions talked really well about that spill over effect. They said that the changes which this bill reverses deliberately aimed to weaken the bargaining strength of collectivised workers in the sure knowledge it would result in lower wages and conditions, and that is what has occurred over the last years. This not only impacts unionised workers but has a spill over effect on all workers because they benefit from union-negotiated wage increases and wage trends. These negotiated wage increases set the standard for many other jobs.

There’s a few other things that—[Phone rings] Is that my time, is it? There are a few other items in this bill I’d like to clarify. We have the 90-day trial, for example. There was no evidence whatsoever, at the time, when the National Party, without a select committee process, pushed that law through, that it would create extra jobs—no evidence at all—and no evidence to this day, because we asked the officials if it created extra jobs. All we had, as Jacqui Dean pointed out, were stories—stories of how this is a good thing—and that’s really all we had on that.

Now, the duty to conclude is a really important one, and I’d like to talk a little bit about that. There was a Supplementary Order Paper on that. Basically, the current situation with the duty to conclude is that an employer can go through the motions. They can just meet with the union and meet with workers, and, after a few meetings, they say, “Look, we can’t come to an agreement. This is all too hard.” They call it surface bargaining, and they can walk away from the bargaining table. They don’t have to do anything else, but what they can do—because for the next few weeks, the union can’t renegotiate—is they can offer individual agreements to all of the workforce. They can pick them off one by one, give them individual employment agreements, and kill that collective agreement.

These, of course, are the bad employers that we have in New Zealand. They are in the minority. The vast majority treat their employees well. They look after them—they’re their family—but that small amount of bad employers completely erodes and undermines those good employers.

So it’s completely a good thing, and I don’t understand why the National Party keep saying it isn’t, but that is probably because they have no idea about industrial relations, about employment law, or, in fact, about this bill. Jacqui Dean, again, referred to the MECA, and said that if a person has to be forced on to a MECA—well, actually, it’s called a collective agreement. The MECA, also, is not a “multi-employer collective Act”, like some people have referred to it as. It’s a multi-employer collective agreement. And, as the member for Northcote said, “If your employer is on a collective agreement, the MECA still applies and you cannot opt out of it.”—that doesn’t even make any sense.

So the scary thing is that these are people that are telling some of the businesses that might be watching completely incorrect information. I’m quite happy to meet with anybody out there that would like some real clarification, and I’m sure that at the end, they will applaud this bill. It’s good for them. It’s good for their workers.

That’s 10 minutes already, so I have a few more things to say, but I’ll finish off by saying thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is a fantastic bill. I’m absolutely honoured to be standing here as a proud union member, seeing this bill come into action. Thank you, Minister Iain Lees-Galloway. Thank you, team.

National believes in workers. National believes in everyday working New Zealanders, and that is why we oppose this bill.

Now, the members opposite may be living in an alternative reality where what everyday New Zealanders care about is the definition of “MECA”. They may live in an alternative reality where they think workers have no rights and unions have no rights, where we’re living in a time of industrial servitude, but, actually, we are living in a time of unprecedented high employment. We are living in a time where National has set the framework for employment relations in this country, and the results have been the creation of up to 10,000 jobs a month, wages rising faster than inflation year after year, and record high rates of labour force participation. These things don’t just happen. They happen when you focus on managing the economy in a way that supports businesses to hire people, to treat them well, and to provide them with more opportunities.

Instead, what we have in this bill is an alternative approach that says, “Let’s ignore reality. Let’s ignore modern reality.”—let’s ignore the fact that, actually, 83 percent of working New Zealanders are not in a union. That is not the choice they made—83 percent of people working in a job today say, “Actually, I like having an individual employment agreement with my employer. I like the flexibility that provides me to negotiate what works for me and what works for them in a modern workplace.”

This bill ignores the reality of flexible workplaces, and this bill supposes that employers should not be trusted—that employers are trying to erode worker rights. Now, let us be clear: there are some bad employers out there, and that is why we have a robust legal framework in New Zealand that allows them to be taken to task when they don’t treat people well. But what this bill does is put at risk a relatively settled employment relations framework that has existed in previous years, and it’s already started to erode while the Labour Government has been in power.

What we are told is that the reason businesses lack confidence in this Government has nothing to do with this bill; it’s actually the power of Scott Simpson. Scott Simpson’s roadshow has managed to erode all business confidence in New Zealand. If that is the case, as Marja Lubeck likes to claim, then I would like to congratulate Scott Simpson for taking on the resources and power of Government, the dozens of Government departments, and the thousands of dollars being spent on promoting this bill, and winning. But let’s be honest. This is not about Scott Simpson; this is about businesses not liking a Government that wants to load on the bureaucracy, load on the red tape, and take away the flexibility. That is not what businesses in New Zealand want.

So let us have a look at what it is in this bill that’s worrying people and that’s giving them cause for concern. Well, of course, one of the key features is taking away 90-day trials. Oh, that’s right: 90-day trials are just fine when it comes to businesses with fewer than 20 employees. So here we have this terrible contradiction that members opposite have had to dance on the head of throughout their speeches that, actually, 90-day trials are great when you’ve got fewer than 20 employees, because we want to encourage people to take a risk on workers and we want them to take on people they might otherwise fear will put their business at risk—we want them to do that when they’ve got fewer than 20 employees—but the minute they’ve got 21 employees, no way. Members opposite seem to have no understanding of the practical implications of that arbitrary distinction.

I have visited early childcare services who say to me, “We will keep our headcount under 20 from now on, because we always want to be able to protect the children we serve and the families we serve from employees we believe are not up to scratch, and we believe the 90-day trial provides us with a way of doing that.” They say to me that they will actually stop hiring people in order to be able to use this provision. That is the practical implication of taking away 90-day trials for many employers.

What else does this bill do? Well, one of the things it does that I think New Zealanders should be made much more aware of, and will become very aware of in the coming months, is that it subjugates privacy rights to union recruitment needs. It does that by requiring every employer in this country who comes to an individual employment contract agreement with an individual employee—it says “You may have done that, but here’s the form you need to require your employee to fill out.”, stating which union they may or may not join in the future and giving their contact details.

Now, some employees might not want to fill out that form. They might forget to fill out that form. They might not quite get around to it. So what happens in that case? Well, then we have the privacy punishment—don’t fill in the union form, and then the unions will be told you haven’t filled in the form and will be given your contact details, and who knows what happens next? We will find out over the next few months and, mark my words, people do not like it when their private information and their private choice not to join a union are shared against their knowledge. We will see that play out.

What else does this bill do? There is a series of steps in here that erode flexibility in the workplace. Let’s—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: We don’t like flexibility.

Oh, Willie Jackson calls out. He says “We don’t like flexibility.”, so what he doesn’t like is the fact that in New Zealand, we have seasonal industries. We have industries where, in fact, actually, at some times of year, they’re busier than others because you’re picking fruit at one time of year or another. What he doesn’t like is the fact that some businesses are busy at some times of day and not busy at others. What he doesn’t like is that thousands of people have been hired in this country because workplaces have been able to be flexible in the jobs that they offer. That’s what Willie Jackson doesn’t like.

Well, Willie Jackson, I’ll tell you what you don’t like: you don’t like 2018. This is the modern reality of workplaces and employment, not just in New Zealand but around the world, and taking us back to a rigid time is simply a back-to-the-future step—you’re looking a little bit tired on it, Minister.

So where else do we erode flexibility? We have this idea that rest and meal breaks will now need to be imposed, and, of course, we had one of the speakers earlier saying, “Oh no, they can negotiate out of that.” Well, of course, I’ll tell you what real employers fear. They fear a situation in which unions—growing, because of these wonderful provisions they’ve been provided with—are able to muscle in to workplaces and impose collective agreements that erode flexibility. That is what employers are worried about. And you can tell me that employers’ worries are unjustified—you can tell me that—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

—but all you should do is look—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The use of—

—members opposite—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The use of the personal pronoun “you” brings the Speaker into the debate. Please don’t do that.

Members opposite can say that employers’ concerns are misplaced, but what members opposite need to look at is the business confidence rates in this country. Employers lack confidence in this Government and what they are doing for the economy, and they lack that confidence for good reason, and members opposite should look at those statistics on a daily basis and hang their heads in shame.

Then we have this issue of collective bargaining. We have the issues of reasonable paid time for unions. Again, employers—more than 200 of them; the actual number was more than 250. I don’t have the precise number here—249 submitters raised concerns about what this bill would mean. What they said was that they were concerned about how would it be interpreted, what the words would mean, would they end up in court, and they simply didn’t see the need for change.

What they felt was that it was implying that one size could fit all, when they knew that that was not the case in their workplace. I sat on the Education and Workforce Committee and listened to the people who came and talked to us about their concerns and their fears about their bill, and I want the people listening tonight to know that in this country, we have some incredible employers. We have people who go the extra mile for their staff, who make the choice to do the extra bit for people, to give them a chance to get the next opportunity to get ahead.

We have people who put their own livelihoods on the line, so they can hire people, give them pay rises, and give them a few more hours work. I say to those employers, the National Party backs you. The National Party trusts you, and we think that this Government should too, but this bill unfortunately does not. This bill says the Labour Government doesn’t believe in New Zealand’s employers and doesn’t trust them to do what’s right by workers.

This bill is not about modern New Zealand. It is not about the workers of 2018. It doesn’t bring us forward; it brings us backwards. It diminishes trust between employers and employees for no benefit. It puts at risk the settled employment relations and businesses up and down this country. This is a step backwards—another step backwards—by this Labour Government, and National is proud to oppose it.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a privilege to speak on the third reading of this bill. The National Party, this afternoon, walked off the job to express their views and feelings after the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Leader of the House were ejected by the Speaker. Now, I make no comment about that—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Speak to the bill, not—

I am, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, you weren’t. You were speaking to procedures in the House earlier today that the Speaker has already ruled on. That’s the end of it. Kia ora.

This afternoon, that party is voting against a bill which will stop employers from being able to dock the pay of workers who, like them, went on strike and walked off the job—one rule for them and another for everyone else.

There have been some extraordinary statements made by the Opposition during the debate on this bill. Andrew Bayly stated that, and I’ll quote from what he said, “People should have the right to work out when they want to work, how they want to work, and on what basis they want to work.” Lawrence Yule argued that employers should not have to pay the minimum wage base. Jacqui Dean claims that union organisers would be bursting on to the shop floors of hot jam factories, demanding to talk to members and creating health and safety risks.

I want to read to you—yesterday, I spoke about the Woodhaugh Rest Home in Dunedin where a union organiser was called in by members of the union, where they had a collective agreement, because of the hours being cut of full-time workers and because there were other issues going on in the rest home. The union organiser was served a trespass notice and wasn’t allowed to enter that rest home. I just wanted to tell you that that rest home was subject to complaints in 2015, with an anonymous phone call to a district health board, where a clinical manager had fainted from exhaustion and broken her pelvis. She was claimed to have been working 80-hour weeks, the residents said the food often ran out, relatives were being asked to bring in food, and there were many other issues taking place, and the union organiser, legitimately wanting to go into the workplace, was served a trespass notice by the owner.

Those are the sorts of issues that this bill is trying to address—more than trying to address; will address, will take us back to a place of fairness. It’s a bill that undoes the wrongs of the previous Government for those who earn the wages in the workplaces where the employers have disproportionate power over their working conditions and their right to be represented by a union. It’s a fairness bill. It rights wrongs and it demonstrates the close and constructive relationship in this coalition Government with our coalition partner, New Zealand First, and with our confidence and supply partner, the Greens. It absolutely demonstrates how constructive that relationship is. It’s about sharing economic growth. It’s about improving well-being. It’s about valuing workers, vulnerable workers, and it’s about acknowledging the importance of unions, the voices of working people.

We’ve had speakers talk about the evidence of the decline of unions and collective bargaining that has been strongly linked to the growth in inequality and how—I think the Greens talked about this—the IMF and the World Bank have reversed advice they’ve given and are now encouraging collective bargaining.

This bill is not the be all and end all of what needs to be done to right the imbalances in this country, but by God it’s a good start. Thank you to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Iain Lees-Galloway. Thank you to the Education and Workforce Committee, who worked hard on this bill, to all the officials that worked hard on this bill, and to the people that submitted on this bill. Thank you to the Wellington Hospital cleaners, to the Tegel chicken workers, to the real working people that came and said what this means for their working lives.

I want to address, finally, the workplaces of the future. Comments were made by some member across the House bemoaning the workplaces of the future and how this is going to suddenly be doom and gloom. The workplaces of the future will be successful with a constructive collaboration between businesses and the people who work for them. Look at Air New Zealand, look at Fonterra, look at KiwiRail—they get that. Just recently there’s been a union set up in the tech industry. Now, why has that happened? It’s because that is a workplace of the future that needs organising, needs more fairness, and needs consideration of how you get more women into working in that industry. High-wage, highly productive economy—that’s the future. That’s what we should be talking about. I’m proud of this Government for this bill. I’m relieved for working people, and I’m proud of our unions. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

I call on Government orders of the day Nos 2 to 5.

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has made excellent progress through the course of this afternoon and it seems appropriate that as we come to the end of one bill and before we get another bill that we take the opportunity—sorry, I seek leave for the House to adjourn for the dinner break.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No. And I think what we’ll do is put the House into committee, and then we’ll finish.

Members, it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. However, I declare that when the House returns at 7.30 p.m., the House will be in committee for further consideration of the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill and for the consideration of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill, the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill, and the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill. Kia ora mai tātou.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.