Employment Relations Amendment Bill

I rise to speak to clause 1, the title, in our discussion of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. When we look at the words “employment relations” and think about them, we know that the relationship we have with our employers is among some of the most important relationships we have in our lives. But this bill, single-handedly, makes it easier for an employer to get out of the Mafia than to move on and change an employment relationship with a staff member.

I would like to remind members in the Chamber of the reasons we are here debating this bill. It results from the case of a Dunedin firm, actually, Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd, which was taken to court because it wanted to take on a cleaning contract for the Dunedin Kindergarten Association. That association had loyally stood by a number of cleaning staff members for some years, but over a period of time the standard of cleaning had become so appalling that the association felt that the health of the children who attended those kindergartens was at risk. It complained that some of those kindergartens were left in an unsanitary situation, so in certain circumstances the association was almost at the point of having to close those kindergartens because the cleaning was so bad.

But on the issue of employment relations, the Government is telling New Zealanders that the relationship is of greater importance than the standard of the work. The Government is saying that for a kindergarten to have such substandard cleaning is OK, and that the employment relationship is far more important. Crest Commercial Cleaning wanted to take over the contract after that contract had been terminated. The kindergarten association did not break the contract; it waited loyally until the end of that contract. The association thought it was fine and hired a new company. The new company came in, took over, but—hello—the staff members took it to court, backed by the union movement.

This is telling Kiwis that it is OK for people not to do their work well, and to put other New Zealanders’ health at risk, yet still they will keep their jobs. If we look at the cleaning business, we see that about 90 percent of what is important in that business is the standard of work done by individuals. If the individual cannot work well, then the Government is saying that that is OK—that that is not the important point there. Under this new legislation, a cleaner could be the worst cleaner in the world, the worst staff member in the world, but still have what equates to a fixed employee/employer relationship. The Dunedin Kindergarten Association did not want to be in a position where it hired staff members; that is why it got contractors in. And it was a total shock to the association to find itself in the situation where, effectively, it was the employer of those cleaners.

The Government wants to paint a picture that this bill is all about vulnerable workers, and if we look at the rhetoric around it we can see that it is basically a whole bunch of euphemisms. It talks about vulnerable workers, and about restructuring, when in fact we are looking at ending fixed-term contracts and moving on to new business.

If the Government were really serious about employment relationships, it would be thinking about the mums and dads who run those cleaning franchises. The Government wants to give the impression that this is all about big, nasty, corporate cleaning companies. Well, it is not. The average value of a cleaning contract in this country is around $8,000, and mums and dads take on franchise opportunities, earning only $20 an hour if they are working for themselves. They have independent businesses. They go out and get those small contracts, and use that work to put bread and butter on their own family’s table. This bill, effectively, makes them responsible for somebody else’s staff.

If the aim is to retain the positions of those staff members who do not have work as a result of a contract, then they should be allowed to stay with the companies involved. That would make sense. If the Government is serious about employment relationships, then why does it not keep the employment relationship between the staff member and the initial employer? Why force that staff member to be taken on by a company the staff member does not know, and why should a firm take on staff it does not know, if the quality of service is to be maintained? Lianne Dalziel gave us a lecture about business compliance costs; this bill adds the biggest compliance cost for those businesses.

Before I take the next speaker, I say that I should have given some guidance at the outset. This bill is a clause by clause bill. It is in clauses, so therefore the discussions should relate strictly to those clauses. Clause 1 is about the title, which has four words in it. I ask that members confine themselves to the title, on its own, from here on.

Thank you for that clarification. I know that my colleague has a lot of expertise and experience in various businesses, and she has been able to articulate that and show how the impact of employment relationships has affected the viability of businesses. When we look at the title and the words “employment relations”, one of the questions one needs to ask is whether those relations are favourable relations for the staff who are to be employed. Are they relationships that will cause a business, possibly, to have to retrench, or even to close down? It is all very well talking about vulnerable workers, but in terms of this bill—and I know that over the years there have been a number of amendments to employment relations legislation—we really have to look at the impact of what the bill means, and whether the title is applicable and says what the bill means.

We often judge a book by its title. Maybe we should not do that, but when I go into a news agency and want to buy a magazine, I will be looking at what the title is in order to see whether it sparks an interest for me to say I will buy the magazine—or newspaper, or book—and read it. That is so when I go to the library or whatever. So the title in itself is a marketing tool. It is one of those things that grabs the imagination. With that in mind, the title of the bill should really reflect in essence what the bill is about, because if it does not then it is misleading.

When I look at the Employment Relations Amendment Bill provisions, I see that although it is meant to protect vulnerable workers what will happen is that businesses that may be contracting may be disadvantaged. We used the cleaning example because the National Party minority view on page 4 of the report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which I draw the Minister’s attention to, is very clear. It gives practical examples of a cleaning contract whereby if a business was to win a contract, it would have to take on the staff of the outgoing contractor. Is that fair? I would say that is grossly unfair, because the terms and conditions of a new contract arrangement between the business that is being contracted for by the provider of a service will be affected very much by the calibre of those people who are there.

So when I look at the title of the bill, I would say that this bill should be called the “Employment Relations to Undermine Businesses Amendment Bill”. We are a nation of small businesses. In fact, 80 percent of all businesses in New Zealand employ fewer than five people. So, to my mind, when I read through this bill—and I have looked at it very closely, I can assure members of that—I see that it does not do the worker any good whatsoever, because it puts shackles on the employer.

I see that the Chairman is keen that I talk more about the bill in this particular area, and I am happy to do that. The bill makes it difficult for employers to say they will go for a contract, knowing that when they are to take over a new contract—let us say in the cleaning industry—there are existing staff. As we are a nation of small businesses, a lot of family-owned businesses will be affected by that. I believe that a lot of workers whom we are trying to protect with this legislation will actually be disadvantaged. So another name for this bill could be the “Employment Relations Heading to Redundancy Bill”.

💬 Paula Bennett: That’s a good name.

I think it is quite a good name: the “Employment Relations Heading to Redundancy Bill”. With that in mind, when we look at how businesses work we see that the problem with this Government is that it has never got its feet on the ground. It does not know what makes businesses tick. It has never put an investment in business. It has never taken the risks. Yet it is telling businesses here that this is what they have to do. It is not about employment relations. Employment relations should encompass not only employees but employers. If we want a win-win situation, to get the best, and to add to productivity—although this Government knows absolutely nothing about productivity in the workplace—

💬 Paula Bennett: How much do they know?

Well, they do not know very much, at all. That is why the Labour Party is on its way out, and its members will all be looking for new employment opportunities themselves, looking at the polls today.

I rise to talk to the title of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I feel it is appropriate to come up with a suggestion myself for a title to this bill. Looking back to the year 2000, when the Employment Relations Act was introduced, I see this is the 14th amendment to it since then. So my suggestion is that we call this bill the “Employment Relations Too Many Amendments Bill”. The reality is that time has been taken up by the Government on those amendments. There has been so much wrongdoing going on that we have to look at employment relations amendments because the Government could get them right the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, 10th, 11th, 12th, or 13th time. The bill should be called the “Employment Relations 14th Amendment Bill”. The reality is that this Government and this Parliament are having their time taken up by trying to continually fix the mess that was made the first time round. In fact, how many times have we been trying to fix it? It is 14 times, now. This is the “Employment Relations 14th Amendment Bill”.

Of course, the reason we are here to discuss the title of the “Employment Relations 14th Amendment Bill” is that we have a situation where employment relations are not being fixed, at all. How can Labour members call it employment relations when what they are actually doing is to undermine businesses? When will this Government understand that by undermining a business it undermines its employees, as well? The issue is about the employees at the end of the day, just as it is about the business owners as well.

The title of this bill makes a mockery of what we should try to accomplish for our people in terms of employment relations. When we look at what is happening in the relationship between employees and employers, we see that they wish to talk to each other. Constantly, through these amendments, we have regulations that set in practice law that stops people from communicating. We have unions stepping up and saying they can do better than the poor employees can. The unions say employees cannot advocate for themselves and had better let the unions do that.

We are about empowering people to have that obligation. On reading the entire bill—as I was unfortunately doing this morning in order to look at the amendments and at how the title would fit in with the bill—I was absolutely gobsmacked yet again to read the sort of language used about good faith and about the imbalance of power between employers and employees. I wonder what sort of world we are living in, when we have unemployment levels at 3.9 percent and employees are in a position now where they can advocate for themselves and stand up and say what they are worth. But instead, the Labour Government constantly turns round and says it knows what is best for them—that they do not know that. It says it knows where they should be working and what they are worth—that they do not know that.

The National Party says yes, employees do know that and they are actually worth a lot. National says employees have a lot to offer and a lot to give, not just to business but to this country. We turn around and ask employees to let us empower them to make decisions that are right for them, instead of turning around and saying they are too thick to advocate for themselves, which is the constant message the workers of this country receive from the current Government.

So when we turn round and look at a title like “Employment Relations (This is the Fourth) Amendment Bill”—

💬 Hon Members: 14th.

How many?

💬 Mark Blumsky: 14.

There have been 14 amendments? I did say “4”.

💬 Mark Blumsky: Because you couldn’t believe it.

I could not believe there have been 14 amendments. I had to sit there and count them up again. I had to get someone else to count them for me, because I could not believe that we were on the 14th amendment to the principal Act. When we look at those sorts of amendments, we have to ask how much we are going to continue to regulate a workforce that does know what is best for itself. There is room, we say, for the bigger employers—and we were looking at cleaning companies, and so on—to have in place legislation that helps them to achieve what they want to do. We believe in employees’ rights. They do have a right to work in safe environments, and to be treated fairly—all those sorts of things. But employees have strength now. They have strength in their numbers and strength in the fact that they are needed. No one knows that better than the business owner.

I move, That the question be now put.