Employment Relations Amendment Bill

I would like to draw members’ attention to my Supplementary Order Paper 54 where there is an amendment to the commencement date in relation to some provisions in that Supplementary Order Paper. It reads: “To omit all the words in lines 4 and 5 on page 2 and substitute the following subclauses: (1) The following provisions come into force 3 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent: (a) subpart 1A of Part 6A of the principal Act (as inserted by section 4 of this Act); and (b) sections 5A and 5B of this Act. (2) The rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”

The primary legislation, which we are debating this evening, will come into force the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. That is appropriate, given that the sole purpose of the primary legislation is to ensure that the law is clear and reflects the original policy intent, as it was designed to do. That was not the case in reference to the appeal that my colleague Katherine Rich referred to earlier. That appeal overturned the original policy intent of the legislation, and that is why we are looking at an amendment before the Committee today.

However, in my Supplementary Order Paper I am proposing a new procedure under the vulnerable workers legislation by which we ensure that employers are not tendering blind. Because this is a new provision it has not been before a select committee, but it has certainly been raised before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. My colleague from New Zealand First Peter Brown has made representations to me on this very issue. But the fact that it was not notified as an amendment prior to the Supplementary Order Paper in my view warrants the consideration of the “3 months” date, and that is why it is set out on my Supplementary Order Paper.

I am very interested in the Minister Ruth Dyson’s passing comments about vulnerable workers, because section 69E(5) in clause 4 of this bill talks about airport workers, cleaners, and food workers being vulnerable workers. But if a Thai tiler is paid less than the average wage to tile someone’s house, somehow that person is not a vulnerable worker but a professional person who is able to establish whether he or she enters into a contract. A lot of the comments that we have just heard about vulnerable workers do not ring true when day after day we have seen the Minister defend the indefensible in terms of the treatment of those particular workers. She can dance on the head of a pin all she likes, but it does not look good.

We are talking about the commencement date in this part of the debate. The Minister has just outlined some changes to certain parts of the commencement date for certain provisions, and that is just another indication that this bill was not properly drafted in the first place. We have seen, time after time, this Parliament being asked to turn back to the Employment Relations Act of 2000 to amend it—not just once, or twice. I heard before that it has been amended 14 times. These last-minute changes to the commencement date just show the lack of rigour that has been used in the development of the Government’s legislation.

Most of the small cleaning businesses I have spoken to would say that regardless of when the commencement date is, it does not matter to them one iota—they do not want any commencement date. They do not want to be put in a position where they fall heir to somebody else’s shoddy workers. Usually, cleaning contracts change hands because the cleaning is substandard—as we saw in the Dunedin kindergartens. Those kindergartens were so badly cleaned that in some cases the management considered closing them because it had received parental complaints and some teachers were concerned about the safety of children in those kindergartens. Well, that is not good enough. I do not think that putting this bill, which is nothing more than a vendetta against small business, before the House is good enough.

Clause 2, “Commencement”, states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” Most small businesses I have spoken to think that is far too soon. Some of the provisions might be coming in some 3 months later, but what this legislation does—regardless of the commencement date—is to impose a bigger compliance cost on some of those mum and dad operations than any other regulation the Government has brought in.

Lianne Dalziel stood in the House today and said that the Government is business-friendly. Well, nobody believes that, because, on the one hand, she is trying to make warm fuzzy comments to business and, on the other, the Government is bringing in laws like this one, which make it harder, not easier, for business people to conduct their business. These people are not wealthy individuals; they are small-business operators—mum and dad operations—which, in most cases, earn no more than $20 an hour. But they go out and they do the cleaning. They clean our schools, our kindergartens, our offices, and other businesses, and they do it to put bread and butter on the table for their kids and their families. This Government is making it harder, not easier, for those people to do that.

So, although we can sit here and have an academic argument about the commencement date, out there in real-life land businesses do not want it, at all. The Government should be ashamed of this legislation, because this is where ideology does not match common sense. What the Government is doing—making small businesses fall heir to shonky workmanship—does not make sense. Those contracts change hands largely because of the quality of the cleaning or the quality of the food. One of the examples in this bill is that of food workers in retirement homes. Well, if the food is horrible day in, day out in a retirement home, why should that contract continue? Why should that retirement home be forced to keep that contract in place, even after it has been terminated? The Government should be ashamed of itself—forcing old people in retirement homes to eat rubbishy food.

Just while we look at the commencement date of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and at Supplementary Order Paper 54, I would like some clarification with regard to clause 2(1)(b) on the Supplementary Order Paper, which states: “(b) sections 5A and 5B of this Act.” Would the Minister or officials be able to advise me, because it seems to me that clause 5 of the new Employment Relations Amendment Bill, soon to become an Act, actually has clauses 5(1) and 5(2), not “sections 5A and 5B”. Is there a drafting error or is it supposed to be like that?

💬 John Hayes: Fifteen changes.

So if that is the case, then I think we are on to our 15th amendment. It is important that we look at those kinds of details when we are drafting legislation like this, because they send an important signal to New Zealanders about the care and integrity we apply to our legislation. So if I could have some kind of guidance from the officials at some stage on that point, that would be great.

The main part of clause 2 is now in the amendment in the Supplementary Order Paper. Clause 2 of the bill states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” The words “Royal assent” take on a new meaning in New Zealand now, because a couple of weeks ago we were very fortunate to witness the swearing-in of a great new Governor-General for New Zealand. He is somebody who will represent this country very well in that position.

💬 Chris Tremain: Anand Satyanand.

Yes—Mr Satyanand—and I believe that the speech he gave that day was a great speech for all New Zealanders. It showed enough nous and political knowledge, but at the same time it was supportive of our people and our opportunities.

This legislation does not fulfil the comments the Governor-General made about our history and our future, which is why it is important, when we look at the legislation coming into force on that commencement date, that it should actually reflect the intention that the Governor-General has provided for New Zealand. In his speech, the Governor-General very much emphasised the ability of New Zealanders to achieve and to attain their full goals. We do not have that intention in this legislation. This legislation takes away the ambition and achievement of ordinary New Zealanders. It is just part of Labour’s idea of hierarchy: keeping people under its thumb, and saying that it knows best what is best for these people.

💬 John Hayes: Anti-competitive.

That is right; it is anti-competitive. But it is more than that—it is anti the Kiwi spirit—the spirit of going out there and making the most of our opportunities.

That is why we in National stand against this legislation today, because we back New Zealanders. We back not just legislation that has the right numbers or letters in it; we back New Zealanders. We want to see legislation that gives them the opportunities to achieve their goals, to be successful, and to build on their successes. And that is the big problem with this legislation, especially if we look at a commencement date that has been tied in with our great history and future—as the new Governor-General’s speech showed. The driving intention of that speech is the ability of people to take an opportunity.

This legislation has been proposed by unions—that is what it is; it is a union payback. It is all part of the Labour equation of employment rights. Labour does not do it all in one fell swoop; that is why there are 14 amendments. And we will have another 20 amendments by the end of this term, because the Government has taken an incremental approach to employment law in this country. The Government knows that it cannot get a decent employment law passed that would achieve all its goals, but it believes that it can do so incrementally.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: By stealth.

It can do so by stealth—with members’ bills and by bringing parties on board to help it achieve certain little goals.

That is why the commencement date is relatively important. If we look at that date, we go back to the heart and intention of what New Zealand workers want. They want a fair go, and that is what the Governor-General said. They want to have a chance to be the best they can be. Are we giving them that chance today? No, I do not think we are. We are doing the opposite: we are actually telling them what to do; we are setting the rules that they must abide by. That is not good enough, and it is not what they want. Workers want the Royal assent to be granted to legislation that gives them the ability to make the most of their opportunities. That is what this Parliament should stand for. We have an MMP Parliament, and that is a great thing in some regards.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wish to correct a statement I made earlier to the Committee. I have just been passed papers that inform me that this bill is actually the 15th amendment to the Employment Relations Act, not the 14th.

I rise to speak to the commencement date of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I assure the Committee that the commencement date of this bill was not on the Prime Minister’s mind this morning when she opened the new Hague building at Napier Girls High School—I would like to congratulate the school on the opening of that fine new building. This commencement date was also certainly not on the mind of Prime Minister Helen Clark in 1995, when she gave a speech to the New Zealand Employers Federation conference. She said: “Labour knows the economy now is more competitive, innovative, and dynamic than the economy of 10 years ago. In fact, we would go so far as to suggest that a large part of that is due to the changes made by the last Labour Government.”

Let me assure members that the commencement date of this legislation was far from her mind at that point in time. She was talking about the Labour Government of the late 1980s and early 1990s that had the courage to plot a new track for this country, with the introduction of GST, the privatisation of public assets such as Telecom and Air New Zealand, the cutting of agricultural subsidies and trade barriers, and the control of inflation. The commencement date of the Employment Relations Bill, or the changes to employment relations legislation, are a long way away from those hurly-burly days of that Labour Government, which was looking to drive this country forward.

From that point in time, the National Government came in and launched the Employment Contracts Act in the early 1990s, which is where the present bill came from. The Employment Contracts Act has evolved into the Employment Relations Act of 2000, and into the 15th amendment of that Act going forward. This country has benefited hugely from the innovative policies of those early years, and has grown at an average rate of 3 percent since the 1990s—until now, when inflation is rampant, growth is stagnant, domestic debt has skyrocketed, and our balance of payments is dismal.

What is the Government doing about it? Well, we are debating the commencement date of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill right here and now. We are winding back the clock. The Government talks a big book on economic transformation—it talks a huge book. What are we doing about economic transformation? We are debating the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and its commencement date. Yes, this Government is winding back the clock.

Here is a quote from Ms Clark’s Speech from the Throne, last year: “My Government’s overall objective for the next three years is to continue New Zealand’s transformation to a dynamic, knowledge-based economy and society … . In the last six years my government has sought to lay the foundations for this transformation.” And what are we doing? We are debating the commencement date of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I ask members to tell me what that has to do with economic transformation.

💬 Hon Members: Nothing.

Not one iota. This Government talks a big book about Government transformation, and it introduces new laws. The commencement date we are discussing today is designed to protect certain categories of employees in restructuring situations. As we will see later on when we discuss different parts of the bill, when we get past the commencement date, we will be discussing particularly Subpart 2—how Labour has actually wound this in to include all employees. I am talking about Subpart 2, “Other employees”.

This Government is engaged in economic transformation, all right. It is economic transformation that is squeezing out innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, and kicking risk takers in the guts. And here we are debating the commencement date of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, which is seeking to kick entrepreneurs like Shane Jones in the guts. The bill is seeking to kick Mr Jones’ fishing businesses across the floor. Such employers depend on innovative business practices, on merging businesses, on changing the business to meet the market—entrepreneurial activities that will take this country forward. So here we are debating the Employment Relations Amendment Bill commencement date, which will do nothing to transform this country or improve its economic growth. This bill is a total waste of time.

I move, That the question be now put.