Estimates Debate — Vote Labour

One of the extraordinary features that we have seen over the last few weeks is the panic that has beset the union movement and the Labour Party. Certainly, the Minister of Labour speaks from the unions’ play card whenever he speaks. Frankly, I am quite—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The suggestion that outside people dictate our actions, in the way that the member has just suggested, has long been ruled out of order. I think anyone who knows my relationship with the union movement knows that it is absolutely untrue.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That was the suggestion that the speaker was implying. Would you withdraw it, please.

I withdraw. I can only say that there was a remarkable similarity between the press release sent out by the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union and the words used by the Minister. I guess readers will draw their own conclusions from that.

I have to say that when the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill was introduced, Mr Little debated the issue quite responsibly, and was quite considered and deliberate. But now that we are much closer to an election, and his union has been registered as supporting Labour—that is why it has been registered; for being an affiliate of the Labour Party—panic has set in. Extravagant language is being used by him.

But I want to remind members what this is all about. National’s proposal was actually about boosting employment opportunities. The one thing that small-business people want—and this is what their working party has been saying to the Government—is more flexibility so that they can employ more people. What does the Government say? It says that it could not possibly do that. Do members know the ridiculous position that the Government has got itself into? It has got itself into the position of saying it wants to be the only OECD country that does not have any form of probation period. Members of the Government scream out from the top of their lungs that a probation period would be like having the ability to fire at will. Does the Minister of Labour seriously believe that the Scandinavian countries—so beloved by this Government—would actually have such a policy? No, they do not.

I suggest to the Minister that he looks at the bill and, indeed, the amendments in the bill as it was reported back in 2006. We understand that we have to be fair to people. We proposed that if there were a breakdown in the relationship in those 90 days, there would be mediation. The cant and the untruths being spoken by various people in relation to sexual harassment and so forth are simply completely false. No one would suggest taking away people’s procedural rights, under either the Human Rights Act or, indeed, employment legislation, on such fundamental human rights.

We know that Labour is desperate when it throws up spurious arguments that suggest that National has some terrible agenda, even though the Norwegians, the Swedes, the Danes, and, indeed, the Finns find our proposal perfectly reasonable. Those social democrat countries, which are beloved of Labour, find our approach perfectly reasonable. I say to the Government that it should take a lesson from the countries that it is always holding up in this House, and elsewhere in the nation, as an example and adopt best practice, because those countries have faster growth rates and higher levels of prosperity and skill than New Zealand does. One of the ways they do that is through more flexible and appropriate labour law.

I guess the Government is a little bit like the mother looking at her young son marching with others in the army, and saying: “You know, Johnny is the only one in step.” Is that not exactly the case with this Government? We are apparently the only country amongst the 30 members of the OECD that has got it right. How can the Minister seriously suggest that to the public of New Zealand? How can he seriously expect New Zealanders to take that as a legitimate proposition?

Editorials in the newspapers view our policy as a very sensible and reasonable measure. We chose 90 days precisely because it was a reasonable measure. I say to New Zealanders that National’s employment relations policy is reasonable and considered. National understands that the majority of people do not want to return to the Employment Contracts Act. We understand that the way to deal with the next 10 years is not to look back 20 years, but to look forward and to follow best practice. We understand that some rebalancing was done with the Employment Relations Act. We understand that that took place in the year 2000. The Employment Relations Act has been reasonably effective. We do not want to throw out all of that work. However, we do want to improve it. Is Labour seriously suggesting to the nation that its employment law is as good as it gets, and that we are the only country amongst the 30 advanced economies that should not legislate for a reasonable probation period? And I have to say that a probation period of 90 days is at the shorter end of the scale.

I say to the Minister of Labour and to Andrew Little that they should calm down. I know that an election is only a few weeks away, and that they are getting desperate—hence the hyperventilating in the press releases; hence the hyperventilating by the Minister when he is on his feet in this Chamber—but they should take a step backwards, because the scaremongering and hysterical language are seen for what they are, which are indicators of a Government in panic. I guess when one is 20 points behind in the polls one might panic. But if the Government wanted to do itself a favour, it would show a certain amount of coolness under fire—something that it is unable to do. Panic is the byword, and the public will see through that.

The public will see that National’s policy is balanced, it is reasonable, and it takes a fair approach to the interests of employers and the interests of employees. It builds on the better features of the Employment Relations Act. I concede that some features of the Employment Relations Act are acceptable. That is why we are not proposing a repeal. We are not suggesting that we should go back 20 years for solutions. That is the Labour way. Labour always looks back to the past. It thinks it can win the election by saying that the public of New Zealand need to think about what things were like 18 years ago—that that is the future of New Zealand. Well, the public are not fools. They know that our policies are balanced and reasonable. One has only to look across the range of our policies to see that we understand what New Zealanders have voted for over the past 9 years, what they have embraced, and what we need to go forward. We understand that things are progressive. [Interruption] I say to the member who is trying to interject, Mr Burton—who I guess will have some time next year to contemplate his retirement—that New Zealanders can recognise balanced, reasonable policies that fit within the broad spectrum of the OECD.

When a country is at 22 in the list of OECD countries it has to do some things to get itself up the scale—things that make employment opportunities more efficient and more effective. Our policies will do precisely that. National members are looking forward to the contest. It might be one that is causing a certain amount of angst amongst Labour and its allies in the unions, like the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, at this time, but the truth is that I trust New Zealanders to take a reasonable and considered approach to our policies, and to look forward to the next 10 years. People know that we have to do better than sit at No. 22 in the OECD, and that the only way we can improve vis-à-vis Australia is to have a balanced approach to employment relations policy, and, indeed, to a whole range of policies. Unlike the Government, we are looking forward to the next 10 years for this nation.

We now know the words that Crosby/Textor has given to the National Party to use for its industrial relations policy—“fair and reasonable”. How many times did Dr Mapp feel forced to say those words in that 5-minute speech—that tirade about how terrible things are in industrial relations here in New Zealand. Well, look—all New Zealanders know, I tell Dr Mapp, that peace has broken out in industrial relations in New Zealand under Labour. Not only have we had the most peaceful workplaces we have had for a long time in this country under Labour, and the fairest workplaces we have had for a long time, but we have also managed to bring the unemployment rate down to the second lowest in the OECD. When the member talks about Labour and industrial relations, he is taking his words from Crosby/Textor and talking about “fair and reasonable” as often as he can. But how fair and reasonable can it be to take away workers’ rights in the most vulnerable time of their employment, which is the first 90 days of employment?

Oh, but National will do that only for small businesses. Well, I do not know whether National members have spoken lately to any people who operate small businesses around the country, but they must be completely out of touch, because, when I talk to those people, can members guess what they say their No. 1 problem is? Their No. 1 problem is getting skilled staff to apply for their jobs. I ask Dr Mapp whether that is right. Their No. 1 problem is getting skilled staff for their jobs. But under National’s policy—guess what? Can members guess what will happen under National’s policy? People who are skilled will determine not to apply for jobs with small employers, because they will know that under National they will lose all their employment rights for the first 90 days. That is National’s big plan to help out small businesses, but it will take those businesses further backwards. How out of touch is that? It is not only out of touch with what small businesses need but also out of touch with New Zealanders and their understanding of fairness and reasonableness. They know that a business having the right to sack workers for no reason at all—for any reason, or for no reason at all—during the first 90 days, is not the New Zealand way, I tell Dr Mapp. It is not fair, it is not reasonable, and New Zealanders do not want that type of unfairness in their workplace.

What New Zealand workplaces have thrived on is the types of fair policies that have been brought in under this Labour Government, the ones that we are continuing to bring in, and the ones we are still looking for, such as making sure that workers actually get their legal entitlement to have meal breaks and rest periods, and that they are also able to breast-feed in the workplace. These are the sorts of progressive polices that workers and employers are looking for in their workplaces—not those old-style, “take away workers’ rights” policies that have always been the National Party’s view of how productivity is driven up. Last time National was in power, it thought the way to increase productivity was to drive up unemployment. That was its plan for increasing productivity, and it put a wage freeze on in this country. That is in fact what happened during the 1990s. I used to represent low-paid workers whose wages went down over the course of the 1990s, because the National Government took their penal rates away. The penal rates of low-paid women workers were taken away by National.

Those are just the tired, old, worn-out policies that that party is bringing back. National will take away workers’ rights and reduce their incomes, all in the name, perhaps, of pretending to increase productivity. Well, we have been there before, we know what it looks like, and New Zealand workers and workplaces do not want it. And small businesses do not want to get into a position where no one will apply for their jobs because those workers are so concerned about being sacked for no reason at all in the first 90 days.

A party vote was called for on the question that Vote Labour be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 49

New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland.

Abstentions 9

Green Party 5; Māori Party 4.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In relation to the vote that was just recorded for Gordon Copeland, I tell the Committee that Labour holds the proxy vote for Mr Copeland on this legislation.

This is a very serious matter, because on a confidence vote if a vote has been cast directly against the wish of the member by a member who has no right to cast it, I think it could well be a matter of privilege. I think we need a very quick apology in order for that not to occur.

I withdraw the vote recorded for Gordon Copeland, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you, Mr Groser. Is someone going to speak for Gordon Copeland?

One vote in favour.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): One vote in favour.