Financial Review Debate — Department of Labour

I think next week brings to fruition the changes that were being considered during the period of the financial review of the Department of Labour. On 1 April there will be many changes for New Zealand workers. While this House is adjourned, New Zealand will go backwards. This Government has no plan other than to attack workers’ rights and take their rights away from them in a pathetic attempt to try to prove to the rest of the country that it actually has a plan.

Next week on 1 April the “90 Day No Rights (Fire at Will) Employment Bill” brought in by the Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson, will become law for every worker in New Zealand. Every worker in New Zealand when they change jobs from next week, 1 April, will be subject to a period where they have absolutely no rights. If dismissed, they will have no right to ask why they have been dismissed and no right to challenge that dismissal. This measure has been put forward by the Minister as some kind of economic plan, some kind of reason, to take the country forward. Government members are so out of touch with this country that they have no idea. Ordinary Kiwis who are struggling to make ends meet will simply find that this makes their lives harder. It will make things worse, not better. National members have forgotten how to talk to ordinary people and their families.

During this period—and everybody knows this has been a very heated debate in the Chamber, and it will continue to be a heated debate—Labour members have been going out and talking to ordinary people. What they are telling us is that this Government is not working for them and their families, but for its mates and foreign interests. We had a ridiculous situation where the Minister claimed, from a very, very unsupportable report from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, that 13,000 new jobs were created under the 90-day no-rights trial period for workplaces of fewer than 20 employees. When we look at the research and unpick it, we see that that is simply ridiculous. The Government took one statistical period and said that it must be an indicator, somehow, that small businesses are creating more jobs, because there was a difference between workplaces with fewer than 20 workers and workplaces with more than 20 workers. The Government did not take into account any other things that were happening at the time, such as assistance that was being targeted at small business, other stimulus measures that could have assisted small business, and upheaval in the economy. When the Minister makes claims about the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report and says that 13,000 jobs were created, well, certainly, I will look forward, and Labour will look forward, to seeing the creation of a huge number of jobs. National members claim that when their policy is applied in all workplaces we will see suddenly see many more jobs created throughout New Zealand. It is a very weak argument.

In addition to that, during this financial review period we have seen other changes to labour laws. There have been many, but I want to concentrate on a few. One of them is the denial of union access to workplaces. Union representatives now have to ask permission from an employer, and wait up to 2 days for it to be granted. Apparently, it cannot be unreasonably withheld. I am really interested—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Sounds oppressive to me.

That is right, particularly in light of recent events: the awful situation in Christchurch and the Pike River Coal mine. I am really interested in the proposal that was taken to Cabinet last year where the Minister’s department said that this consent should not have to be applied for when it involves the health and safety of union members. That advice was taken by the Minister to Cabinet—it was from her department. I want to know what happened to it, because it never turned up in the bill. I think that she will live to regret the decision that union representatives will have to wait up to 2 days to get consent to enter a workplace, particularly when it is in regard to health and safety matters.

Then there are, of course, the other things that have happened in this period, like the so-called law change from The Hobbit. The Hobbit law change was absolutely disgraceful. This Government was completely run over by—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Hollywood welfare.

—that is right—multinational interests. It was terrified by the film makers of America, who came here and threatened to remove their industry. It was never about the actors’ union. It was always about a multinational company trying to dictate to New Zealand what employment rights should be in this country. What happened in that debate and in that law change is that a whole category of workers—not just actors, but cleaners, drivers, and catering workers, anyone who works in the film and video production industry—no longer have rights as employees. They no longer have the right to challenge the fact that they can be employed without rights under the Employment Relations Act. That is what has happened. Mr Macindoe should not look puzzled.

💬 Tim Macindoe: You know that’s nonsense.

No—of course it is true. It makes Labour extremely worried about who will be the next category of workers on the list.

Then, of course, next week, on 1 April, the changes to the Holidays Act come into force. We have a country where workers are working longer hours than ever. In fact, productivity has gone up because they are working longer hours than ever and getting paid less, not because we have improved productivity, and the Government is saying we should reduce their rights to holidays, not increase them.

The other thing that happened during the last period of the financial review was the meals and rest breaks legislation. Do members remember that? Do members remember those dreadful air traffic controllers who were so unreasonable about the fact that we had a meals and rest breaks law that said they were entitled to a break after 8 hours and after 4 hours? It was so unreasonable, according to this Government, that the whole country had to be stopped, so a law had to be rushed into Parliament—and where is it now? Where is the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill? I think it is about No. 16 on the Order Paper. I would like to know from the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, what happened to that legislation. A year and a half ago it was so urgent that the Government had to remove from the whole country all the rights to meals and rest breaks, and water the legislation down so much because of those dreadful air traffic controllers. Well, something happened, obviously. Of course, it could be negotiated, which was always the intention of that bill, and it is now way down the track.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: They don’t believe in negotiation.

No, that is true. Now it is right down the bottom of the Order Paper.

The other thing that has happened in this period, and it is mentioned in the financial report, is the situation of the IDEA Services workers. For the last 3 or 4 years they have appeared before three courts, including the Court of Appeal where the Government joined the appeal to try to stop them from getting the minimum wage for working overnight looking after our most vulnerable citizens. Three courts have now said that they are right, it is work, and they should be paid the minimum wage. What has the Government done? Absolutely nothing. We called on the Government to sit down and negotiate with the stakeholders, with the union, and with others who are completely willing to find a durable solution to this issue. The Government has done nothing. Instead, we now have IHC going to the Supreme Court and wasting money that it does not have, money that was allocated by the Government for the care of vulnerable people. It is treating workers absolutely like rubbish. Here we go—yet another group of low-paid workers will have to put up with this for the next little while.

Then, finally, the minimum wage rises by 25c an hour next week. The Minister’s own advice was 25c an hour, but 50c an hour was affordable. The Government could have done that. It could have put up the minimum wage to $13.50 an hour. Actually, the Government could have put up the minimum wage by 75c an hour. It was affordable; that was the Minister’s advice. It is not about losing jobs; it is about jobs that might be created. It would have had negligible impact on employment. The Minister’s own department’s advice was that that 25c an hour is no increase at all. It is not an increase in real terms. It is insulting. Those workers are trying to make ends meet, along with everybody else. It just shows how completely out of touch this Government is. Labour will give everybody a fair go. We will make sure people will pay their fair share.

I would like to talk about being out of touch, because last October I happened to be in Seoul, South Korea when the news of the objections by New Zealand unions to filming The Hobbit went on BBC World News. Some people from the United Kingdom came to me and said: “What on earth are New Zealand trade unions doing, objecting to one of the largest film productions ever made in New Zealand, or around the world for that matter, by the same director who put New Zealand on the world map with three fantastic movies that ended up scooping a whole wedge of Oscars? What on earth are New Zealand trade unions doing undermining that sort of thing?”. I had to say I had no idea but I trusted the National Government to come in and fix it. That is exactly what it did. I am absolutely delighted and proud to be part of a Government that puts pragmatism ahead of principle, every time.

If there is anything that separates National and Labour, it is industrial relations. I am absolutely delighted to stand up and defend the changes that have been made by this Government, in respect of both the Employment Relations Act and the Holidays Act. Let me start with the simple premise that employees know what is best for them, and they can go to their employer and say: “You know what? I’ve got that fourth week’s holiday, but I want to cash it up. I’ve got a few bills to pay.” Somehow that represents the sort of “can’t think for themselves” mentality that Labour wants to continue to promote. It absolutely defies belief. But the thing that really, really gets me the most is the fact that Labour members are not prepared to give the marginalised, the young, and the very old the opportunity to demonstrate to employers that they are worth giving a go. We changed the legislation so that small employers could do that. What happened? It was a fantastic success. So what did we do? We extended that out to all employers. I think that will see the handbrake on productivity in this country finally come off. The legislation comes into effect in a couple of weeks, and I think we should stand by because it will be one of the things that will get this economy going. The other thing that employers have been saying to us for years is that the Holidays Act is impossible to manage. In fact, as an employer prior to the last election I shared that view. The one thing we needed to get rid of was the terrible relevant daily pay basis for calculating pay for leave taken, which absolutely undermined the Holidays Act. We have done that. Frankly, I think we can do a little bit better with that, but this is a journey and I know that the Minister of Labour has that under control.

But the one thing that comes within the purview of the Department of Labour that I want to talk about, and the thing that the public of this country still wait to hear from the previous Labour Government, is the apology it owes the public for its absolutely woeful performance on ACC. The Department of Labour oversees Vote ACC on behalf of the Crown, and the public of New Zealand is still waiting. We were delighted to hear that the turn-round that was required has been achieved with a substantial accounting surplus at least, if that does not translate to a cash surplus. That follows 2 successive years when, firstly, a $2.4 billion deficit was signed off as accurate by the previous Minister for ACC, Maryan Street, followed hard on its heels by a $4.8 billion deficit, and a blowout in the unfunded liability from about $11 billion, before the rot set in in 2005, to—

💬 Chris Hipkins: They collected $1 billion more than they paid out last year and $2 billion more than they paid out this year.

You see, that is another classic example of how completely ignorant the Opposition spokesman for ACC is on the way in which the scheme works. Labour supports full funding, but does not want to recognise when the books are absolutely in deficit.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Those are the facts: $2 billion more than they spent. The global financial crisis is a short-term setback.

Denial—there it is. You see, we did not have a problem. Apparently there is money in the bank, so that is all right. It is a bit like saying: “I’ve got $10,000 in the bank and a $500,000 mortgage, so everything’s fine. If I don’t bring home the bacon, I’m OK.” It is like jumping out of a plane from 50,000 feet and saying that everything is all right, 100 metres off the ground. No parachute, but it is going to hurt in time.

💬 Chris Hipkins: The investments recovered ACC’s financial position.

You see, it is the investment problem now. Let me tell the member that the rot set in a long time before the global financial crisis set in. I am absolutely proud of the turn-round this Government has put in place for Vote ACC. Congratulations to the Department of Labour on its role in the oversight that that has produced. Long may that continue, and with that spokesman, I have no doubt that it will.

Report noted.

Department of Building and Housing

Report noted.

Department of Internal Affairs