Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill

I was really looking forward to taking a call on the previous clause of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, but I will make do with this one. I think it is worth discussing exactly what we are amending, under clause 3, of the principal Act—that is, the Employment Relations Act. We are amending quite a significant part of the rights of employees under the Employment Relations Act. It sounds really simple and easy to say that there should be a secret ballot for strikes and we should put it in this amendment. We might ask who has a problem with it as it is about democracy, and so on, but I do not think that members opposite understand what this will involve, and the change and red tape and all sorts of—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Compliance.

Compliance—absolutely. The Hon Tau Henare did not speak on his Supplementary Order Paper 195, but it amended clause 2 and it goes on to make some other amendments. This bill will require unions to amend their rules because the principal Act, the Employment Relations Act, is being amended. Unions have to be registered under section 14 of the Employment Relations Act. They have to be registered as unions. There is a whole provision in the Act that says when they are entitled to be registered as unions. There are a whole lot of rules about them having to be democratic, not unreasonable, not unfairly discriminatory, not contrary to law, and, interestingly, independent and at arm’s length from employers. Yet here we have a provision to amend the principal Act that will allow employers to interfere in the democratic processes of unions.

Unions will have to change their rules. Because it has been a while since the member in the chair, Tau Henare, has been involved in unions, I do not think he understands the requirements of the Incorporated Societies Act and the provisions in the Employment Relations Act as to the requirements a union has to meet in order to change its rules. Unions have to get their members to approve those changes. For the union that I come from, the Service and Food Workers Union, it would involve something like 50 stopwork meetings throughout the country. That means arranging with employers for workers to be released, and that is not always easy. It is a cost on employers. It also means getting the workers to the meetings so that they are able to vote on the changes to the rules that this bill will require. This bill will require that unions change their rules so that there is a provision, as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 195, relating to the process for holding a secret ballot.

I think that unions could live with that. Certainly, I will have an amendment a bit later on that proposes that that is all this bill does. All this bill needs to do is amend the Employment Relations Act so that unions have to have in their rules a provision for holding secret ballots. Then the unions themselves, with their members, can decide in a democratic way what the process is. That is what all of the international conventions around freedom of association, and the whole tenor and support for freedom of association and collective bargaining under the Employment Relations Act, are about. It is about unions being independent of employers. It is about them being able to run their own business, just as employers’ organisations are able to. This bill will not require employer organisations or shareholders to amend their rules and go through the process that unions will be required to.

I think that when we talk about amending the principal Act everyone needs to understand what is being asked. We are imposing a whole lot of red tape not only on unions but also on employers. Employers will be affected by this because unions will have to go through a process of changing their rules, and in order for them to do that employers will have to comply. Employers will have to cooperate or the rules will not be able to be changed, and then over a period of time those unions will be in breach of the amended Act.

We oppose the bill for a whole lot of other reasons that we will get into a bit later.

I will take just a quick call on this particular clause, because it is at the heart of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill in terms of the principal—

💬 Grant Robertson: I’m not sure Jo wants you to take a call.

It is members’ day; that is why they call it such. I will just touch on what this particular clause is not. It was raised by Mr Burns in his call—

💬 Chris Hipkins: He gets a bit of a promotion and it goes straight to his head.

Oh, those members are nice to talk about it like that, are they not? It is just a list, guys. They should relax, unless they are in that member’s situation. In that case the member is a little less relaxed, would he not say?

This is what this clause is not about: it is not about compulsion, as Brendon Burns would have us believe. Indeed, he compared this with the voluntary student membership legislation. He said that somehow this legislation was about compulsion and that the voluntary student membership legislation was about choice, so we must be inconsistent. Well, I challenge that notion, because this bill is not about compulsion. Even the Labour members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee said this bill is about choice. They said it in their minority report, in which they said that “in New Zealand, union membership is voluntary and unions should be free to run their organisations according to the rules” that the members democratically put in place.

I will tell members what Labour members did not say, but what one of the unions came in and said. I cannot remember exactly which union it was, and I will not guess in case I get it wrong. The member in the chair, the Hon Tau Henare, may remember. When questioned about what would happen to a union member faced with a ballot that would not be secret, and about what choices that union member had in that situation, here is what that union said: “They’re free to resign. They can just go.”

The reason this is relevant is that this bill is exactly about protection. It is not about compulsion, and that is what the principal Act says. It says that the Employment Relations Act is “acknowledging and addressing”—these are Labour words, but in just this situation I agree with them—“the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships;”. I suggest that that inequality of power exists between unions and union members. It is exercised fairly in many cases, but I am sure that members on both sides of the Chamber have a number of examples of when union power was inappropriately used to muscle people into strike action against their judgment.

The member Tau Henare should be congratulated on bringing this bill to the House, because the inappropriate use of power happens altogether too often. [Interruption] There those members go—up. The halo on unions cannot be nudged. Well, I suggest that this bill is exactly what is needed in order to bring to the use of a secret ballot the very few, and not the very many, who use that power inappropriately. I strongly support the bill.

I will refer back just to what Michael Woodhouse was saying. I think one of the key things that he is missing about the Employment Relations Act 2000, which is the principal Act being amended by the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill put forward by Tau Henare, is that the whole principle behind the Employment Relations Act 2000 is one of good faith.

I think National has always—has always—struggled to come to terms with what “good faith” actually means, and one of the things that the bill does is to undermine that notion. It says that unions cannot be trusted. That is one of the key messages that regularly comes out of the National Government when it comes to dealing with unions—that the unions cannot be trusted—and that, therefore, the good-faith provisions do not mean anything.

Well, I think that the good-faith provisions do mean something and when it comes to dealing with secret ballots, I think that the unions, by and large, act in a way that exhibits good faith. They act in a manner that is transparent, they act in a manner that is accountable, and I think that there is absolutely no need for the bill whatsoever. In fact, questions will be raised later in the debate about whether the bill goes wide enough, and why, if we are to insist on this provision of secret ballots, employers should not have to have a secret ballot of their shareholders, for example. That is something we will canvass later on in the debate.

Ultimately, in a good-faith environment, the bill is totally unnecessary. In an environment where there is goodwill and good faith between employers and employees the bill is unnecessary and it undermines that. It undermines the central principle behind the Employment Relations Act 2000. Were the bill necessary and to be effective, one of the things it would do, for example, is guarantee unions the right to access in the workplace, so that they could conduct the secret ballot. Under the bill, where secret ballots are required, there is no guarantee that unions will in fact have access to the workplace. Oh, goodness me! I think we have just stepped off the reservation now.

I would really like the member in the chair, Sandra Goudie, to take a call and espouse what in her mind are the central principles behind the Employment Relations Act 2000, the principal Act that the bill amends. I think that members all around the Chamber—in fact, people all over the country—would love to hear Sandra Goudie’s opinions on the Employment Relations Act 2000. We know that Sandra Goudie embodies the views of the National Party when it comes to workers’ rights. She is absolutely dedicated to the National Party cause. I would like her to take the next call and explain to us why she believes that the bill furthers the principles of the Employment Relations Act 2000. I will happily go and get her a copy of the Employment Relations Act 2000 if she—

💬 Grant Robertson: That might be necessary.

I think it would require more than a copy of the Employment Relations Act 2000, actually, to get Sandra Goudie to produce something coherent. It would require an act of divine intervention to get a coherent call from Sandra Goudie, but we live in hope. We are optimists on this side of the House, and in fact I can see that Sandra Goudie has a copy of the bill. She is prepping up there—

💬 Grant Robertson: That’s a start.

That is a start. There is always hope. I would very much like to hear what Sandra Goudie has to say on this. If it is as lively as the contribution we had from the member in charge of the bill, Tau Henare, earlier on, it will be a sight to see. We would very much like to hear what members opposite have to say about the bill.

What we know is that the bill is the first of many amendments to the principal Act that will be coming if National is re-elected. Of course, those members will not tell anybody what those amendments will be. It will be just one of those things. John Key has gone out there and said: “Oh well, we want to make more changes. If we are re-elected, we will make more changes.” He will not say what they are, but what National will do is turn round after the election and say: “We have a mandate now. We have been re-elected. We said before the election that we would change it.” Therefore—

💬 Hon Member: No more kicking the tyres.

They have kicked the tyres. Therefore, they will make all of these extra changes to the Employment Relations Act 2000. This is the first of many. I am absolutely devastated that Sandra Goudie is leaving the chair and will not have the opportunity to contribute, although she could still take a call from her seat up on the backbenches and espouse to us why she believes that these changes to the principal Act, the Employment Relations Act 2000, are necessary.

The first thing I would like to do is commend Tau Henare for bringing the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill to the Committee. In speaking to clause 3, I say that the fantastic advantage of this amendment is that we further enhance protection for workers. Yes! That is absolutely critical. I think this is a brilliant member’s bill. Tau Henare should be congratulated. I know that workers will appreciate the fact that we are looking after their interests, and further enhancing their protection, by way of this bill.

A previous National speaker spoke about unions versus union members, which struck me as rather odd, because union members are the unions. They make up the unions. There are, of course, elected officials in unions. Perhaps the member was going to talk about union officials versus the members. But union officials are always elected by secret ballot. If any union official starts to kick the union members around, force them to go on strike, and beat down anyone who votes against a strike or anything like that, that union official would not last very long, particularly at the next secret ballot election.

When we look at the actual process in the workplace of deciding on a strike, we see the secret ballot is not primarily a protection against union members being pushed around by union officials but is a protection against union members being pushed around by their employers. Anyone who has been in a workplace knows that the fear of supporting a strike amongst workers is a fear about what their employer might think about their decision to vote to go on strike, not a fear of what union officials might think about whether they are voting for or against the proposal. Because there is usually a democratic atmosphere in the union, which the workers insist on, the officials accept people voting for and against a strike. But the employer gets rather upset, and makes that quite known to the workers, if they vote to go on strike. When the workers go back from the union meeting to the shop floor or whatever it might be, often the person who is in charge—the supervisor or somebody—will ask them about the meeting, how they voted, and all the rest of it. So the secret ballot is actually a protection of the workers against harassment from their supervisors and employers, not from union officials. That is a practicality of the workplace.

I support the amendments to the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill that are being put forward by Darien Fenton, although I am a little questioning of one provision that would require a secret ballot in every case of a strike, because, as I indicated in my first speech, sometimes that is impractical. That should be a rare exception, and in any big workplace, normal workplace, Public Service workplace, or whatever, a secret ballot is certainly practical and should be pretty universal—although I am not sure whether that universality should be prescribed in law.

There is another question relating to rules, and this is where the issue comes back to a provision in the Employment Relations Act. That Act is supposed to govern the relations between workers and unions, and employers organised in some form as employers. It is not supposed to be an Act to determine exactly how all employers will conduct their business, or how all unions will conduct their business. That is not the nature of that Act; it concerns the relations between two self-determining parties. This bill tries to say one of those parties is no longer self-determining, and it will prescribe exactly how that party is to function. Once we do that, we disrupt the balance between the unions on one side, and the employers on the other. We will give the employers the right, through pressure on the State or judicial process, to then say the other party, the union, is not abiding by this or that provision in terms of the conduct of the secret ballot. Someone can say that they have proof that so-and-so at 36 Lewis Street, Wadestown, or wherever it is, did not get a ballot paper in the mail and was not able to participate in the election, so therefore that ballot on a strike is illegal, and da-de-da-de-da. That just causes huge frustration amongst the workers concerned, who may have perhaps voted by 95 percent for some sort of strike action, but are hampered by the State getting involved in their union’s internal affairs.

I want to go back to what Chris Hipkins said—

💬 Hon Member: Who?

Hon TAU HENARE:—Hipkins—about the good-faith provisions in the parent Act, the Employment Relations Act. As far as I am concerned, good faith is nothing more than a Fabian notion of “we will tell you what to do.”—the lumpenproletariat. “We know best and we will tell you what to do, when and where, and we will tell you how to do it.” That is my little spiel on the good-faith provisions in the Act.

But here is something for Keith Locke to think about. What he should do is put away Nicky Hager’s book, stop reading it, and stop thinking that there is a conspiracy around every corner. There might be something around every corner, but it is not a conspiracy. It is not a conspiracy. Look, Keith Locke is a nice man. Keith Locke is one of New Zealand’s genuine nice men—I want to put that out there.

But—but—unions and workers are two different things. In my experience—and I know I have been referred to as the worst union organiser ever, and blah de blah. In fact, we have spent 2 hours listening to personal attacks on me and my career. But that is OK, because every member from that side of the Chamber has mentioned my name, and that is all right. The good people of Te Atatū are hearing that, as well.

Unions are organisations. Union officials are nothing more than people who grab subs from their union members and give them to the Labour Party—and give them to the Labour Party. Here is something I ask Keith Locke and anybody else who wants to butt in with their beautiful pearls of wisdom: how many workers are ever asked whether they mind their union taking $2 a week off them so that it can give $1 out of that $2 to the Labour Party?

💬 Darien Fenton: It’s not true.

Oh, it is not true! It is not true! That is what Darien Fenton says. That is what Carol Beaumont says—that it is not true. Well, how is it that the Service and Food Workers Union can give 200K to the Labour Party for the election? Where does that money come from? That is $200,000-odd.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Where’s your money coming from?

I know where my money comes from. In fact, in Te Atatū it comes from the hard-working people who belong to the National Party. They want to give me five bucks or $10.

💬 Phil Twyford: He hasn’t got any volunteers.

Oh, let us see. I saw this fella have a meeting the other night. His kaupapa was the busway out in Te Atatū. Who did he have at his meeting? Eleven people.

But I digress. One of them was one of my members! But I digress; I do not want to go there. The fact of the matter is that everybody needs insurance, whether or not we have an earthquake, and whether or not we have stand-over tactics.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill without amendment and progress on the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.