Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill.

Before I talk about this bill I just want to take an opportunity to acknowledge the contribution made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters during that last debate. I did not get an opportunity to participate in the fun. My colleagues will probably frown at me over this, but, whatever you want to say about Winston Peters, he at least knows what he believes in, he knows what he stands for, and he comes here to the House and defends it. So good on him. My colleagues will probably frown at me for that comment, but I did not get the opportunity to participate in the fun earlier in the night.

On this bill, the National Party has a strong tradition of supporting employment relations policies that bring greater fairness, freedom, and flexibility to the employment relations framework. [Interruption] You can hear the union lackeys across the road, shouting and screaming, because that is all they are here for. But this is what the National Party believes in. It is in exactly that same vein that I give this speech and support this bill here in the House today. A flexible and fair labour market is critical for building a stronger and more competitive economy and creating jobs. If the Opposition actually cared about workers and cared about jobs, then it would be supporting this bill because it is absolutely pro-worker. A fair and flexible labour market helps to increase wages and encourage innovation. It does not matter how much the Opposition shouts about it; that is the absolute truth.

This bill is very simple. It has only one substantive clause. Clause 4 repeals the current section 97 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Section 97, as it stands, is a heavy-handed piece of law, which creates an imbalance by providing unions with a significant legislative advantage during negotiations. If this bill successfully navigates its way through the parliamentary process, it will bring a better balance to employment relations law in New Zealand. It will bring a better balance to ensure that those who wish to work are actually able to do that. Those who wish to offer their labour in the employ of an organisation—simply trying to make ends meet and make a business work—would be able to do so. There are some very real—

💬 Andrew Little: What about those who want to get wages and want to negotiate?

Andrew Little over there failed so many times to win a seat. All he is good for is coming here to yell and scream on behalf of the Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, which he was here to represent. He did not do a particularly good job when he was the union’s president, so he comes here to yell and scream.

There are some real reasons why section 97 of the Employment Relations Act is a bad piece of law. Section 97 removed the right for employers to bring in outside labour, including volunteers, during strikes or lockouts to maintain business continuity. It allowed unions to hold employers to ransom by being able to make unreasonable demands, knowing that if they strike, an employer would struggle to keep their operations running. This particularly affects the primary production industry because reduced or no production in a factory could mean millions of dollars a day in lost or wasted products. The restrictions of section 97 can lead to considerable lost productivity, an increased risk of protracted disputes, and considerable impact on the financial position of a business and its employees. It also removed the right for employers to test the market to determine whether a union’s demands are even fair or reasonable. Ultimately, though, section 97 moved the balance too far in favour of unions and employees. It introduced a law that even competitors in other countries do not have to comply with.

Removing the current restrictions placed on employers preventing them from engaging temporary employees will allow an organisation to maintain business continuity and avoid costly, drawn-out industrial action. But, more important, if a willing worker wants to work during a strike, this removal of section 97 would give them the freedom to choose to do that if they wanted to. It is a freedom that this House should be supporting. I realise that it might be a foreign concept to our friends in the Labour Party, but if a willing worker and a willing employer want to enter into an agreement—an employment relationship—they should be able to do so. At the moment, section 97 restricts an employee and an employer from doing that during a strike. The current law does not allow someone to choose to work during a strike unless they were employed prior to the strike commencing.

This is not a new concept. This is not something that was dreamed up recently—you know, a couple of days ago—or anything like that. Actually, allowing people who want to work during a strike was always an option under New Zealand law, except for the past 12 years. Although New Zealanders have had industrial relations legislation for over 100 years, there has never been an equivalent to section 97, including laws passed by the first, the second, the third, and the fourth Labour Governments. Those four Labour Governments never saw fit to pass such a heavy-handed law. It was not until the fifth Labour Government—heavily influenced by the unions, heavily influenced by people shouting and screaming like Andrew Little—that such a heavy-handed piece of legislation was passed. It was a substantial change to New Zealand’s labour laws. It was very much a change that was ideological and union-driven. Until 2000 employers always had the right to engage temporary replacement labour during strikes. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

They do not like hearing the truth, Mr Assistant Speaker, but that is the fact of the situation. I am sure that Labour will try to spin it a certain way, but the reality is that the people most affected by section 97 are those who want to work, those who want to offer their services during a strike. They are the ones who should be given the flexibility to choose to work if they want to. Low-paid employees are the people who are the most in need of regular earnings. If a small change to the Employment Relations Act means that the likelihood of strike action or long-drawn-out strikes is reduced, then we are doing a huge amount to help those people, the lowest-paid workers, because they will be able to keep working if they want to.

I also think it is worth remembering that the number of union members in this country who benefit from the protections of section 97 is very low. Union membership in the private sector currently sits at about 8 to 9 percent. They are the only workers who benefit from section 97. Given that only a union may negotiate a collective agreement, and only during the negotiations for a collective agreement can a strike take place, the protections of section 97 are there for only a small minority. The other 90 percent of workers in the private sector who are not union members are restricted and have their rights taken away from them if they want to work during a strike.

💬 Andrew Little: Their wages are going down.

That is the problem, Opposition members. The problem is that section 97, which you were defending so heavily, actually restricts the ability for people who want to work to be able to take that option to do so.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: That’s a very simple argument.

The arguments put forward by Labour and the left in the lead-up to this debate have been very inaccurate and bordering on scaremongering. Calling it anti-worker, calling it the “Scab Bill”, as has been the case, is just demeaning of hard-working New Zealanders. It does nothing but paint the Opposition as ideological and unreasonable. What is unreasonable about allowing people to choose to work if they want to? Nothing is unreasonable about it.

During the debate on the Employment Relations Bill in 2000 a number of members highlighted the problems that they saw would be created by this provision. I think Peter Brown of New Zealand First actually summed it up the best when he said that section 97 “has the potential for a few employees to, in some circumstances, hold the employer, the industry, and sometimes the country, to ransom until their demands are met.” I think Mr Brown put it so very well when he was debating the legislation. There are real examples of this happening across the country—real examples where workers are not able to work if they want to. I do not want to go into individual disputes because that means we just end up debating the merits of the different negotiations.

💬 Andrew Little: Because you haven’t got any examples.

But there are real examples where an employee and an employer want to have people working but simply are not able to do that. There are real examples where negotiations have led to a situation where long-drawn-out strikes have led to a huge amount of lost productivity, a huge amount of inaction in a business, and that affects thousands and thousands of people. It is not just the people who are on strike. It is not just the shareholders of an organisation who are affected. Anyone who has any sort of relationship with an organisation—whether it be family members or whether it be other people who get their goods and services through a business—they are all impacted by a long-drawn-out strike. If we can have a change to the legislation that reduces the likelihood of long-drawn-out strikes, that means people can work if they want to, and that means that businesses can continue to be productive and keep their businesses going if they want to, then that can only be good for New Zealand and can only be good for workers. If the Opposition cared about jobs, if it cared about the economy, it would be supporting this bill.

That was the voice of the dumb and the stupid. That was the voice of the fascist National Party, which is just getting worse and worse. Just at a time when the rest of us thought in our more objective moments that National was modernising, refreshing, and beginning to look like a party of the 21st century, even though Chris Auchinvole is going now, it trots out Jami-Lee Ross, who is now the modern face, the modern look, of William Massey, of Sid Holland, and of Bill Birch. National members cannot let their history go. They cannot shake their heritage off them, and they trot out a silly bill like this, the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill.

You know, to look at the explanatory note of this bill and to hear Jami-Lee Ross, you would think that the Employment Relations Act had nothing to say about employers. The truth about section 97 is that it applies as much to employers as it does to workers who belong to unions. It applies to employers and to workers and their unions. It does not apply just to strikes; it applies to the employers’ weapon of choice when it comes to industrial action—the lockout. Any employer dealing with a union that does not want to continue or that thinks it has reached an impasse can lock those workers out. Without section 97, an employer can not only lock those workers out, stop paying them, and starve them into submission but also employ a replacement workforce. Without section 97, the Employment Relations Act would be so imbalanced, so unfair, that the Government would have to trot off to Geneva to defend itself to the International Labour Organization. But, most important, it would cause egregious harm to working New Zealanders.

Jami-Lee Ross does not care about that. The National Party does not care about working New Zealanders—never has; never will. National members look back 100 years ago and lament the good old days of William Massey and Massey’s Cossacks, and the horses trotting down Featherston Street—the old farmers and the naval reservists with batons in their hands, ready to beat the workers into a pulp. That is the National Party that Jami-Lee Ross now represents. That is the National Party of the future, and Simon Bridges is not far behind. That is what National wants. National members have never cared about workers. Most important, they do not care about workers’ rights.

Here is the thing about this: the right to belong to a union is an inherent and fundamental right. The right to withdraw your labour as part of collective action is an inherent right. It does not have to be justified on commercial or business grounds. That is the nature of workers’ rights and of human rights. Human rights do not have to be justified on the grounds that they add flexibility or they add profit. They stand on their own and they do not have to be defended. The right to belong to a union does not have to be defended for any other reason than it is the free choice of workers. The right to withdraw your labour along with your workmates does not have to be defended on any other basis than it is your inherent right to do so. This bill is about making it harder, if not impossible.

Let me tell this to that member who is barely out of shorts, because he has not been around long enough to understand the real life of working people. Let me tell him and the House this: when workers do choose to take strike action, they do not take that decision in any cavalier fashion. It is a very considered, very cautious decision, because you know what? When you go on strike, you lose pay, as well. It does not just inflict economic harm on the employer; it puts real pressure on workers and their families.

That party, the National Party, is the party of condescending, patronising attitudes towards working New Zealanders. National members have nothing to say about lifting wages and incomes in this country. Their heads all go down because they know that this country is getting poorer. They know that working New Zealanders are getting poorer by the day because National has got nothing for them. National has got nothing to add—

💬 Tim Macindoe: That’s not what the stats tell us.

Tim Macindoe is the worst. He has nothing to say to Hamilton workers about how to lift their wages or how to make their lives better. He has nothing to say to Hamilton workers about how to make working life pleasant, more productive, and better for both workers and the employer. He has nothing to say, at all.

National is about owning workers. National is about possessing workers. National is about traducing their rights, because National has no respect. This bill is just another mark to reflect this trashy, dodgy, nasty, ugly National Government, and the sooner it is gone, the better.

I just want to apologise to the members of the public who were listening to that last speech. Andrew Little is actually a very fine member of our Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and he is somebody who does work well.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: He’s not.

No, no, Jami-Lee Ross; he is a good man, and I think he got a bit too passionate in his speech and said a lot of things there that just were not the case. It was just sad. The next speaker from the Labour Party, I am sure, will have a more moderate approach to it, I would imagine.

This bill, the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill, was put forward by Mr Jami-Lee Ross, who is a fine member of Parliament who represents a great area of New Zealand. He has done a great job in his seat. This bill is part of the vision he sees for New Zealand. It is a vision in which he sees all New Zealanders having rights and responsibilities, where there are those choices for people, and where people are not being restricted and told what to do. It is that freedom of choice that underlies this bill that is really what Jami-Lee Ross is trying to promote tonight—that freedom of choice to work, that freedom of choice as an employer to keep the business going, and that freedom of choice of parties to come to a sensible arrangement and to work together for the best interests of each and every party in an employment relationship.

An employment relationship is a give and take matter. There is a lot of give and take required on both sides, and I think that in a lot of cases we undervalue the role the unions play and the important role that they play in actually working towards making that relationship a very strong one. But although we say that, there is also the need for some choice and some freedoms and for the ability for employers to work towards keeping their businesses going.

I think that in a situation where there is a business that is very difficult in the sense that you cannot stop or start it, a business that relies on, say, something that may be perishable or that needs to be distributed in a very short period of time, there could be a context where the employment relationship has broken down but there is also a product that still needs to be delivered, a product that still needs to be manufactured, and jobs that still need to be done. I guess that this bill is an attempt to give that balance so that that production, that process, can still be maintained and can go through at the same time as the parties try to work out their disagreement around their employment relationship.

I think that everybody in this room would accept that situation and would want that to be the case. They would not want the productive heart of New Zealand, for example—or something that is very much needed for personal survival or health or something like that—to fall down because there was a breach in the employment relationship. So I think that that is a big part of this bill and where this bill can actually help in providing a more sustained economic environment in New Zealand.

We have had comments made by the Opposition that National members do not care and that we are against the rights of unions and workers. That simply is not the case, and those comments are made out of context and are an attempt to cloud this bill. They are not done in a genuine way. It is very sad that the Opposition has resorted to that kind of politics in regard to this bill. [Bell rung] I will not sit down this time; I will keep going, just for your benefit. [Interruption] Yes, I have been here for 5 minutes.

But speaking of 5 minutes—members over there are smiling away—Winston Peters was not so chipper about 5 minutes ago when his bill got slammed, was he? And now his whole party has left him. [Interruption] Oh no, I will say something nice about him, because, you know, there will be a situation where New Zealand First will want this bill. The day when Brendan Horan runs out and Andrew Williams goes with him, New Zealand First will need this bill, so it is in Winston Peters’ self-interest to vote for this bill. That is enough for him to vote for it, generally, so we would expect him to vote for it. I would like to commend Jami-Lee Ross for bringing this bill forward to the House and for doing a great job. Thank you.

I am going to take a brief call on this Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill because it is a bill that no one wants. It is not needed. It is not justified. Even that icon of left-wing business management, the Employers and Manufacturers Association of Auckland, what did it say? It said that it is a bridge too far. This bill could be divisive. Simon Bridges, the Minister of Labour, was very dodgy about it. When he was asked about it, he did not want to say that he supported it, and nor did John Key, actually. In the end John Key was kind of embarrassed into saying “Oh, well, maybe we will support it to select committee.”

Everybody knows that this bill is not needed or justified. The rate of strikes in New Zealand is the lowest it has ever been. This Government is already attacking workers’ rights to strike. That Minister of Labour’s Employment Relations Amendment Bill has a whole lot of attacks on strikes, which is going to make it so much harder for workers. This is a stupid and silly bill. It is a waste of time. I am disappointed that the young member for Botany could not come up with something a little bit more worthwhile and productive in his first member’s bill. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. We will be opposing this Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill. It is draconian, basically. It plays into the Government’s hysterical anti-worker and anti-union agenda. We saw an example of that this afternoon with Minister Finlayson referring to Actors Equity representatives as union thugs. He referred to Jennifer Ward-Lealand and Robyn Malcolm as union thugs. That is the type of attitude that is purveyed by this type of bill.

This bill breaks international treaties, and it is part of the ongoing attacks on workers that this Government is perpetrating. It is designed to overturn the Employment Court’s ruling during the Ports of Auckland dispute, where the union won in court when the Ports of Auckland management basically tried to contract out the Maritime Union workers’ jobs while they were locked out during an industrial dispute. It is another go at trying to change the law once a law case has been won. This Government is incorrigible in the way it is treating workers.

This bill sets us back to Dickensian times where workers are supposed to be grateful for a job, for anything they can get, and to be kept in heel at all times. It sets up an environment that actively encourages employers to be hostile and negative towards their employees. This bill is unnecessary. There have been very few industrial disputes over the last couple of years, so this bill wants to crack a nut with a sledgehammer. It is ridiculous. We will be opposing it.

We have to say at the very outset in New Zealand First that we have great sympathy for Jami-Lee Ross and for some of the people who are behind this legislation, the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill, outside of the House. By that we mean that we wish to raise a very serious question, which is does the National Party actually support this piece of legislation?

💬 Hon Members: Yes.

They do?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Yes, yes, we do.

Well, if that is the case, why is the bill being put up by—and there is no disrespect to Jami-Lee Ross, who has got my deep sympathy—one of the most recent members to the Government benches in this country?

💬 Mike Sabin: Because he’s an outstanding member and came up with a great member’s bill.

And he may be an outstanding member, contrary to the one who is opening his mouth at the moment. He may have a brilliant future, unlike the one who is opening his mouth at the moment. But the question that is sort of at the back of our minds, starting to ask itself is, why, if this is a great piece of legislation—[Interruption] You see, that is Mr Sabin’s problem. He thinks noise means quality. He thinks volume means talent. That is the kind of thing you might hire to be a drover’s dog down at the saleyard, but it does not work here.

I want to know the answer to the real question: does the National Party honestly support this legislation? Out there are businessmen and businesswomen watching tonight’s debate, and my challenge to them, having been told that tonight the National Party has got this great bill to help them, the question I am asking them is do they really think the National Party supports this bill? Because if it does, why is it not sponsoring the bill in its own name?

That is a fair question for me to ask on behalf of my colleagues because, unlike many in this House, we have always been reasonable and prepared to hear alternative arguments or to hear the other side. When it comes to industrial relations, our view has always been that great Governments take the role of an independent arbiter that does not take sides. If you have law like that, then laws can last decade after decade after decade. If you do not, out goes one side and the law changes, and in comes the other side and the law changes back. You have the yo-yo uncertainty in effect in industrial affairs at the workplace, and it is bad for everybody, boss and worker alike.

So my question is does the National Party support this bill? If it does, why has it left Jami-Lee Ross all by himself, valiantly holding the can?

💬 Mike Sabin: Wait till you hear the party vote.

Valiantly holding the can. Oh no, do not tell me “Wait till you hear the party vote.”, because this is a dog whistle to some people out there who think the National Party has got a stand. If it was not a dog whistle, it would have it in its own name. It is a dog whistle, though. National thinks this sort of poll-driven survey politics will get it home, but it will not.

My question to the perishable industries out there that think—like fishing and the milk industry, and they have got a very valid point. I know, as a former union delegate, that this legislation the National Party is seeking to overset tonight is of use to less than 1 percent of the industrial workforce. That is a fact. The rest do not get these benefits because they are not in the perishable business where a lockout hurts the boss more than the worker. These are the facts. If you are going to be fair in industrial relations, join neither side. In the interests of the international economy have a fair, lasting regime.

In the next three speeches made by the National Party, and in Jami-Lee Ross’ conclusion, I want an answer. New Zealand First is going to decide what we are going to do on this basis. We want to know does the Government really support this legislation, and if that is true, why is it not in its name? Anything short of a proper debate on that sees this bill fail.

I will address the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ comments. He should cast his mind back to many decades ago, when he was in Government—a Government that he was not trying to take down; I should qualify that—and think about what it is to be a Government backbencher. Was he ever one of those? I think he was. When the Government has a constructive policy objective, when it has a hard-working and constructive executive, what it also has is a bunch of backbenchers, who need to make sure that they can find high quality policy work to put forward into the policy agenda. The reason the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill is a member’s bill speaks volumes of this Government. It speaks volumes of this executive that this bill, this quality bill, brought forward by a very quality member, Jami-Lee Ross, finds its way into the House by virtue of a member’s bill.

Were it the case that it was a flotsam and jetsam arrangement, as we saw under the previous 9 years of Government, with Labour propped up by its friends in the Greens—who now are actually front row players and are pulling the strings for the Labour Party—then, of course, something like this would have been grabbed at and put through as a Government bill because the Labour Government would have struggled so much for its own ideas. But in a well-organised, well-constructed team—that is, “team” with a “t”, an “e”, an “a”, and an “m”—the member Winston Peters has to understand that this is the appropriate path for a bill of this nature. It is appropriate for the member Jami-Lee Ross, who has done a lot of work in this space and has a lot of credibility in this space, to advance it. In discussion with caucus, the bill made its way on to the members’ ballot agenda, and the member has been fortunate enough to have it drawn.

I know that it brings some consternation and some concern and some sort of waxing lyrical and hand-wringing from the chardonnay socialists in this place, and from the people from the Green Party who are aligned to communist ideals, but the reality is that the words “flexible”, “fair”, and “removing restrictions” are hardly things that the modern New Zealand working environment should be, or is, afraid of. This idea that those in the Labour Party and in the union movement are the only ones who know how to organise a working relationship, and are the only ones who can have the lever, the prescriptive ideas, and the mechanisms within the employment relationship, is a nonsense. The most successful examples in the New Zealand workforce are ones where there is flexibility, fairness, and removing the sorts of restrictions that can hamstring businesses, see them compromised, and, ultimately, affect productivity, which, one would think, is not in the best interests of the worker in the first place. This bill is about dealing with those matters. It is about enhancing the New Zealand employment relationship. It is about getting the appropriate balance.

I know that the member Winston Peters loves to lob a few grenades at me across the electorate. I have been spending the last 2 years picking up the cigar butts that he has left discarded around the Northland electorate when he has wandered up there to remember how it was for him back in the day. Oh, here is a point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, you can, if you know nothing, speak for a little while about a bill, but you have really got to try to reference it. You cannot make allegations that are simply not true, as the member knows. He is accusing me—

This is not a point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, he is accusing me of vandalising the community, in a way that is totally false. He knows I have never done that, and he cannot get away with the allegation that somebody is an environmental vandal. I take offence at that, and I want an apology.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I understand—

Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, I understand where Mr Peters is coming from. He has taken offence. I just ask the member to withdraw.

I withdraw, but—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Apologise.

No, I withdraw; I will not apologise on that particular matter. Picking that up, it is a shame that the member finds Northland to be something so special in his heart that he should attack this member of Parliament at every opportunity, and that he cares so much that he is not even prepared to stand a candidate in the electorate of Northland. I look forward very much to seeing whether the Rt Hon Winston Peters wants to stand as a candidate in Northland, so that we can continue this discussion about our interests in Northland on the hustings, because I would welcome that opportunity. I would welcome that opportunity.

I commend Jami-Lee Ross for the work he does in this place. I commend him for the work he does in policy development. This is a man who cares deeply about this nation, but he is also a man who turns his words into some productive policy ideas. I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the House.

This bill, the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill, from Jami-Lee Ross, is an ugly bill. It is about the ugly National Party, which hates workers, which hates unions, which brought in the Employment Contracts Act, and which has a long history prior to that. But more than that, it is an unnecessary bill. There is no need for it. We have low levels of strikes. Actually, probably nobody wants it, except possibly one company. Even the Employers and Manufacturers Association does not want it. This is a bill that is driven by a hatred of unions and will be added to the stable of attacks by this Government on workers’ rights, driving down wages and conditions. I am sickened in this House by hearing the constant attacks on unions by that side of the House. The anti-union rhetoric really just gets up my nose. This is a low-road bill. It is a race to the bottom. It has nothing about driving successful, collaborative workplaces.

What does it do? It just basically makes it impossible for workers to use strike action if they need to to get a collective agreement settled—a very rare event nowadays. Why? Well, Jami-Lee Ross seems to think it has got something to do with the Ports of Auckland. That company seems to be part of the reason for this bill. I will not go into the details of his long opinion piece on the matter. Suffice it to say, this is another bit of legislation driven by the desires and needs of a particular company.

The context is a whole raft of other anti-worker legislation, including the current Employment Relations Act amendments that we are dealing with. This is a Government that does not focus on jobs. This is a Government that is focused on driving down wages. I look forward to voting against this bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to inquire as to whether I may seek to divide my 5 minutes with the Minister of Trade, the purpose being that we have been called upon to answer a question from New Zealand First.

The member is perfectly entitled to put his call for 2½ minutes each if he wants to.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Thank you.

💬 Hon Tim Groser: This will be a split call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a split call, yes.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Thank you. I will invite—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will receive the bell with half a minute to go.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Sorry, I took it that this member was going to speak first.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Well, I will speak first if you wish.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Because you are already on your feet—so I have called you. The member will commence.

Thank you. Section 97 of the Employment Relations Act created an imbalance for workers in an industrial dispute and took away the freedom of workers to choose, and that is, in fact, what we are talking about. I guess the noise from the other side of the House, especially in the initial speeches, is something we should get used to over the next year as the union influence in running the Labour Party political wing bites in, cuts deep, and demands paybacks. I was shocked to hear this bill, the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill, being described as a scab bill. Is the level of industrial relationship still at that level? And yet what, for goodness’ sake, has this come to?

Andrew Little speaks of workers being locked out and starved to death. I was stunned to hear Andrew Little give such a diatribe of basic resentment, dislike, and prejudice. I concur with my friend David Bennett, chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, that Andrew Little is a man who is educated, eloquent, and cultured. He is a very pleasant man to work with at the select committee. So to whom was he speaking this evening? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. I think we know that he was speaking to his union audience, and this is, as I said earlier, more of what we have to get used to.

So where is the freedom of choice in anything he said? Where is the recognition of the very good level of industrial relationships over the last decade or so in New Zealand, which the workers and employers have been justifiably proud of? I speak as someone who used to export pretty much right through the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, and I can remember when industrial relationships really did present problems. The only good thing was that Australia was slightly worse off than we were. I waited with bated breath for Darien Fenton to give her speech, and I think Darien gave an appropriately mild and short speech, falling short of actually supporting the bill—I will admit that—but she did not have much to say that was critical about it. I commend this bill to the House.

I simply suggested to my honourable colleague Chris Auchinvole that I might split the call with him, just to give a very simple reply to the Rt Hon Winston Peters on his very important and legitimate question, which was—if I may paraphrase it without doing any violence to the reality of what the right honourable member said—why, if this is such a good bill, is the National Government not putting it forward in its own name, instead of allowing it to become a member’s bill? Well, I think the answer to the member’s question is very obvious—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: The right honourable.

And the right honourable member knows this better than any other member in this House, given his experience, which is that we operate by a ballot. We are so sick of listening to halfwitted, ill-considered members’ bills that we thought it was better to put forward a very sensible proposition to lower the probability of having to put down yet another idiotic proposition from the Opposition. Thank you.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Keep going—keep going.

Well, if we are talking about unions, perhaps I could reflect, given the discussion this afternoon, on my one experience as a trade unionist.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: When was this?

This was when I was a member of Actors Equity. I was a member of Actors Equity for a number of years as a professional actor, and I had the great misfortune, I have to say, to attend a meeting in the Auckland Art Gallery not so many years ago in which New Zealand Actors Equity, a union to which not only I had belonged but also my father and my mother had belonged, and listen to the takeover of New Zealand Actors Equity by Actors Equity Australia. Having strongly supported New Zealand professional actors in having a reasonable workplace, knowing the sheer naivety of the New Zealand union in allowing itself to be taken over by an anti-employer - oriented workforce that was trying to price New Zealand professional actors out of the market—I could not believe the naivety of the people at that conference. So those are the sorts of considerations that have led me to want to take the floor for a brief minute to express my viewpoint on this excellent bill, the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill, which I commend to the House.

The Green Party is proud to once again stand alongside workers seeking decent pay and conditions. We know that the most significant improvements in these conditions have happened through strong collective action. Therefore, we will, with pride, be opposing this Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill.

Those of us who live outside of Wellington take a plane flight up and down the country every week and we sit next to a whole range of people. A few months ago I had the opportunity to sit next to Winston Peters on the plane. You know, we have a lot of heckling back and forth, and we throw some barbs his way because he is on the Opposition side of the House, but I have to say that that plane flight was probably one of the most interesting 45 minutes I have had on a plane, because with 33 years’ experience in this House—or 33 years’ experience prior to my entering Parliament—he has a lot of experience, and I did learn a lot as a new member. I appreciate the kind words he said. The reality is, though, that we have 25 Ministers in our caucus, but they do not have a monopoly on good ideas. They have a lot of good ideas, and I believe that this Government is doing a lot of good things for the country, but the caucus does allow backbench MPs to put members’ bills into the ballot. The reason we do that is that we make up half of the Parliament, and on members’ days we do not want to be talking just about the things that the Opposition wants to be talking about.

When the member asked whether the National Government supported the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill, the Minister of Labour said yes. The members behind me all said yes. This has been through the National caucus. The National caucus does support this bill. So although in a perfect world everything would be done by the Government, there are backbench MPs like me, who want to push things through, and I was fortunate enough to have this idea approved by my caucus.

I want to touch on just a couple of other points. Winston Peters talked about the low number of people who would be affected by section 97 of the Employment Relations Act. He is absolutely right. About 8 to 9 percent of the private sector workforce is unionised. They are the only people who benefit from the protections of section 97, but everybody who wants to work during a strike is restricted by section 97 from being able to do that. That is why I say that this bill is actually pro-worker, because it allows people who wish to work during a strike the ability to do that.

I believe in freedom. I believe in flexibility. I believe in people being able to choose their own destiny where they can, and that is why I support repealing section 97 and why I support this bill. I do note that when this was last debated in Parliament—in the year 2000, some 13 years ago—the position of New Zealand First was that it opposed section 97. I have been through Hansard and I have been through the press releases. Peter Brown, the deputy leader of New Zealand First at the time, did a lot of heavy lifting on that bill, and New Zealand First’s position was to firmly oppose section 97. So my plea to the New Zealand First Party tonight is give New Zealanders an opportunity through a select committee to submit on this bill. If it is difficult to vote yes or no on it, there is a third option, potentially, but I am not going to tell the right honourable gentleman how he should vote—but that is a third option, as well. New Zealand First took a very principled position on this particular issue 13 years ago, and I would ask that it consider that position again.

The number of strikes and lockouts in New Zealand is also an issue that has been raised, and, yes, at the moment, during an economic downturn, the number of strikes is relatively low. But in 2000 the number of strikes and lockouts was at 21. Within a few years of the Employment Relations Act 2000 being passed, the number of workplace disputes, the number of workplace stoppages, actually tripled. My fear is that once the economy really starts to pick up again, we will see a larger number of workplace stoppages coming about. With workplace stoppages come employees who are not working. Under section 97, workplace stoppages mean that people who wish to work during that workplace stoppage are restricted by a piece of legislation that stops them from doing that. It is a law that never existed in New Zealand for over 100 years. It is only in the last 12 to 13 years that this law has existed. The first, second, third, and fourth Labour Governments did not see fit to have such a restriction. The fifth Labour Government did. I say that it is time to repeal that section of the Employment Relations Act. Let people work during a strike or lockout if they want to. It will benefit workers in the long run.