Employment Relations Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: I move, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill implements the Government’s policies aimed at a flexible and fair employment relations framework. At its core, this bill is about ensuring employers have the confidence to compete and expand while maintaining key protections for employees. The Government is committed to maintaining the framework for collective bargaining. The bill increases choice and flexibility in this framework, reduces ineffective bargaining, and improves fairness and balance in bargaining requirements. To prevent unnecessary and protracted collective bargaining, the bill amends the Act so that a collective agreement is not required for bargaining to be concluded. It enables the parties to apply to the Employment Relations Authority for a determination that bargaining has concluded. The bill provides employers and employees with more flexibility around the terms and conditions from the start of the employment relationship by removing the 30-day rule.

The bill also acknowledges that the workplace needs to reflect modern lifestyles. The amendments give all employees the right to request flexible working arrangements right from the beginning of their employment. Flexible working arrangements help employees find the right work-life balance for them and their employer, and can also improve productivity. These changes aim to improve participation in the labour market by people who would otherwise not be able to work because of competing responsibilities. The bill makes some changes intended to make clear what confidential information an employer does and does not have to provide in situations such as potential redundancies or disciplinary processes. These changes ensure a balance between employees’ rights to information and their rights to privacy.

In 2012 the Government completed a review of the continuity of employment provisions in Part 6A in the Employment Relations Act. The review found significant operational issues for businesses. The problems came from transferring employees’ entitlements and information to a new employer. Some of the provisions were particularly onerous for small and medium sized enterprises. The bill aims to fix these issues, and it will give more certainty and clarity to employers and keep key benefits for affected employees. The bill makes the rest and meal break rules in the Employment Relations Act more flexible. It maintains the importance of rest and meal breaks, while making sure that they are practical for each workplace. The bill encourages employers and employees to negotiate in good faith the timing and duration of rest and meal breaks that are cognisant of the nature of that business. Finally, the bill introduces requirements for when and how the Employment Relations Authority must give determinations, in order to speed up those determinations.

To conclude, this bill provides a package of measures that will enhance the employment relations framework. The bill was the subject of extensive scrutiny by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I would like to thank the members of that committee for their work on the bill. I would also like to thank all of the officials who worked so hard in the advancing of this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Labour is deeply and sincerely opposed to this legislation. It shows the arrogance of this National Government that the first thing it does after being elected to office for this third term—the first thing it does—is to undermine workers’ rights, to undermine health and safety at work, and to pass legislation that has just one purpose, and that is to keep wages down. John Key said he was going to govern in the interests of all New Zealanders, but what his first piece of legislation does—the first thing that this Government does—is to drive down wages for the vast majority of ordinary working people.

New Zealanders do not want these changes. The overwhelming majority—thousands of submitters—came to the select committee, wrote to the select committee, and told this Government: “Do not pass this law.” I distinctly remember when the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee went down to Christchurch. It was a difficult day. You could tell the strain and the pressure that the people of Christchurch were under. One submitter said something that really hit home with me. She said: “We have enough insecurity, enough instability, enough things in our lives that make life so difficult. Please don’t add one more thing that will make our lives more insecure.” That really hit home with members on our side of the House, anyway, but it obviously did not have an ounce of impact on the Government members.

This legislation works to undermine collective bargaining. It works to undermine unions’ efforts for industry standards. It brings in niggardly little taxes, such as the strike tax, to punish people who take partial industrial action. Just today, workers at Statistics New Zealand are enforcing work-to-rule regulations, and there is no doubt that this Government will attack those public servants with the provisions that it is passing in this law today. It removes the Part 6A protections for vulnerable workers—people like the cleaners who come into this building when our work is done. They come in and work through the night. Some of the lowest-paid and most vulnerable workers in New Zealand are having their rights undermined by this Government. It says that employers can just walk away from collective bargaining. So when unions make any claims that might be a little bit difficult or might actually require the employer to sit at the table and work through difficult issues—whether they be about pay, whether they be about conditions, or whether they be about the state of the industry, which is something that both the employer and the workers should be interested in; anything that is difficult—the employer can get up, walk away from the table, and get an opinion from the Employment Relations Authority that bargaining has concluded. Then, of course, we know what the employer will do next. It will look to put everybody on to individual employment agreements—divide and rule—and keep wages down.

One of the most insidious aspects of this legislation is the removal of the requirement to put a new employee on the same terms and conditions as any collective agreement in that workplace during the first 30 days. Right now, if an employer wants to put an employee on better terms and conditions than the collective agreement, it is entitled to do so. So the only change—the only thing that this change can be designed to do—is to put new employees on less favourable terms and conditions than those prescribed in any collective employment agreement that exists in that workplace. That is the only reason that a Government would pass this legislation. What is that designed to do? To make new employees more vulnerable and to drive down wages in the workplace.

I heard the stand-in Minister refer to the fact that productivity should be the driver of wage increases, and we on this side of the House absolutely agree. Since 1989 labour productivity in New Zealand has increased by 58 percent. Wages—real wages—in New Zealand have increased over that period of time by just 18 percent. The benefits of improved productivity have overwhelmingly gone to the owners of businesses and not to the workers in businesses. And this Government has the gall to say that increased productivity will lead to improved wages, and that we should not legislate to strengthen workers’ rights so that they have the right to bargain for better wages. Well, clearly, even under the legislative provisions that we have had in the last decade, workers’ pay has simply not kept up with productivity. The benefits of improved productivity have been going to the few—the people whom National always stands for—and not to the many.

We need strong legislation—the opposite of what this Government is passing today—to ensure that a growing economy and better economic outcomes are shared by everybody, and not held by just a tiny number, a privileged few. That is what today’s changes will do. They will enshrine and entrench the privilege of those who have benefited from economic growth over the last decades, and it will continue to disenfranchise those who have struggled to make ends meet, to put food on the table, to put a roof over their families’ heads, and to give their families the opportunities that they want.

Unlike this Government, whose members do not listen when people come to a select committee and make submissions, we went out to the people of New Zealand over the last week and we asked them what they thought of the changes to rest and meal breaks. We started a petition a mere week ago. Today that petition was tabled in Parliament—51,628 New Zealanders have signed the petition over the last week because they want this Government to know that getting rid of rest and meal breaks will make them less safe and less productive at work. On this side of the House, we believe in listening to what New Zealanders have to say. We do not dismiss what ordinary Kiwis have to say about legislation, and we will listen to the 51,628 people who have told this Government to stop cutting back on rest and meal breaks, and to stop the other changes that are in this legislation that undermine the rights of working people.

I know that members opposite think that rest and meal breaks are something insignificant. They think it is a trivial matter. Well, there are plenty of examples of why this is not trivial. Jetstar pilots had to go to the Employment Court to make sure that their rights to rest and meal breaks under the current legislation were upheld, because pilots like Richard Greenslade could start work as early as 5 o’clock in the morning and finish as late as midnight. Because they have duties whilst their planes are on the ground, there was no opportunity for pilots like Richard to take a rest and meal break throughout the day. The Employment Court turned round to Jetstar and said: “No, under the current law you are required to provide for rest and meal breaks.” As someone who flies fairly regularly, I have to say that I think it is pretty important our pilots get rest and meal breaks to make sure they are refreshed and ready to pilot their planes, to make sure not just that they are safe at work but that their passengers are safe as well.

The changes to this law, which the National Government is passing today, would validate Jetstar’s decision not to provide rest and meal breaks to pilots like Richard. That endangers the safety of every single person in New Zealand who travels on an aircraft. And there are countless other examples of how workers’ safety, and the safety of all New Zealanders, will be undermined by the changes made in this legislation. That is why we will listen to the 51,628 people who have signed this petition telling the Government to keep their rest and meal breaks, to save their rights, and to not further erode the rights of working people in New Zealand.

Labour is deeply and sincerely opposed to this legislation, because it is not in the interests of ordinary working people. It will not improve wages. It will not improve health and safety. It simply makes more people more vulnerable, which, frankly, is the legacy of this National Government.

Just following on from Mr Lees-Galloway, if his Jetstar pilots had sought that advice, they would have been told that section 6 of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 imposes a general duty on employers to take all practical steps to ensure the safety of employees at work, including providing and maintaining a safe working environment. Under that Act, employers’ responsibilities for controlling hazards extend to any person’s behaviour resulting from physical or mental fatigue that might be an actual or potential source of harm to themselves or others. So they are obligated under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, section 6, to ensure that their pilots are rested to the extent that they do not, in terms of any fatigue, cause harm to themselves or any other person. So we need to be very clear that this bill, the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, does not trump and override the provisions of that Act. That is important for New Zealanders to understand, following the very heated and forceful point of view—which carries so many inaccuracies—that the member has put forward.

One of the other things is that this Government, during its time on this side of the House, has been working relentlessly to grow this economy, to increase jobs, and to increase wages. Just this last year, as we know, inflation went up 1 percent but the average wage went up 2.7 percent—that is something we celebrate, and something we want to see happening more often. So Mr Lees-Galloway’s claim that what we want to do is depress wages is, in fact, quite contrary to every intent and purpose and goal of this Government.

We need to understand that we live in a fast-changing world, where it is no longer about competing interests between employers and employees, or competing interests between one company and another, or one region and another. In today’s world, where 85 percent of what we manufacture is exported, we need to understand that it is a matter of one country competing against another. In that global market place it is very important that New Zealand maintains its advantage, and its advantage is around quality of produce and goods, and being able to get it to market in a very competitive way.

Therefore, we have to ensure that our companies and our economy are flexible to the point where efficiencies can continue to drive that competitive edge, which we must maintain in order to sell our products around the world, in order that our companies may continue to grow, continue to employ people, and continue to pay good wages. So what this bill is attempting to do is to bring the flexibility and fairness into our employment relations framework. One of those areas, of course, is that of collective bargaining. The bill changes the duty of good faith, so that it no longer requires parties to conclude a collective agreement—but only under certain conditions. The Employment Relations Authority may declare whether collective bargaining has concluded. The aim of this is to reduce overly protracted bargaining and give some certainty and balance to the collective bargaining framework.

We understand, of course, that the Hon Peter Dunne, the United Future leader, expressed concern that the bill would embolden employers or employees to merely go through the motions of negotiation, only to walk away from collective bargaining simply because they object to the direction the negotiations are taking or to their being party to a collective agreement, and then to call in the Employment Relations Authority to declare the end of bargaining. Because of those concerns about possible surface bargaining, new section 50KA has been inserted so that the authority cannot declare bargaining concluded if the parties have not complied with the duty of good faith. The employer cannot simply walk away. They must bargain in good faith with the intent of reaching agreement. These changes aim to prevent bargaining becoming unnecessarily protracted and costly, which is not good for either party.

Just as I conclude my contribution, the previous speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, talked about rest breaks and meal breaks. What we need is some flexibility around those. We understand that Labour, in the last year of the last Labour Government, brought in a provision that came into force in 2009. What it means is that under the current legislation New Plymouth Airport’s control tower would have to be closed down while a tea break took place, because it is operated by a single person.

Imagine a parking building that has a sole attendant. How would you feel, Mr Lees-Galloway, if you were unable to leave the building for 10 minutes because the attendant was on their statutory break? These are just common-sense issues. These are the real issues that are there, and this is the flexibility that is needed. How would it be if, in order to maintain the ability for people to move in out of that car-parking building, they had to employ somebody else—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Mate, you’re full of it. Don’t be silly.

—to take the place of that person for 10 minutes in the morning and 10 minutes in the afternoon? Absolutely, Mr Cosgrove, it is ridiculous. It is absolutely ridiculous. That is why some of these provisions are there and must be negotiated in good faith.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Give me an example—one example.

There are plenty of examples.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: One example. Come on, name one. Name one.

Stop barking away like that. I have just named a couple, all right?

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: No you didn’t.

Yes I did, indeed. In fact, why was it that Labour brought in this provision only in its last year of 9 years in office? Why was it? Was it because it was such a problem? Obviously not—obviously it was not a problem.

I believe that this bill is going to create flexibility for employers and employees to work through to come to very good arrangements on how it will work for their work situations. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House.

I begin by noting that the member who just spoke, Jonathan Young, did not name one real, actual example in his entire contribution. This is all about ideology for the National Party. It is all about anti-unionism and “anti-workerism”. It is not actually about real people. This is fundamentally a question about fairness and decency. This is about the working conditions of everyday, ordinary New Zealanders who go to work because they want to work hard, because they want to provide a better future for themselves and their families, and they simply cannot get ahead under this National Government.

It speaks volumes about the priorities of this Government that it seems to think the way to make New Zealand more internationally competitive and the way to improve our job market is to drive down the working conditions of those who are currently in the workforce. That seems to be National’s entire approach. Jonathan Young pointed out that 85 percent of what we manufacture in New Zealand is exported, and we are competing in an international market. I say to Jonathan Young that he is absolutely right on that, but we will not improve our international competitiveness—we should not be striving to improve our international competitiveness—by driving down the working conditions of New Zealanders.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Race to the bottom.

If we are simply going to engage in the race to the bottom, all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—will lose out.

I want to talk particularly about the amendments to Part 6A, which will affect vulnerable workers, and the changes that the Government is going to make there, because there is no better example in this legislation of the way that National is working to drive down the working conditions of everyday, ordinary New Zealanders who go out and work hard to get ahead.

Why do we have Part 6A? We have Part 6A to stop the cycle of contracting out—and constantly contracting out the same work—being used as a way to drive down employment conditions for people in those service-level industries. Take, for example, a cleaning company for an office block. Let us say it employs 19 workers in that particular cleaning company, and every year it re-lets the contract. What is the main thing that the people bidding for that contract are going to be competing on? They are going to be competing on labour costs. So every hard-won gain that an employee cleaning an office block gets out of one employer could be taken away within a short space of time by another employer who bids for the contract based on a lower labour cost.

Part 6A is designed to protect those workers and stop that from happening. So why is the Government taking it away? The Government says it is taking those protections away—watering down those protections—only for people who work in outfits of 20 or fewer employees. Here is the question for the Government: what is to stop a large company—let us call it Spotless—simply setting up a whole lot of subsidiary companies, each employing fewer than 20 workers, at each of its worksites? That is what companies will do. This will guarantee that no matter how large a company is, it will be able to opt out of its obligations under Part 6A by simply structuring its business affairs in a way that it can exploit the loophole that this bill creates. It removes protection for vulnerable workers such as cleaners and the people who scrub pots and pans in kitchens. It removes all of those protections from them, and it is blatantly unfair. It comes down to a question of fairness, and this legislation simply is not fair. Driving down wage costs in New Zealand is not a good strategy for increasing the number of jobs that we have, or for improving our international competitiveness.

I want to talk about the duty to conclude collective bargaining, and I particularly want to talk about the Ports of Auckland and the duty to conclude collective bargaining there. Had there not been such a duty to conclude, its bargaining would have ended long ago and its work would have been contracted out. The provisions in the Employment Relations Act stopped that from happening. These are the very provisions that the National Government is trying to remove.

Simon Bridges specifically quoted the Ports of Auckland earlier on when he was justifying these changes. Of course, we know that this is part of the orchestrated smear campaign that the National Party and its surrogates, such as Cameron Slater, have been engaged in when they have tried to drive down the working conditions for those who work for the Ports of Auckland. We know that now, for a fact, because it came out in Nicky Hager’s book that the National Party and others were colluding, and that the Ports of Auckland were paying money to bloggers such as Cameron Slater to smear people who were involved in that particular industrial action.

💬 Hon Annette King: Disgusting.

It is absolutely disgusting. These are the people whom John Key admits to talking to regularly on the phone, but not in his capacity as Prime Minister, of course, only in some other capacity. Perhaps he gets Moonbeam to pass the notes across for him. But, actually, these are the people the National Party chooses to collude with. This is the style of dirty politics this Government is quite happy to own and quite happy to engage with. I think it absolutely stinks. It stinks particularly when it uses those links to drive down the working conditions for ordinary, everyday New Zealand workers who simply want to go out there, do a hard day’s work, get paid appropriately for it, and have appropriate working conditions, so that they can fulfil the Kiwi dream, which is about making a better life for yourself and your family. The everyday workers out there want to be able to do that, and this Government is making it harder and harder for them to do so.

I want to talk about rest and meal breaks, and I want to acknowledge the over 50,000 New Zealanders who, in 1 week alone, have signed a petition against these changes—

💬 Hon Member: 51,000.

Over 51,000. Here it is; I have a pile of it. This is only in a week—this is only in a week—that these people have signed a petition against this. I suspect there would be a heck of lot more than this if the petition had been running for longer. I want to point out that, primarily, this is not going to affect the unions—this is not a union argument. Primarily, it is going to affect those who are not covered by a union collective agreement. We are talking about young New Zealanders getting their first job. Mums and dads out there will be interested to know this. These are their kids we are talking about, who are going to be going out to get their first job and who are going to find out that their rights at work are being eroded by the National Government.

Iain Lees-Galloway has already given the example of the pilot working for Jetstar. I want to talk about another case. I found a very good case of a bus driver. The tramways union raised the issue last year that some bus drivers in Auckland have been resorting to urinating in bottles because they are being ticketed when they park at public bus stops to use public toilets. That is because they were not being given at the time the appropriate rest and meal breaks so that they could go to the toilet. Is that the type of country that this National Government wants to live in—one where bus drivers get their buses ticketed because that is the only way that they can go to the bathroom? I think that is absolutely disgraceful, and yet that is what this Government is quite happily signing up to with the changes that it is making.

I mentioned young workers before. Well, young workers—new, first-time workers—go and work in places like McDonald’s. The Unite union launched action on behalf of McDonald’s workers last year over the company’s failure to provide workers with meal breaks. One of the young McDonald’s workers who appeared before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was then dismissed from the company, in part, allegedly, for his appearance before the select committee. That is absolutely disgraceful. I think that those young New Zealanders who go into those first jobs should have the guaranteed right to have a meal break. I think that some of the examples that the Government has quoted—for example, it is talking about aged-care workers. I think aged-care workers do a fantastic job, and if they need a break to have a cup of tea and to go to the bathroom and to put their feet up for 15 minutes, I think they should damn well get it. I think that it is absolutely disgraceful that this Government wants to take that away from people who are working in the aged-care sector and early childhood education. They are doing some of the most valuable jobs for our society, and this Government thinks it is OK to erode their working conditions to the point where they cannot even have a cup of tea and go to the bathroom, and I think that that is absolutely disgraceful. This is a question of fairness and decency, and this Government is simply turning the other way.

Eroding the working conditions of ordinary, everyday New Zealanders is not the way that John Key is going to deliver on the brighter future that he promised New Zealanders 6 years ago, and thus far has failed to deliver. New Zealanders did vote in large numbers for the National Government over the last three elections, waiting for that brighter future. If this continues, they are still going to be waiting in 3 years’ time. Eroding their rights at work, and eroding their pay and conditions, is not the way to deliver on the promises that the National Government has made. We should be aspiring to a higher-wage economy, not a lower-wage economy in the way that this National Government is doing. We should be aspiring to have some of the best, or the best, employment conditions in the world. We should not be racing to the bottom so that we can compete internationally with countries that use sweatshops—and that seems to be the argument that Jonathan Young was putting forward earlier in this debate.

This is a bad piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that will have an impact on every New Zealander who goes out there and works hard for salary and wages during the day. It is wrong, it is unfair, and the Labour Party will continue to vigorously oppose it.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to start by apologising for completely stuffing up the vote just a few minutes ago.

💬 Hon Annette King: Don’t worry—don’t worry.

I know—it is a learning curve. I am going to make sure that I get this one right, because this is one that we feel very strongly about.

The Māori Party stands to oppose again the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. For the benefit of the other new members who might need some advice, like I did, and just to make it perfectly clear, the Māori Party voted against the first reading of the bill on 5 June 2013, we voted against the second reading on 19 March 2014, and we will be opposing it again. There was never any question in our minds as to why we oppose the bill. He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. It has always been about the people—in this case, the situation for workers and their whānau.

💬 Louisa Wall: That applies to every vote.

Kia ora. We believe that this bill will weaken workers’ rights by allowing bosses to walk away from collective agreements. The new law introduces the right for employers to opt out of multi-employer collective bargaining. Although we welcome the new measure that requires employers to have first acted in good faith, it is the fact that the principle of collective bargaining is threatened that we are particularly concerned about.

The concept that we in the Māori Party have always believed in is that innovation in the economy should be built upon a foundation of workers’ rights and terms. It should not be a case of either/or. We believe that our community and our nation can have both. We believe that our people can be both employer and employee. We can create future prospects of economic growth, while at the same time adhering to conditions of employment that are socially and economically fair.

I want to share with the House an anecdote that comes, appropriately, from a book called Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace … One School at a Time: “We all sat there laughing and sipping tea peacefully … An infidel and representatives from three warring sects of Islam. And I thought if we can get along this well, we can accomplish anything. The British policy was ‘divide and conquer.’ But I say ‘unite and conquer.’” I turn to us in this House and remind us of the importance of kotahitanga—a purpose for being that unites us and achieves gains through working together.

This week, the Labour member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, Meka Whaitiri, issued a challenge to iwi leaders to step in on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, on which I congratulate her. I support this. I want to place on the record that when the Talley’s strikes happened in Wairoa, the Māori Party did exactly that. We called in the iwi to support the workers and the iwi leaders came to the call. Ngāti Kahungunu provided support for whānau affected by loss of income. The Māori Party joined with iwi leaders, taking on a mediator role. Through collective solidarity the employers, the iwi, the Māori Party, and the whānau were able to unite and conquer. We should never forget that our greatest capacity for influence is not only through speaking out and against; it can come even more persuasively when we work together, speaking up to unite.

Iwi leaders are the employers and employees. They are members of whānau. They are workers. They care for whānau in te rohe, just as the members of the Māori Party or the Labour Party or all the parties in this House can effectively do. We need to work together for the greatest gain, which in this case is to support workers’ rights. The goal would be that we work collectively with Māori organisations to make a difference. My greatest hope is that in this Parliament we can work together for what is right. Dividing certain groups against each other will never achieve the difference we need.

The Māori Party has always spoken out in support of the right of workers to be treated fairly. We are particularly concerned in this legislation with the change to the rule protecting the jobs of vulnerable workers in industries such as catering, cleaning, and laundry services when the employer loses a contract to a rival bidder. We know that the people whom it will most likely affect will be those in these sectors—caretakers, hospital orderlies, and such. We know that it is women, Māori, and ethnic minorities who make up the majority of those workers. Disadvantaged groups, often low paid, have limited bargaining strength in the labour market and are most likely to be disadvantaged by these changes that strengthen employers’ rights and power. Greater protection is needed for these workers, not less.

We believe that the proposed changes to rest and meal breaks are inconsistent with international human rights and have negative implications for healthy and safe working conditions, particularly for vulnerable workers, including our youth. For the record, once more—and I will make sure that I get it right—we oppose the bill.

I am deeply saddened to be speaking on this the third and final reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill today. It is disappointing that this Government has let old and outdated ideology dictate its legislative agenda. But perhaps it is not so surprising that this is the first piece of legislation in this term of Government, when over the last two terms what we have seen is this Government consistently applying its policy directions towards the rich and the powerful—oil companies, property developers, Skycity Casino—to keep them rich and powerful.

In this case, the lobbyists include cleaning companies like CrestClean, a franchise company that over the last 6 years has harangued MPs with its request that the Government change the law to ensure that some of the lowest-paid workers in this country lose their ability to maintain the small bit of job security that they have when a cleaning contract swaps over to another contractor. This is the business that sought to undermine the Building Service Contractors of New Zealand Inc. through its hired gun lobbyists and its blogger mates, outlined in Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics book.

During the submission process of the bill last year, I vividly recall the oral evidence from parliamentary cleaner Mareta Sinoti. She spoke to the 2,000 or so written submissions that were presented to Parliament by the Service and Food Workers Union cleaners—cleaners from throughout the country. She spoke to their submissions. All of those submissions asked the Government to back off on the removal of Part 6A of the Act, the part that deals with the security for vulnerable workers like cleaners. Mareta was very thoughtful. Her submission was incredibly heartfelt. I do not think I was the only one who had tears in their eyes as she essentially begged the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee not to remove Part 6A. She talked about how, as a parliamentary cleaner, her job had been restructured several times, and although she kept her job, her hours had frequently been reduced and she had to do more work for less income in total. But she also said that she was proud to work for Parliament.

Mareta Sinoti is the worker who was insulted by a National Party member of Parliament who suggested that if she did not like the job, it should go to someone else who wanted it. She earns less than $15 an hour for the privilege of cleaning up after us. I guess it was this offensive remark from the Hon Tau Henare that epitomises the hard-nosed approach that this Government wants to introduce into the employment relations environment in New Zealand. The Government says it wants flexibility, but in a labour market with a high unemployment rate, flexibility essentially vastly weakens workers’ rights, which turns into low wages and, as others have said, a race to the bottom, where the cheapest workers get the jobs.

To prepare for this reading, I went back and reviewed some of the 15,000 or so submissions to this bill. The vast majority of them were from people like teachers, nurses, caregivers, dairy workers, engineers, and many more. I want to thank them for participating in this democratic process. It is a darn shame that the Government has not taken on board any of their suggestions. I also looked at the advice that was provided around specific changes to the bill. I looked at the regulatory impact statement. This is what it says in a column that measures the choice and flexibility against some of the changes to collective bargaining provisions. The proposal to repeal the 30-day rule for new employees would increase flexibility and choice for employers. The proposal to allow an employer to opt out of multi-employer bargaining with 40 days’ notice of initiation would increase flexibility and choice for employers but decrease it for employees who want a multi-employer collective agreement. The introduction of partial pay deductions for partial strike action would increase choice for employers. But it also says here that this might see some new forms of action and it could lead to an increase in intensity of partial strike action and a number of complete strikes. The provision to amend the time frames for bargaining initiatives increases choice and flexibility for the employer; it decreases choice and flexibility for workers in their trade unions.

The object of the original Employment Relations Act 2000 is “(a) to build productive employment relationships through the promotion of good faith in all aspects of the employment environment and of the employment relationship—(i) by recognising that employment relationships must be built not only on the implied mutual obligations of trust and confidence, but also on a legislative requirement for good faith behaviour; and (ii) by acknowledging and addressing the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships; and (iii) by promoting collective bargaining;”. It goes on in section 3(b) to say: “to promote observance in New Zealand of the principles underlying International Labour Organisation Convention 87 on Freedom of Association, and Convention 98 on the Right to Organise and Bargain Collectively.”

The Government’s changes absolutely undermine everything in these objectives. Regardless of whatever weaselly way the Government wants to spin things, it takes away the obligation for employers to act in good faith towards their employees. This bill is not only unprecedented; it is unwarranted. I have seen no compelling evidence that collective employment negotiations are bad for the economy or that workers are holding the country to ransom through unreasonable demands. The amount of industrial unrest in this country has declined in recent years—an average of fewer than a dozen stoppages a year over the last several years. The most notable recent full-on disputes were the Ports of Auckland and the Maritime Union of New Zealand workers, and the meatworkers at Talley’s AFFCO, and even the current bank workers dispute with ANZ. They have not been about demands for massive pay increases. They have been about holding on to their job security and opposing casualisation of the workforce and the demands that their employers have made for them to do that. In the case of Ports of Auckland and Talley’s, the employers went so far as to use industrial action themselves through lockouts to try to force those workers into making agreements around that. They were locked out for weeks at a time. Although the Government says that it wants to reduce the costs associated with collective bargaining, this appears to be a fallacy. Multi-employer collective employment agreements reduce costs for employers. They are a more efficient use of employers’ resources because of economies of scale.

The Government stated in the opening address from the Governor-General last week that one of its priorities for this term was to enact and enforce good workplace health and safety. Given that there were nearly 183,000 workplace injuries recorded by ACC in the last financial year and workers in farming, forestry, and fishing have a one-in-four chance of being injured at work—and that is not even factoring in the shocking number of deaths in these industries and in our ports, I might add—I absolutely applaud those aims of the Government. But the changes in this legislation will not help with good health and safety practices. The bill creates an environment where New Zealand workers will be discouraged from speaking up about any of the health and safety risks on the job. They will not even have the simple right of a tea break during their work shift. We know that in many high-risk industries—like forestry, for example—fatigue is a major contributor to accidents and injuries on the job. We know too that health and safety is a culture that needs to be created on the job, and that means workers need to speak up. We can see that difference in the exemplary health and safety record of the Huntly mine, which is highly unionised—compared with the tragedy that was the Pike River mine.

As a Parliament we should do our best to provide legislation that supports and protects our citizens. I stand with the hundreds of thousands of workers in Aotearoa New Zealand who need legislation that protects their rights at work. Please oppose this bill.

The member must call out “Mr Speaker”, or, if we are in Committee, “Mr Chairman”. I call Clayton Mitchell.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. On behalf of New Zealand First I would like to rise and speak against this Employment Relations Amendment Bill in its third reading. But I have to say before I get under way that it is great to be on the benches on this side, fighting with passion and seeing the passion that is coming from this side, opposing this bill. It is great to be alongside common-sense - thinking people.

I start by acknowledging the honourable Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Michael Woodhouse, for his comments in the Committee last Wednesday evening, 22 October, after we came back from our nightly scheduled meal break. I felt that the Minister’s comments in relation to his own personal experience in dealing with his staff in the past were, to say the least, commendable, particularly as he outlined the importance of good employer-employee relations and open communications. I would like to add to the honourable Minister’s comments by saying that I too, along with the majority of employers around New Zealand, have an excellent employer-employee relationship with staff, which is achieved by understanding the needs of workers. These employment needs include job stability and good wages, all wrapped up in a safe and harmonious workplace. On the other hand, it is also important for employees to understand the needs and requirements of employers, which include workers being honest, flexible, productive, and, above all, skilled. When both needs are balanced, business and industry will be able to flourish in this country.

However, history has shown us that without solid, robust legislation, employees can be taken advantage of by employers trying to get more than their fair and reasonable entitlement. The Employment Relations Act is designed to protect the very people affected by the worst of those employers, who would seek to take advantage of workers. A good example of this kind of employee exploitation was seen most recently in a story that was uncovered by New Zealand First, which saw kiwifruit workers in Tauranga being paid lower than the minimum wage, not being given regular breaks, and expected and forced to work in appalling conditions. These employers used and abused their employees and had little or no regard for their legal and moral obligation to ensure their workers were looked after. This legislation would be going a long way towards aiding and abetting those rogue employers. We need to work towards good, solid legislation that gives a balanced perspective, protecting workers and giving the employers the tools to ensure good working relationships are maintained. This balance needs to make sure that workers’ rights are protected, whilst ensuring that employers are not being restricted by inflexible employment legislation. “Balance” is the key word here.

This newly introduced Employment Relations Amendment Bill will go a long way towards undermining the rights of workers. In 2010 National stated that statutory rest and meal breaks were added to the Employment Relations Act under the previous administration and came into effect on 1 April 2009. National supported that legislation then as it gave statutory recognition to breaks, reflecting standard practice across New Zealand. Now National is trying to reassure us that all workers will remain entitled to reasonable rest and meal breaks under this bill. We remain unconvinced of that. Supposed safeguards included in the proposed changes ignore the reality that in many workplaces those affected are unaware of, or unable to assert, their rights and will open themselves up to be marginalised in the workplace. In fact, the Post Primary Teachers’ Association submission to the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill in December 2009 is of interest. It stated: “Prior to the introduction of the current legislation on meal and rest breaks, the provision of such breaks for our members was largely dependent upon the good will of employers. Practice was variable. The lack of time available for rest and meal breaks was a frequent concern for many members. In a worst case example, all of the staff in a north island school were required by the employer to be on duty at every break. Six of those teachers were diabetics who were having problems managing their health without adequate meal breaks and other employees were under significant stress from the regime.”

The Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety recently commented that lack of job security reduces the willingness of workers to even raise health and safety concerns about breaks being restricted or not being available. We join the considerable concerns shown in the submission process that will impact on employees’ health and safety, particularly when we consider some of New Zealand’s more hazardous occupations such as forestry work—which has been outlined earlier—and those of truck drivers, port workers, and meat processors, to name but a few. Why we would allow employers and employees to be able to negotiate away their meal breaks is beyond me. Think of the huge risk that tired and weary truck drivers would pose on our roads. Think of the exponential increase in workplace accidents this would have on our forestry industry, which is a trade that already has one of the highest accident and injury rates in this country. Imagine tired and hungry meat processors with their minds on their stomachs and not on their tools. All of these industries and many more will have increases in workplace accidents under this bill.

We have no doubt this bill will negatively affect vulnerable workers, families, and their communities. There has not been a strong demand by employers or employees to introduce this new legislation, so why is this Government seeking to fix something that is not broken? Why would this Government not take into account the public submission strongly opposing this bill? More recently, we have just heard that over 51,000 submissions have been brought forward in less than a week, not to mention that the Minister considered 1,750 unique submissions. Ninety-four percent of them were opposed, and only 2 percent supported it. On top of this, the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received 11,908 form submissions, all of which were opposed to the bill. No wonder we are having a low turnout in our voting. The bill was primarily supported by employer representative groups and individual employers. It was opposed strongly by individuals, community groups, unions, and employee representative groups.

I cannot understand this Government’s motivation to fast track this bill at all. I have to say that if this amendment was common sense and was designed for the betterment of all New Zealanders and not just the employers, it would get the full support of New Zealand First, but it does not. In fact, it is far from common sense. That is the irony of common sense—it is not very common, particularly in relation to this Employment Relations Amendment Bill. This bill takes away core values that hold our workforce together. It exposes the more vulnerable and has the potential to exploit our much needed and valued workers—employees who are the backbone of any successful business.

New Zealand First is firmly committed to addressing the concerns of low-paid, vulnerable workers. New Zealand First opposes this Employment Relations Amendment Bill on the grounds that it is unnecessary. It will undermine wage-fixing principles under New Zealand law and create conflict between employers and employees. I quote John Boyd Orr: “When the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century brought a rapid increase in wealth, the demand of workers for a fair share of the wealth they were creating was conceded only after riots and strikes.” Is this what we want for the future of this country? We have a proud history of leading working conditions in this country and this bill would be a backwards step. I repeat: we believe that this bill is an unnecessary piece of legislation. It has the potential to create a hostile environment and actually negatively affect both workers and New Zealand businesses. We must oppose this bill. Thank you very much.

It gives me great pleasure to speak on the first occasion post - my maiden speech yesterday in support of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I have heard the Opposition talk negatively, trying to concern us by scaring the general public around health and safety issues and talking about Jetstar planes potentially crashing. That is just nonsense. This bill does not override any health and safety obligations of any employer. This is about giving flexibility and giving some reality to what is actually happening out there already today.

I will give you a very simple example. I have employees of my own who spray when the weather is fine. These guys are flexible and pragmatic about their working conditions. We have agreed that they will continue to work and spray when the weather is calm and obviously take their break when the wind picks up or the rain starts to fall. That is what is happening out there today, and this bill reflects what is real. These guys over here do not understand the realities of the workplace. They do not understand what flexibility really is required in the workplace, so that is why I am here today supporting this amendment bill.

I am going to talk about the flexibility that is required to reflect the balance between the needs of the employees and the needs of the employers. I reject the scaremongering tactics employed by the Opposition regarding health and safety. It is a non-event. It is not an issue. I commend the flexibility that this bill allows. Remember, there is an obligation to negotiate contracts in good faith, and that remains. The employer is not able to walk away, as the Opposition suggests. Good faith means just that. It means sitting at the table, negotiating hard, and finding a practical and real solution to the employer-employee relationship. Thank you for this opportunity today. I support this bill wholeheartedly.

I call Catherine Delahunty—5 minutes.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. He mihi nui ki te Whare Paremata. Welcome to the glorious 19th century, dressed up in the not-so-new flexibility-speak. At the final moment of this bill, let us drop the charade. The Government has a clear goal to remove basic organising rights for working people, reduce wages, and reduce union power. I am holding up a broken cup today. This broken cup symbolises that tea break rights are broken. It is not an accident that the cup is broken. The purpose of the law is to entrench the power of employers to decide what happens in the workplace, from bargaining participation down to the tea break. If anyone wants to strike about this, book it in the diary and promise you will be back at work at a set time, not when the power balance has been restored. That is what this bill is about.

Let us not forget, in the glorious 19th century, that slavery increased production. It was very flexible—incredibly flexible. The employers were flexible. So long as the slaves did not expect anything, it was fine. The broken teacup is only one part of the awful Dickensian plan, but one of the problems we face is that younger citizens do not know what unions are, let alone read Charles Dickens. That is one of the challenges in the 21st century, with this 19th century approach. The broken cup represents the breach of the vestiges of good faith left in the employment relationship—the attacks on the multi-employer collective, industry standards, rest and meal breaks, strikes and lockouts, the 30-day rule for new employees, a lack of protection from restructuring, and more. These are all losses of rights, being deliberately created. The privileged do not need to understand them. The contracted people in the middle classes and the low-waged workers often do not even realise they are losing them.

Let us get down to brass tacks—concrete issues, such as others have talked about. A friend of mine works in a bakery in a supermarket. Her current tea break consists of 10 minutes, but it takes 10 minutes to walk to the tea room, so it is already quite academic. Her employer is not very concerned about that. She stands up for the rest of the time. She is not allowed to sit down in the bakery. They stand up. And then she gets to walk for 10 minutes to the tea room, and then her tea break is over. This bill will now remove the charade and prevent any pressure on any employer to actually provide a tea break at all. It is really going to work, for the employer.

Today workplace safety was exposed as another charade in the ports around this country. But the contracting culture and the weakening of collective organising means that no one is ultimately responsible now for the safety of workers in what need not be a dangerous place. This applies to forestry as well as ports, which have a hideous and a very recently growing record of workplace deaths. Perhaps the cup of tea might be a good idea for this whole House, in this legislation—perhaps a tea break on this assault on workers’ rights. Perhaps we should all take a breather and the cup of tea and actually have a bit of a think about what it is like for other people, and show some empathy for people who are vulnerable in their workplaces. However, people and rights can be broken, as this cup has been. If this speeds up production, eliminates collective strength, and facilitates employer power to work away from fair negotiation, that might sound all right for some people. But for others, it is literally a disaster.

For the benefit of people with no imagination and no experience of unfair power balances in their workplace—and, after 10 year in a shearing gang, I could talk to you quite a lot about that—the value of collective organising is lost on them, so I need to spell it out. Everyone, except greedy employers, benefits when people have rights at work and the right to stand together for fair wages and conditions. The Green Party says to the working people of this country: “This bill may try and break your cup, but we will stand beside you.” There is a positive solution to employment relationships. It is called justice and respect—respect for collective bargaining, fair wages and conditions, and a good cup of tea. Everyone benefits from that working environment. Higher wages, great working conditions, and recognition of the need to balance power result in better relationships. And better relationships are what make everything work. Therefore, the Green Party is ashamed of the Government for having this bill. We will never support such legislation.

I will just explain the new procedures for this Parliament. The 9th call will always be a split call. The Green Party will get the first call. My comments are probably directed to the Labour members. Call No. 9 from now on is going to be a split call, and the Green Party will always get the first call. The other 5-minute call goes to a Government support party, not necessarily to the Government but to a Government support party. If the Government support party does not take the call, it goes to the Labour Party. I am calling Su’a William Sio—5 minutes.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in opposition to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Only just very recently we debated the Speech from the Throne and in that speech there were references to flexibility in the employment sector, yet we now know, after looking into the detail of this bill, exactly what that means. In the Government’s own regulatory impact statement it said “flexibility for the employers but no flexibility for the workers”. In fact, its own regulatory impact statement said that the contents of this bill are inconsistent with the international conventions that protect workers’ rights. So I want to make it quite clear to all the new members of that particular Government that this bill is inconsistent with the international rights upheld by the international community: the right of workers to a fair wage, the right of workers to have unions represent them, and the right of workers to be able to bargain collectively as an organisation. Those are the rights that have been removed by this piece of legislation.

I want to make reference again to the new members of this Government. I heard some very good, passionate speeches from those who gave their maiden speeches of late. It gave me some hope that there is some humanity in the experiences of those members, and so they need to speak up against this Government. They need to put their foot down and vote against this bill because henceforth, once this bill passes, the Government will be on record as a heartless group of no-good gangsters, because that is what it is. It is ganging up on the New Zealand workforce. On the one hand it says it wants to reward people for their productivity, but this bill is designed to drive wages lower. How on earth can workers be able to earn a living to sustain themselves and support their families? How on earth can workers be able to hold down a house, given the increases in rent of recent times?

This is an anti-worker bill. It is anti-worker, and I want to say to Minister Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and Alfred Ngaro that if they vote in support of this bill, they will go down in history as two members of Parliament who were determined to harm the members of their very own community after standing of their shoulders to get to where they are. In this last election, members of our community voted for those members and they expect something from them. They expect them to stand up for their rights, and when they vote in support of this bill, they are telling the rest of our communities and all working-class communities throughout New Zealand they do not give a damn. They do not care. They do not care one iota whether working people are able to make a living and support their families.

This Labour Opposition will continue to hold those members to account to make sure they walk the talk. All this time, about child poverty, nothing has been done. All this time, about housing affordability and providing housing for our community, that has not been addressed, and this bill will for ever make it more difficult for families with children to support themselves and for families to get into a house because this bill is anti-worker. It attacks the working group. I want to call on all working people now, those who are in a union and those who are not members of a union. They must step forward. They must come forward now and begin the agitation, because this bill mirrors exactly what National did in the 1990s. We are going backwards.

Last Monday, on Labour weekend, some of our young people celebrated the lives of Bill Andersen and Fred Evans—people who stood up for workers’ rights, despite the attacks on them, despite being imprisoned, despite being locked out, despite being kicked out of their workplaces, despite going to jail, and despite Fred Evans giving up his life. That is the kind of environment this Government has now created—one where workers must step up and fight. And they must fight if we are to regain some semblance of our dignity, as enshrined in international conventions.

The member’s time has expired.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Before I give some of the remarks I have prepared I have to say there is a certain unreality in what we hear from the Opposition. We had one member saying that we are going towards Third World conditions. Has he really seen what labour conditions are like in Central America or Africa or South-east Asia or the Middle East before he says that we in New Zealand are falling short of international standards? There is an unreality not only in space but also in time. I was not surprised to hear some of our opponents saying that we are going back a century. One even said that we are going back two centuries. But the unreality is this: they are insulting the people who fought for better rights in the 19th century. They do not really understand the differences, and that is why they are so out of place in 2014 in New Zealand.

I would like to congratulate the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, the submitters, and the officials involved in getting the bill this far. I would also like to acknowledge the work of my ACT Party predecessors in improving this bill. Most of all, I would like to thank my fellow Epsom electors. This bill, more than any other, has acutely demonstrated the role that the Epsom electorate plays, and has played, in ensuring stable centre-right Government in New Zealand. This bill has been advanced, stalled, and now advanced again, in each instance due to the presence or absence of an ACT MP from Epsom in this House.

I can hear the Labour MPs’ frustration. Not only can we move towards best practice public policy without them—

💬 Richard Prosser: They’re not saying anything.

I have heard enough of it, Mr Prosser, but ACT has absolute certainty about who its leader is. This is also a teachable moment, not only in politics but in public policy. Listening to the Opposition members during the latter part of this debate, they seem to assume that human relations such as employment relations are a static affair. They seem to assume they can shift outcomes by legislating the conditions under which people work and that people will never change their behaviour in response to a change in public policy.

An easy way for the Opposition to see the fallacy here might be—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Members on their feet other than those speaking cannot interject from the floor of the House; only from a seated position.

An easy way for the Opposition to see the fallacy might be to imagine some of the bill’s provisions or proposals in reverse. We might imagine that employees should not be able to abandon a so-called vulnerable employer. Perhaps we would propose that an employee be compelled to keep working for such an employer, regardless of what a poor employer they turned out to be, and regardless of what other opportunities presented themselves to that employee. Fanciful? I ask the members to think carefully what the logical difference is between that scenario and the situation in which large employers continue to be placed under this Act. Or we might imagine an Act wherein employees were thought most likely to tire of bargaining, but it would require them to conclude an agreement unless the authority saw fit to absolve them of this default obligation. Or we might imagine a world where it was the norm for employers to partially withhold payment when dissatisfied with employment conditions and to expect no partial reduction in work ethic as a result.

This bill, even after amendment, let alone the kind of bill the Opposition would have passed, is about giving rights to employees by imposing duties on employers. The thought experiment of reversing the roles of employer and employee shows how misguided it is to attempt to improve outcomes by interfering in the contractual arrangements that employees and employers would otherwise enter into. The Opposition, and any sensible person, would reject these hypothetical laws. It is plain to see, I am sure those members would say, that employees either would not take such jobs or would expect to be paid more in return for accepting such duties. They might even say that such rules would be silly. Far better to relieve employees of such Draconian duties and allow them to negotiate their own conditions, I am sure they would say, if the proposition was put in reverse.

Why, then, do the opponents of flexible labour markets in general, and this bill in particular, not see the futility in trying to legislate a different outcome in the labour market and the damage it is likely to do? Why, indeed, has the National Government compromised on the vulnerable worker clause and the requirement to conclude bargaining when these should be removed entirely? The answer lies in another fallacy, and we have heard about it from the earlier speakers today. It is over 150 years old and has been disproven every single year since. It is the fallacy that labour will fall in value vis-à-vis capital. It is a failed hypothesis, most recently resurrected by a particularly trendy French populist author, that we are heading for hyper-capitalism and, comrade, the revolution is just around the corner. Well, it has been coming for 150 years and it still has not come. In reality it is labour, not capital, that has risen in value since those members’ mate Mr Marx wrote about it.

These economic trends have real implications for politics and policy today. They explain why the Labour Party has lost its base, and why new members of the Green Party, who are very literate at economics, might make very effective leaders in the future. But the reality is that the employers in the Epsom electorate and up and down this country have fixated on the challenge of attracting and retaining staff. Competition for workers amongst employers is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than competition for jobs amongst workers. Those employers must look askance at the Opposition’s assumption that workers have no other options, are a dime a dozen, and are easy come easy go. That simply is not the reality of the New Zealand workplace in 2014. It is a market place, where competition works both ways.

💬 Hon Member: Somebody put him out of his misery.

And if the gentleman calling out there has any doubt, I entered the workforce working 60 hours a week for $7.50 an hour.

I support this bill because it is a step in the right direction towards more flexible markets. Like all attempts to improve public policy, this amendment is imperfect. Economic reality and experience suggests it should have gone further. Governments cannot legislate market outcomes, but can influence them.

Let me leave the Opposition, which I concede has some good intentions, with two initiatives that might better help New Zealanders achieve pay and conditions improved upon what they have now. Nominal pay rates are worthwhile only to the extent that they are useful for buying real goods. The price of houses, for example, has doubled relative to incomes over the last two decades, and overwhelmingly this is due to local authorities prescribing an urban development pattern incompatible with the housing that people actually want. Far more could be achieved for working New Zealanders by improving the responsiveness of the housing market than by making futile attempts to shift bargaining strategies in the labour market.

Another contributor to the outcomes in the labour market is the skill level of employees. Employees with greater skills earn more, and this factor is growing in importance. Indeed, increases in inequality of market income in the Western World can be tightly attributed to increasing returns for skills. You can earn more and more, increasingly, if you are more literate and more numerate.

The real work achieving the Opposition’s purported objectives, I am pleased to say, is actually already being done on the supply sides of the housing and education sectors, and I am proud to support and encourage this Government in this work. I am proud to support this bill and hope that this Government will one day pursue best-practice policy by confronting the fallacies that underlie too much of our labour law legislation. The duty to enter into and conclude bargaining should be gone. The duty to retain staff almost unconditionally under Part 6A depended on the type of employee, and now the type of business should also be gone. Doing so would put us in touch with the labour market. Doing so might also put the Labour Party in touch with the labour market. It would put us in touch with 21st century businesses that succeed or fail based on their ability to attract and retain workers. Those are the people I speak for, Mr Seymour – Mr Speaker. We have not heard enough from them so far. I commend this bill to the House.

Just before I call the honourable member, we are having trouble here with the bell, so I will call out “2 minutes to go”, if you last that long.

I do not know about Seymour—I think I have heard enough, Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to start talking about the forestry industry. Forestry is an unregulated industry. It is dominated by contracting. It is devoid of collective bargaining. It is a perfect model of the kind that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill seeks to extend across all sectors, and it is the very industry, with low rates of unionisation, whose workers will be most badly affected by this law. It is an incredibly flexible industry. The members on the Government side of the House talk about flexibility as if it is this great thing that they are bestowing on the New Zealand workforce and New Zealanders, but I think they should think pretty seriously about the real-life consequences of these policies and of this bill for New Zealanders in industries like forestry.

Tomorrow the Independent Forestry Safety Review Panel will release its report. It is campaigning by the union movement that has brought this about, which is ironic given what it going on here with this bill. It was the union campaign that highlighted the hidden shame of the forestry industry, not just the accident rate but the appalling terms and conditions in this industry, where the tea break legislation, which this bill does away with, is not even enforced and there is no hope of collective bargaining because of the fragmented nature of the industry. It was these failures that last year saw 10 workers killed and 180 people seriously injured at work, it was these failures that left 1,200 forestry workers on ACC for more than a year out of a workforce of 6,500, and it was these failures that led to the death of workers like forestry worker Charles Finlay, who was killed on the job in Tokoroa in July last year.

I have here Charles Finlay’s individual employment agreement, and at the conclusion of my speech I am going to table it because I think it is appropriate in this debate that members of the House should be able to look at an individual employment agreement from the forestry industry, which is the kind of agreement that will be a direct consequence of the legislation that National is passing today. This agreement is what individual bargaining looks like in reality—this is the thing that this bill promotes. It allows employers to favour individuals if they want to, and this bill makes it legitimate for an employer to refuse to settle a collective agreement, even if it is what the workers want. This agreement says it all. It was signed in 2005 and never updated, except for small increases in pay, and it has a limitless requirement for hours worked—limitless. Overtime worked was paid at the standard rate and, after 27 years in the bush, Charles Finlay was earning only $16 an hour, regardless of the fact that he was working 10-hour to 12-hour days. I have here as well some of Charles’ payslips, and I will come to those later.

This agreement was signed before the last Labour Government introduced mandatory tea and lunch breaks in 2008, and when it was signed it included just one break: half an hour for lunch. As I said, I also have some of Charles’ payslips, and they confirm his pay rate of just $16 an hour. They confirm the long hours he was working, in this most dangerous of industries. But I also have some of his timesheets, and they tell the real story of work where there is no collective bargaining—as much of this flexibility that the Government is selling as the employer wants and no premium for long hours or experience. The timesheets show that Charles often started work at 4 a.m. and finished at 4 p.m., with a half-hour smoko in between—12-hour days, 11½-hour working days in the middle of winter, in the middle of the country. Mr Finlay might have had tea breaks as well, but if he did, these were not in his agreement in 2005, so they would have come about only through the introduction of the law passed in this Parliament by the fifth Labour Government. Charles Finlay was killed at 5.30 in the morning. On the day he was killed, it was dark and cold. He had been home barely 12 hours from his work the day before when he was up again and off for more hard, hard, low-paid, and dangerous work. Charles Finlay leaves behind a widow on 80 percent of $16 an hour, raising 11-year-old twins and a 21-year-old son.

Tomorrow the Independent Forestry Safety Review Panel will recommend that the employment terms and conditions of forestry workers support safe workplaces, but today the Government, and this Minister, makes that much more difficult to achieve. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety himself, in his first speech in his new role, conceded to the Business Leaders’ Health and Safety Forum that there is a link between safety and conditions of work, but now we have this bill in the House, which does not recognise that. In other industries without collective bargaining, it is the same. In fact, the four industries that have the most fatalities have minimal or no collective bargaining or organised workers with protection to raise employment issues. I am talking about forestry, fishing, agriculture, and construction. Talk to these workers to see what this bill is trying to deliver for everyone. The wages in dairy farming decreased last year during the boom year, while immigration went up. It is an industry out of control with regard to hours of work and low wage rates, where 42 percent of the workforce turns over in less than 1 year. That is what an industry looks like when there is no collective bargaining, and that is what this National Government wants for everyone.

Take the ports. The Government has used—in fact, Simon Bridges was very open about saying that the Ports of Auckland dispute was partly the inspiration for this law, but let us look at that. Within only a couple of months of a dispute with the Ports of Auckland’s workforce over casualisation, the employers told the workers that they were all going to be fired and their work contracted out. It negotiated with foreign stevedoring companies to bring in strikebreakers en masse. That dispute was not protracted—it had been going for only 2 months—and the Ports of Auckland decided to dismiss its entire workforce. Well, the members of the Maritime Union of New Zealand—whom I am proud to call my friends; many of whom live in my electorate in west Auckland—stood up to an employer determined to casualise their jobs and take away their rights at work. And that is what this bill is intended to do—to make it easier for employers to do that to their workers.

I want to say to Charles Finlay’s widow and children, if they are listening to this debate, that even though this National Government is determined to weaken the rights of working people and take away their rights at work, Charles’ death will not be in vain. New Zealanders are fair people, and we in the labour movement will not rest until those rights are restored and strengthened. We stand for fairness at work. We believe in having a high-value economy, where people are paid well for skilled, secure work, not the crude, dog-eat-dog, 19th century approach that is the hallmark of National’s approach to labour relations. The great irony of this National Government is that it came to office talking about the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia, yet every bit of employment legislation it has brought to this House and passed in the last 6 years has been, at its heart, a determined effort to drive down labour costs.

This is not about vilifying all employers. In fact, I do not believe there is a groundswell of support from New Zealand employers asking for this law. Hardly any of them submitted. There were more than 13,000 submissions on the bill, and they were overwhelmingly opposed to this law. But make no mistake—this bill is intensely political. It is the National Party throwing red meat to its more hard-line ideological supporters in the business community. But it will, unfortunately, incentivise and encourage the worst behaviour by the worst employers. Labour stands for fairness and decency, and all of these things are undermined by this legislation in the House today. It is non-union members who will be the worst affected. That is the irony of this. Labour is utterly opposed to this bill.

It is my pleasure to take what I expect will be the final call before the vote on the third reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga for moving the third reading motion as I was unable to do so, and I appreciate the whip’s indulgence in giving me this final call. This afternoon it was my great privilege as the Minister of Police to attend my first graduation ceremony at the Royal New Zealand Police College in Porirua. I want to congratulate those graduants of Recruit Wing 287 as they are now sworn members of the constabulary in New Zealand.

There is a very interesting thing about the New Zealand Police. Those men and women in the New Zealand police force are not allowed to strike. In fact, this House legislated against the right of those workers to take industrial action. What this House also did was provide for some flexibility, some compensation, and some processes of mediation and arbitration in the event that negotiations between them and their employer became protracted. It is the same with the New Zealand Defence Force and a number of other organisations in this country. It is sound, it is sensible, and it is flexible. Do we hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the other side about that kind of flexibility? Absolutely not. So what I completely fail to understand is why the very pragmatic, sensible, flexible arrangements that are being proposed in this bill are being so opposed by the Opposition.

Mr Seymour, in his first intervention on this bill, has rather quizzically seen that very moderate changes, in his view, are getting what he thought, I think, was an overreaction. Well, I think that Mr Seymour needs to get used to that because that is the nature of the industrial relations landscape in this House. Even the most moderate, sensible, flexible changes will be railed at by the Opposition, and we have seen that throughout this debate.

For generations, similar types of practical accommodations were able to be made where the circumstances required them, and we have mentioned those sorts of things such as the night shift nurse in the aged-care home, the supervisor at the 24-hour service station, and the sole-charge air traffic controller at small airports—very practical solutions, which were made unlawful in 2008 by the amendments to this Act. We have heard a lot. We have heard about bus drivers urinating in bottles, and about the very important conditions that Mr Twyford described in the forestry sector. Those sorts of things are unlawful now, and they will be unlawful in the future. What angers me about the tub-thumping rhetoric by the cloth-cap wearers in the Opposition is that their irrational and incorrect description of flexibility as being the arbitrary removal of tea breaks has created a climate of fear amongst hundreds of thousands of workers in this country—the very workers they claim to represent—and for that, the Opposition should be ashamed.

I want to turn now to the duty of good faith not requiring a duty to conclude collective bargaining. I want to thank the architects of that clause, the fifth Labour Government, which introduced that provision when the Employment Relations Act was passed in 2000. It was sensible, it worked, and, for reasons that the National Party and ACT party in Opposition could not fathom, it was removed in 2004. Well, we are putting it back, but we are doing more than that: we are creating very good provisions for the prevention and control of what is called surface bargaining, which can be conducted not just by employers but by employees and their representatives. The Employment Relations Authority has to be satisfied that good faith has been undertaken before a decision to conclude the bargaining process is made, and that, of course, for 60 days at least, prevents the right to strike. It also prevents the right of an employer to lock workers out. It goes both ways.

Finally, I want to talk about Part 6A. As a rugby referee, when one comes off the field and both teams are pretty unhappy with one’s performance, you think you have done a pretty good job, and that is certainly the case with Part 6A. The unions are unhappy and the employers are unhappy with what are some moderate, sensible changes that I think will actually support the types of workers who support the Labour Party.

Mr Hipkins in his intervention asked—and I paraphrase—“What stops a company like, say, Spotless, from structuring its business to create a means to get around Part 6A?”. Well, he clearly has not read the bill, because exactly those provisions on the effective control of franchise arrangements to prevent such structuring have been put into the bill. It is also noteworthy that those genuinely small organisations—and about 75 percent of the organisations in, say, cleaning in this country are sole practice or very small family-owned businesses—do have the means or the wherewithal to embark on the responsibilities as set out in Part 6A. Often they are migrants or workers who have been cleaners themselves, who have set up their own businesses and are struggling to make them work, and who are successful in getting new tenders. They should be protected, I think, from the obligation—the burden—that would have them comply with Part 6A. These are very sensible, very practical, and, I think, appropriate changes to the Employment Relations Act.

As I say, I think Mr Seymour needs to get used to the fact that even sensible changes to our employment relations and ACC legislation will have the Opposition members up like meerkats. But I support this bill. This is good for our employment relations landscape. It is good for employers, it is good for employees, and I commend it to the House.

I seek leave of the House to table the payslips, employment contract, and daily timesheets of Charles Finlay, a forestry worker who died at work.

Is there any objection? [Interruption] I am just checking—do you have permission?

💬 Phil Twyford: Yes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection? There is no objection. The documents will be tabled.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.