Employment Relations Amendment Bill

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just a brief call because I noticed during earlier debates that a couple of members signalled their interest in the commencement clause, clause 2, and the changes proposed on Supplementary Order Paper 153 to change the commencement of certain sections of the bill from coming into force four months after the date of Royal assent, to a more precise date, 6 May 2019. The two reasons for that were it was as a result of submissions from employers; certain employers felt that it would be helpful to them to have a bit more time just to adjust to certain provisions of the bill and also that having a set date at the beginning of a week—i.e. a Monday—was more useful to them. There’s nothing more to it than that.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I also thank the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for pre-empting, no doubt, some discussion on this subject, and I also want to take a moment to thank him for his constructive response to a question I raised in a previous part of the debate. It seems like a long time ago. I’m tempted to say it feels like 90 days ago, because, by this stage of the evening, 90 days is about the only time frame that my mind is capable of handling. We’ve had, I feel, a debate for about 90 days. The whole thing has been somewhat of a 90-day trial, and I’d like to just address some suggestion about the commencement date in my remaining 90 days that I have to speak.

But if my suggestion that 90 days be the commencement date isn’t adopted and if no quarter is given in that regard—and I’ll just pause for a moment to allow the subtlety of that to ring round the Chamber, which it’s doing very silently—I’ll move on to a particular suggestion that I have in relation to the commencement date that I wonder if the Minister might contemplate. Quite simply, it’s actually not, in all seriousness, that the bill will come into effect 90 days after this House passes it or, indeed, it receives Royal assent but, instead, that the commencement date be four months from the date of Royal assent in the case of all the different provisions.

I acknowledge that that’s the case for the following sections: section 4, sections 9 to 11 inclusive—it doesn’t say “inclusive”, but that much is obvious—16, 8A, 17 to 19A, 29, 30 to 34, and 35 to 37. So I feel as though we could actually do a pretty good job of standardising the effect of the bill if we were actually to apply that particular time frame to the other sections in the Act, which, actually, are stated to be different. Sections 24 to 27, for example, which relate to discrimination in relation to union membership and involvement in union activities—it’s some six months.

I wonder if, given the desirability of having legislation that’s very clear, accessible, and easy to understand, we shouldn’t just standardise them all so that when people ask themselves around the water cooler or when they’re taking their meal breaks—if you’ll excuse the particular analogy—then they’ll be able to say to themselves, “Well, I wonder when the Employment Relations Amendment Bill will come into force. I know there were some really good speeches last night on that by Chris Penk, and some others too, and I wonder when that’s coming into force.” And it’ll be quite a long conversation. It might exceed the length of time available for the meal break if the person at the water cooler, praising my speeches in this way—possibly related to me; possibly even me—would have to give quite a complex answer in terms of the number of different sections that I’ve already outlined and don’t intend to do so further: those ones that come into effect after four months as opposed to those which come into effect six months after the date of Royal assent, and, indeed, the provisions that come into effect the day after the Royal assent.

On that latter category, which is, of course, the rest of the Act, which, of course, aren’t enumerated because there’s no good reason to do that except for the sake of clarity, I suppose. But, actually, in that case there will be very little time for employers, employees, and other interested parties—for example, including and in particular unions that might have a role in collective bargaining and so on and have different abilities to access workplaces and so on, as is the specific intent of the bill. And so some period of time for everyone to get their heads around that to ensure that they comply with the law would seem to me very beneficial.

It would be unfortunate indeed if there were accidental or unknowing breaches of the provisions of this legislation for reasons of perhaps acting in good faith but being unaware of the swiftness with which the matter is being contemplated by Parliament, such that instead of the day after Royal assent, some four months after, or perhaps six months after, would be more sensible and more helpful to all concerned.

There is a lot going on in the bill, and the Minister would no doubt acknowledge that because he’s taken the time to respond to a number of different points. And so I feel as though if we give the rest of New Zealand the time to catch up and understand these things, perhaps over a period of four to six months, that might be easier for all concerned.

Well, I’d like to start by thanking the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for selecting the date of 6 May 2019 when these changes will happen. The Minister has a keen sense of history, it is clear, because it was of course on 6 May 1937 that the Hindenburg disaster occurred. A Zeppelin fell to the ground and 36 people were killed. Well, 6 May 2019 in New Zealand will be a date that creates sighs in many, many workplaces around this country, creates furrowed brows, creates that feeling of frustration that small business owners tell us about when yet again they have to go through paperwork and changes that make their businesses go slower not faster; that make it harder to employ people, not easier; that make it harder to do a good job by their employees.

Of course, 6 May 2019 has a particularly nasty side effect, doesn’t it, because what do the summer holidays and the Christmas holidays look like for employers up and down New Zealand? They look like the time when these people will have to prepare the paperwork, prepare all of the changes that will need to be made so that they are ready by 6 May 2019.

I would like to ask the Minister about one provision in particular and that’s the one that relates to sections 8A and 17 to 19A—so addressed here in clause 2(a)(iv)—“(which relate to employers’ obligations in relation to new and prospective employees who are not union members):”. So this is to commence on 6 May 2019. These are the provisions that have been discussed a lot during the course of this debate because they relate to employees having their information handed over to unions if they don’t sign up for the union.

So what I want to know is: is the Minister confident that by 6 May 2019 his officials will be able to come up with a form that adequately communicates to employees exactly what information will be handed over when they fill in that form? Will they be able to make sure that that opt-out box is big enough by 6 May 2019? And actually, will they be able to design a form that is simple enough that employees up and down the country will, in fact, fill it in? Of course, if they don’t fill it in, the fall-back position is that their employer will tell the union that they haven’t filled that form in and will tell the union that they can go and give them a visit. So it’s very important that we have assurance that 6 May 2019 provides enough time for officials to think through these issues which have significant consequences for the privacy of New Zealand employees.

I’d also like to know from the Minister why we have the arbitrary distinction between clause 2(a), which relates to 6 May and then in clause 2(b), the sections 24 to 27, which are to come into force six months after the date of Royal assent and why those provisions are seen differently from the other provisions. And why, in fact, it is that the rest of the Act comes into force on the very day after the date of Royal assent? Why is the Minister distinguishing between all of these bits?

I’d also like to ask the Minister whether in fact he has considered whether 6 May 2019 was the right date to get, because let’s remember some history. In 1997, it was 6 May that the Bank of England became independent from politics. So perhaps this is the day that the Labour Party’s employment policies will become independent from what is good for employees? This is also the day in 2001 when Pope John Paul II entered a mosque for the first time, which, of course, was a very special occasion for global faith; quite different from the not auspicious occasion that it will be in New Zealand. In 2010, this was when the Dow-Jones index plummeted a thousand points in just 36 minutes.

So this has not been a day in history that seems to have any relation and it leaves employers scrambling over their summer break, over their Christmas holiday, to prepare for a raft of changes, and we know from experience, don’t we, members, that where there are lots of files to be prepared, where there’s lots of work to be done for officials, if this doesn’t go right we know who will get blamed, don’t we? It won’t be the Minister who will stand up and say, “Look, you know, it was me who made the decision to make this all happen on 6 May 2009.” No, we know that he’s got form, so he’ll say, “Actually, you know, the officials, they didn’t get it done in time.” So I really want assurance that this is going to provide time for officials to get all of these things together to ensure employers are properly informed, that they have what they need to abide by the law. If they don’t, we can be sure that they will suffer, that their employees will suffer, so it’s very important that this commencement clause is dealt with appropriately.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We’re at that part of the debate where we are now discussing the title, the commencement, and the principal Act. I wanted to thank the Minister Iain Lees-Galloway for pre-empting my question on this, because I did attempt to raise it in an earlier segment of the debate inappropriately, and I apologise for that.

But still, given that this is a bill that is designed entirely to strengthen the role of trade unions in the industrial relations environment and to increase union membership and power and influence, surely there would have been pressure from the trade unions on the Minister to get this bill done and dusted as quickly as possible. So not wanting to call into doubt the veracity of the Minister’s proposition as to why the date for commencement has been moved from a date sometime in March to 6 May, quite specifically, I am still a little concerned about the reason for that, and I would be appreciative of a further analysis of quite why that delay was. On this side of the Chamber, we suspect that that’s probably a question that relates to the relationship that exists between New Zealand First and the other coalition parties, and that they have probably gone about asserting their influence in terms of slowing this down.

But if the Minister is correct—and I take him at his word that the reason for the delay to the specific date of 6 May is exactly as he has suggested, to coincide with a Monday—then that’s a good thing. It does give businesses a greater opportunity to prepare for the administration and paperwork and changes to employment agreements and conditions that will be required. I know from my own commercial days of being in business, running businesses, and employing people that it is a time-consuming and sometimes quite complicated process for employees and HR people and, indeed, managers and operators of businesses. These are not simple transactions that are short documents; they are quite lengthy. Some people find them quite intimidating, the actual documents themselves. In fact, I can well recall long-term employees who simply, when presented with new employment agreements, literally did not open the envelope that they came in because they just don’t want to get their heads around it. For many people, this will be a challenge.

But I do want to suggest that if Monday, 6 May is a more appropriate business day, then maybe consideration should be given by the Minister to delaying just a little further, because for many businesses these days, the end of the financial year occurs on 30 June. That means that 1 July is the first trading day of the new financial year for an increasingly large number of New Zealand businesses. As it happens, in 2019, 1 July does fall on a Monday, and for many businesses that would be far more efficient and far more effective than a date in the middle of May or early May that seems convenient only because it is a Monday. If you’re really concerned about that, Minister, then I would suggest that a more appropriate date, if time is not of the essence—and it would seem, in this case, that it’s not—then 1 July would be a very good alternative and something worthy of consideration.

I had no idea that the date of 6 May was as inauspicious as it actually turns out to be, and I want to thank my colleague Nicola Willis for her diligent research into that date. For no other reason than that, it would be a very good thing to do to change the date.

I want to conclude this little portion of the debate just in terms of the title of the bill. This Act is to be the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2018. Surely, given that this is all about growing trade union strength and power and influence, it should really be called the “Trade Union Retention Bill”. Or maybe it should be called the “Trade Union Membership Enhancement Bill”, because what we do know is that trade union membership over the last 30 or so years has declined rapidly because people, literally, are not interested in joining trade unions. There’s no value proposition for many of them who don’t want to spend the $500, $600, $700, $800 or more a year that it costs to belong to a union.

So this is really a bill that’s designed to grow union membership and to encourage that money flow back to the trade unions. So “Trade Union Retention Bill” or “Trade Union Membership Enhancement Bill” would be, in my view, far more appropriate.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to talk to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, on the title and commencement clauses. I just want to ask a few questions around why the Minister in the chair, Iain Lees-Galloway, chose the date of 6 May. He seems to have just gone through his calendar and looked for a nice-looking May Day and thought, “Oh, well, that’s a Monday, on a May Day, and we’ll choose that one.” So he plucked it out of the air, popped it in the bill, and said, “Well, that’ll be nice and convenient for businesses.” Well, I’ve just had a look on the IRD website to work out when businesses’ tax is due next year, and it seems to me that 7 May is tax day. So did he consult with the Minister of Revenue to work out whether there were any other conflicts or anything else that businesses might have to be doing around that date?

Well, 7 May seems to be quite a busy day for quite a lot of businesses, and they’ve got these law changes that they’re going to have to deal with on the Monday, with tax due on the Tuesday. So I’d like to ask the Minister: what consultation did he undertake when choosing this May Day Monday when he decided to pop that in Supplementary Order Paper 153?

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Mayday! Mayday!

I think a lot of businesses will be saying, Mr Simpson, “Mayday! Mayday! We’ve got all this happening, and we’ve got our tax due on Tuesday so that this Government can keep spending it on a whole lot of wasteful expenditure that it keeps popping money into.” That’s just another point that I think needs to be looked into, and I’d like the Minister to actually take a call and tell the committee why this date was chosen, rather than just giving some sort of floppy answer about why he decided to pluck a date out of the year.

I also have a number of suggestions for what the title of this bill could be more accurately described as. It’s currently the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, which is quite bland—very boring—but we could probably make it a little more accurate if the Minister was to take on board some of the suggestions that I might be able to persuade him of. The bill talks a lot about union rights and union privileges and trying to support the unions—and, I mean, I don’t know why but the word “union” should be in there. I see the Minister Tracey Martin across the other side of the Chamber. She gave me a chocolate fish once for being able to mention the word “union”, I think, 21 times in five minutes. The chocolate fish is still sitting on my desk up there. I haven’t eaten it; it reminds me every day about how this Government is very, very supportive of the unions, and it will sit there for a little bit longer. But, surely, the word “union”—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Like the Government, it’s got a use-by date.

That’s right: like the Government. I did remind her when she started to suggest giving chocolate fish in the mail, that there could be some health and safety risks associated with that. That’s partially why I haven’t even consumed it yet, but I’d rather just look at it.

But, anyway, why is the word “union” not anywhere in the title? Surely, that should be recognised, and the fact that unions will now have unfettered access to the workplace? They’re going to be able to go and recruit members. They’re going to be able to have more powers around multi-employer collective agreements, and a range of other union rights, which are sort of littered throughout this piece of legislation which the Minister is seeking to progress. So why is that not recognised in the bill? Surely, the name could be the “Employment (Union Power Increasing) Amendment Bill” or “Increasing Union Power Amendment Bill”—“Employment (Access for Unions) Amendment Bill” or “Employment (More Union Membership) Amendment Bill”. These are names which could more accurately reflect the actual intent which is inside this bill.

We know that this bill is designed to increase membership. It is designed to increase revenue for the Labour Party’s union mates, and that’s what this bill will do. So I think this bill should be clearly describing the actual impact and the actual effect that it’s designed to have upon New Zealanders and actually have that in the title. And let’s be honest; this bill should just be honest. Everything this bill does, if you read a nice bland title like that, you could think, “Well, this is just making a few changes around the edges of our Employment Relations Act.” But this is going to the heart of it. It’s about increasing the unions, it’s about making mayday for employers, mayday for businesses, and I’d like the Minister to now take a call and explain why he’s going to be causing all sorts of mayhem.

I move, That the question be now put.