Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This member’s bill in my name seeks to amend the Employment Relations Act 2000 to protect the rights of people who are in a triangular employment arrangement. Triangular employment involves a person being employed by one employer but working under the control and direction of another business or organisation. Now, this bill has had quite the journey, for I did not draft this bill; it was originally drafted by former Labour MP Darien Fenton. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge her and the work she has done not only in drafting and submitting this bill originally but her work as a staunch Labour activist and Labour MP, and I appreciate the guidance and support that she has given me through this process.

Now, despite not having drafted this bill, it was submitted and pulled from the ballot in my name, and it is an issue that I feel deeply passionate about, because, ultimately, regardless of the type of employment arrangement that one person may have, they should have access to the basic, fundamental rights that the rest of us—every other employee in this country—have. In the form that this bill now takes after the select committee process, this seeks to include one simple provision and access to one very basic right: the right to a personal grievance.

Those workers, those employees, that are in a triangular employment arrangement, often employed through a labour hire company or a recruitment agency, are technically and will remain an employee of that organisation. Where this becomes complex is that this employee is sent on assignment to another location and is under the control and direction of that organisation, and under the law as it currently stands, those workers do not have access to the right of a personal grievance. We say in the Labour Party, and I hope in our support parties and coalition parties in New Zealand First and the Greens, that that is fundamentally wrong—that the right to a personal grievance, this provision that protects workers from mistreatment, should apply to these workers. It is not their fault that they happened to be employed in this particular arrangement. That was not foreseen when labour laws and the right to a personal grievance were put through legislation in this House many years ago.

In the process of working towards this bill being debated for its first reading, I met and spoke with many people, many individuals, and many organisations, both employers and employees within the labour hire and recruitment agency realm. It became very clear to me that labour hire companies maintain a legitimate role in this country. I think back to my own area of Wairarapa. There is a labour hire company there that performs a very legitimate role. There are employers in bakery and wood processing and, of course, in bacon and ham and other small goods like that. Now, all three of these are seasonal and are medium sized, and at any time they could get a contract which requires them to meet and, therefore, in doing so, to hire a large intake of employees for short-term employment. Now, these employers do not have access to those which might be based in the larger urban centres, like HR companies and things like that. The contract that they receive might not allow them the time to be able to screen employees or applicants themselves. So the labour hire company based out of Masterton performs a market role for them. It can provide these workers at short notice for a prescribed period of time. They are trained well and they are skilled employees. For some of them, it is their choice to work in such a casual arrangement; some of them work there because they can’t find alternative employment. Nevertheless, this arrangement in this particular situation works as it should.

So I repeat: labour hire companies do perform a legitimate role in our workplaces. However, what we have seen over recent times is that the proportion of permanent employees—particularly in the larger urban centres, for large employers—have reduced, and the proportion of labour hire company workers have increased. This increases the issue that when these workers are working in a place that would previously have employed permanent employees, these workers do not have access to the right of a personal grievance.

When I was speaking to both employers and employees, there was one particular case amongst those where it worked well, and those where it didn’t. There was one particular case that stood out to me. There was a woman who had been hired by a labour hire company for seven years and throughout that entire tenure had been placed at the same placement of work the whole time. So despite working at the same place, she was never an employee of that organisation; she remained an employee of the labour hire company. At any point, for no reason, that employer could let them go and send them back to the labour hire company.

Now, I can see, and, in fact, I’m very pleased to say, that in the vast majority of instances, there is no problem, but it only takes one for there to be a need for protection. The example that I was given was of this woman who had been working there for seven years, found out she was pregnant, and was dismissed the next day. That is an absolute disgrace. In this country, where any other worker under any other employment situation would have been protected, this worker was sent back to the labour hire company, who had no obligation to find her work and, ultimately, she found herself out of work. So here we are, at the time 2017, in New Zealand—a woman was, essentially, dismissed for being pregnant. It is disgraceful, and it needs to be stopped.

The feedback that we’ve had is that the provisions within this bill, the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill, would have allowed that worker to have access to a personal grievance. If any employee in a triangular employment arrangement finds themselves dismissed unfairly, they could now, if it passes, take that secondary employer, the place where they are essentially employed on placement, under a personal grievance to outline to the court that they were unfairly dismissed.

Like I say, in the vast majority of instances, the vast majority of workers can go through their entire working life and not face a situation where they need to take out a personal grievance, but it is there for the protection of people. I’m sure that the National Party would not like to see the right to a personal grievance stripped off workers in this country—I’m certain of that. But what I want to know is why they do not support extending that provision to workers who would otherwise, in any other circumstance, have access to that right.

The thing is that this is a matter of fairness. In any instance where someone is employed or where someone is employing others, there is a relationship there that is based on trust, that is based on fairness. Just because the vast majority of people treat their workers right does not mean that we should not have adequate protections in place to ensure that people are to be treated fairly in the workplace, and if they are not, that they have provisions available to them that allows recourse against the unfair treatment—an unfair treatment that can extend from the smallest to the most grave, which, of course, is the example that I gave.

We amended this bill through the select committee process as a result of the submissions, and many of those submitters that I have contacted subsequent to that have said that the amendments in this bill have made this much more acceptable to them as employers and employees within a triangular employment arrangement. I acknowledge the work of those on the Education and Workforce Committee. I thank them for working with me. I’m very pleased with the way that this bill has worked out, and I stand here and hope that in passing this bill we can continue on this track of ensuring that all workers in this country are entitled to fair treatment.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call in the second reading on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill in the name of Kieran McAnulty: he’s a list MP from somewhere around the country, and he’s a new member. He had the misfortune—as sometimes new members do when they come into this House—of inheriting a bill from a long-distant, long-gone former colleague. In this case it was a trade union Labour member by the name of Darien Fenton, who has—I notice, since she left Parliament—gone back to her core work of being a trade union membership officer and is busy trying to trumpet-up trade union membership and finances for the trade union movement.

Actually, therein lies, really, the purpose of this bill. It’s part of a suite of legislative changes that have been presented to this Parliament—and I suspect there will be more yet to come—that are actually all designed to do little more than improve the membership, the financial structure, and the market share of the trade union movement in New Zealand. The simple reality is that nearly 90 percent of New Zealand employees in the private sector are not members of trade unions, and that’s because the trade union movement doesn’t offer them a significant value proposition that makes it worth their while, that means that a membership of a trade union is going to enhance their workplace opportunities or career opportunities or, actually, reflect their aspirations as employees in a modern, functioning, flexible, growing economy that is forward-looking and forward-facing to the world. These pieces of legislation—and this is just one of them—are part of a suite of legislative changes designed to take us back to the bad old days of the 1970s, when the trade union movement dominated the industrial landscape of the nation.

Now, because this member is a new member, and he inherited this bill from Darien Fenton, he didn’t really know what he was inheriting when he signed the piece of paper that took it up. He came to the select committee almost apologetic. He knew in his heart, once he’d actually read the piece of legislation, that it wasn’t fit for purpose, that it wasn’t part of a modern industrial regulatory or legislative framework, and that it was something that was going to take us back decades rather than take us forward. As we went through the select committee process, we heard submissions from a raft of trade unions, formulaic and pro forma in their submissions, all pretty much exactly the same, probably produced on the same word processor. It wasn’t until we got the submissions that came from labour hire companies, from Business New Zealand, from a range of organisations such as the Employer and Manufacturers Association, organisations like Salt, like the New Zealand Port Company CEO Group, for instance, that the member realised this bill had some serious and fatal flaws.

Now, the select committee did propose and make some changes. This bill is undoubtedly a better bill at second reading than it was at first reading; but it’s still a bad bill, it’s still an unnecessary bill, and it’s still a bill that is a sledgehammer to crack a peanut—a very small peanut at that. Now, the member in charge of the bill cited just one example. For many, many New Zealanders, the opportunity to be employed and have the flexibility and the opportunity to work for and in a number of different places, workplaces, businesses, entities, and sectors even, is an exciting opportunity for people, and in a modern, future, forward-looking workplace.

The Labour Party did some work while they were in Opposition—in fact, it was about the only piece of substantive work they did do in Opposition—on the future of work, and they looked at the gig economy and the opportunities for people to be flexible in their employment arrangements and terms. Labour hire companies undoubtedly provide the New Zealand economy and workers who are employed by labour hire companies in triangular employment relations with the kind of situation and employment situation that they want, that they like, that they embrace, and that they want to be part of because it suits their particular style of work. So we come back to what is, essentially, the primary driver of this piece of legislation: it’s to increase union membership—and that’s really what it’s all about, because this is a Labour Government that is driven by ideology, driven by the good old days of the trade unions dominating the industrial workspace, and wants, actually, to pigeonhole all New Zealanders into either being employers or employees.

Actually, this pigeonholing effect isn’t suited to those that choose to work in the gig economy or choose to be forward-looking and modern in their outlook, and choose to work for labour hire companies, and choose to have a flexible employment arrangement of the sort that triangular contracts provide. So those people are traditionally, therefore, not eligible to become union members, because they don’t fit that employee category and that definition that would slot them and pigeonhole them into that position. So the real purpose of this bill is not about equity or fairness, as the member has suggested; it’s really all about growing union market share, taking us back to the 1970s, taking us back to a time when the trade unions dominated the economy of New Zealand, and not in a good way.

I want to just draw the House’s attention to a couple of comments from submitters. Now, these are credible, sensible submitters. Auckland Council was one, for instance, that came to the select committee, and in their submission they said: “we [are] concerned that … unintended consequence[s] will be to impose considerable transactional costs and administrative burden on the primary employer, secondary employer, and the employee.” if this bill is to proceed. Further, Auckland Council went on to say, in their submission on the bill, “… the bill will afford little real protection to temporary workers, [it will] impose significant costs on secondary employers, and make employment for temporary workers and permanent employees … more precarious.” Now, surely that’s not the intended objective of this bill if it was really about fairness and equity—but, actually, it’s not; it’s about trade union membership.

Salt, who are one of the leading labour hire and recruitment organisations in the country, made a submission to the select committee. In their submission they said: “The operational realities of the measures outlined in this bill are significant and extremely challenging.” I think that Kieran McAnulty, the Labour list MP from somewhere, said that he realised that during the process of the select committee. Salt went on to say that “The industry some call ‘labour hire’ is far more complex and layered than many understand and this bill, if made law, will ultimately negatively impact upon workers, [and] professionals and the New Zealand economy.”

We know that the economy is slowing, and we know that the tide has turned. We no longer have the GDP growth that we were so familiar with and used to over the nine years of John Key’s and Bill English’s administration. And we’ve seen—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): We are sliding a little bit away from the bill as it was reported back from the select committee.

Well, I’m trying to give some context, Madam Assistant Speaker, but going back to the Salt submission, and this really summed it up—this really summed this bill up—they said in their submission: “Put simply, this bill caters for an employment and contracting market … which existed two decades ago, and is not fit for purpose in [2019].”—not fit for purpose in 2019.

Then we had the New Zealand Port Company CEOs—and they’re a group that represent CEOs who manage and operate places like Northport, Ports of Auckland, Port of Tauranga, Eastland Port, Napier port, Port Taranaki, Centreport, and so on. They said in their submission—it was a very compelling submission—that “The Group believes that the proposed automatic transfer of labour-hire employees [in]to collective agreements would be draconian and would remove the flexibility obtained through these arrangements.” Then they said—which I think is telling—that, actually, the impacts would be in provincial and rural New Zealand: “The Group is particularly concerned”—they said—“about the impact that this proposed law change could have on provincial New Zealand and on industries such as agriculture, horticulture, and viticulture where labour-hire arrangements play such an important role.” I think they’re right.

This is a poor piece of legislation, inherited by a new member who really didn’t understand what the consequences of it would be when he signed his name to it. He came to that realisation halfway through the select committee process, tried to put it right, has made some positive changes at select committee, but it’s still a bad bill, it’s still a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and we don’t support it.

Before I call the Hon Clare Curran, could some honourable member please remove the box that’s in the aisle here, which is going to stop egress if there is an emergency. Could you just lift that off the floor, thank you.

Madam Assistant Speaker, tēnā koe, and very responsible of you. Look, thank goodness that last speech is over. There is a lot of rhetoric and balderdash—that’s a great word, isn’t it?—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Poppycock.

—poppycock and drivel, etc.—that gets uttered in this Chamber. Unfortunately for the watchers and the listeners out there in New Zealand, the last speech, unfortunately, epitomised that, and I’m really sorry to the people of New Zealand for that.

First of all, I really want to say thank you to Kieran McAnulty, from the Wairarapa, and also to Darien Fenton, who is continuing to represent the working people of New Zealand in the best way possible on the shop floor. I really do pay tribute to her for that and for the incredible work that she did while she was in this Parliament and what she is continuing to do in the workplaces of New Zealand to ensure fairness and representation and rights for people who really do need that representation.

This bill is an important step forward in ensuring that the rights of working people are upheld, and particularly for people who are working under vulnerable conditions. The triangular employment arrangements do put many workers in this country, despite what you just heard in the last speech, in places that are vulnerable. Many of those people are our recent citizens, recent residents, immigrants to our country, who may not have English as their first language, who require work and are prepared to work but who end up working in conditions that put them at a disadvantage. That party over there has swept all that under the carpet, glossed over it, and refuses to acknowledge that it’s an issue and, in fact, in my belief, a travesty. The Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill that has been brought to the House by the member sitting next to me, Kieran McAnulty, is, as I said, an important step forward.

I want to make a couple of comments about the departmental report on this, which talked about the reason for removing parts of the bill; there are very valid reasons for that, which was the part of the bill that said, around the collective agreement provisions, this would add complexity to the labour hire model for employers and controlling third parties. I just want to make a comment about the controlling third parties, which is a technical term and, for most people listening at home tonight, they probably wouldn’t really understand what that means. I’ll outline what that is. A controlling third party is a person “who has a contract or other arrangement with an employer under which an employee of the employer performs work for the benefit of the person; and who exercises, or is entitled to exercise, control or direction over the employee that is similar or substantially similar to the control or direction that an employer exercises, or is entitled to exercise, in relation to the employee.”

Now, that sounds a bit like gobbledygook, but it’s one of those things in Parliament that we have to have in legislation to clearly explain in legal terms what that relationship is. Essentially, what that means is somebody who works who is employed by a labour hire company who then goes to work for another company, and that primary relationship is with the labour hire company. Therefore, they are—and I think the member Kieran McAnulty explained that to the House when he talked about the woman who was, essentially, dismissed because she was pregnant, and she had no rights and she had to fall back on the relationship with that labour hire company. By removing the collective agreement provisions, this was because—and there were a lot of submissions; I think there were 170-something submissions, weren’t there, and most of those submissions supported the bill, but the ones that raised the issues around the complexity of the labour hire model, which means that there needs to be more work done on this. I think everyone in the House—well, on this side of the House—would agree that there needs to be more work done on this, in how to provide more surety and protections for people in those situations.

The thing that I do have a problem with, though, in the departmental report was where it was said by officials that they weren’t aware of strong evidence that supported the argument that labour hire workers were exploited or underpaid in large numbers, or more so than other types of working arrangements. Listening to the National Party tonight, you would think that there was no issue out there—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: It’s all hunky-dory!

—and that everything was hunky-dory. On 31 August last year, Burger King’s parent company, Antares Restaurant Group—don’t know if I pronounced that correctly—was barred from hiring migrant workers for a year following accusations of underpaying staff. A Burger King worker wasn’t paid for extra hours during the shifts, essentially, getting below minimum wages.

💬 Nicola Willis: This bill doesn’t have anything to do with that! Stick to the bill! Speak about the bill.

Excuse me, Madam Assistant Speaker, the issue is around the fact as to whether or not there is an issue in this area. In October last year, 73 Chorus subcontractors entered into urgent talks with the labour inspectorate.

Tim van de Molen: Give her some notes, McAnulty!

Maybe if you listened, you might learn something? Excuse me, Madam Assistant Speaker; that’s not referring to you. Seventy-three subcontractors in Auckland failed to keep employment records, pay the minimum wage, or provide employment agreements. The majority—vast majority—of them are immigrant workers. Labour hire firms that perform a legitimate role—there is no doubt about that in our country. The question is: are they performing that role legitimately? And that means there is a lot more work to do on this issue.

I’d like to give a shout out to FIRST Union, which is the largest union representing labour hire workers, which last year announced that labour hire firm Enterprise Recruitment had signed on as the first company to be an ethical employer in the labour hire workplace. An example is being shown perhaps, and there is more work to do legislatively in this area, but at least there is one labour hire company that is demonstrating some standards and a commitment of five core principles, which were that workers should be treated appropriately and not as day-by-day workers; that labour hire workers should not be contracted out in a way which undermines their rights under the Employment Relations Act; that workers should be entitled to a relevant and fair rate of pay pertaining to the work they’re performing; that labour hire workers must have the opportunity to contribute a collective voice; that appropriate resources should be allocated to ensure worker and industry standards are maintained; and that training, education, auditing, and enforcement, health initiatives, skills development, and recognition in appropriate company standards ranking systems must all be adequately resourced to give labour hire workers access to a safe, fair, and engaging working environment.

This is about fairness. The personal grievance provisions in this bill are a major step forward. There is more work to do. That side of the House isn’t committed to that, never has been, and that is a great shame.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to take this call on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. The member in charge of the bill, I was just wondering which world he lives in, but then the member who just resumed her seat clarified where he actually comes from, which was good to know. But we know that that region is quite business-focused and they understand what is good for business and what is not good for business, and what is good for our labour market—the flexibility that is needed. Those businesses definitely understand that, which that member and, of course, the Labour Party, clearly don’t understand.

I also heard from the member who just resumed her seat that all the immigrants, or most of the immigrants, actually go through the labour hire companies, and, actually, I refute that comment from the member. All of a sudden that member is showing so much love to immigrants and care for immigrants because they want some sympathy for this bill. So what we would like is some real argument for this bill, rather than trying to get sympathy from various sectors in the community. We also heard that personal grievance provisions are not available for people that work through triangular work arrangements, and I also refute that. Of course, personal grievance provisions are available, but it works differently from the way the member has actually proposed in this bill. There are so many things—from the members, those who spoke on this bill from the Labour side, the member in charge, and the member that resumed her seat—I think, that need to be challenged.

During the select committee process, my understanding was that the member was really keen to work with everybody on the select committee. I thought that by the end of the select committee process, after seeing what submitters had to say, the member would actually decide to withdraw this bill. I’m really surprised that, actually, that didn’t happen. The bill, nearly the whole bill, was rewritten in the select committee process and that is not something I have seen for members’ bills before.

Despite the opposition to this bill that we saw during the select committee process, this got through with the select committee recommending that it should be passed. This was a recommendation by a majority and, of course, the majority is held by Government members. I want to build on this—we received 174 submissions on this bill and out of 174 submissions, 89 submitters supported the bill, 81 submitters opposed the bill. So it might look like, yes, there was more support for the bill, but when I dissect it a bit further and look at the number of unique submissions that were received supporting the bill and opposing the bill—let’s first look at the number of unique submissions that supported this bill. It’s 17. The number of submissions that opposed this bill is 35, double the number of submitters that actually supported the bill. That should have been an indication to that member that this bill is not good to come to this stage. I would have expected that the member will understand that the sector outside doesn’t like this proposal, and so he would, actually, think of withdrawing this bill, and he hasn’t done that.

Now, we also heard that, “Well, it’s National Party members, you know, saying all these things”. No, it’s not us; it’s submitters, those who said things which are not supportive of this bill—very clearly. My colleague the Hon Scott Simpson, before, mentioned about Auckland Council. He mentioned a different part from their submission, and I want to, actually, also quote a part from their submission, because Auckland Council is an organisation that uses people through these agencies. So it’s really important to see what they have to say.

This is an example: they said that “Auckland Council strongly supports legislation which benefits and protects employees (of any kind) who are being exploited”. So, of course, we want to make sure that nobody is being exploited. “With regard to this bill, we do not consider this will be achieved. We do anticipate significant, adverse, unintended consequences which means that we do not support this proposed legislation”. Very, very, very strong words.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I apologise to the member. Could the two members who are having a conversation across the House please cease and desist. Thank you. I apologise to you, Dr Parmar, please continue.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. So I was saying that Auckland Council, their submission has used very, very strong words. It says “Significant, adverse, unintended consequences”.

Now, let’s look at another example, because this example is of an agency that actually supplies these skilled or unskilled people to various businesses. So we have looked at what an organisation that uses people or employs people—I mean, here, the “employee” and “employer” term is used differently but I’m using “employs people”—that come through these hire agencies. So now let’s look at what a labour hire company had to say during the select committee process. They said that if “this bill [is] made into law, [it] will ultimately negatively impact upon workers, professionals, and the New Zealand economy”. Again, a very, very strong submission. Now, the third example is about businesses—what businesses think about it—because it has to be about business, it has to be about the economy, because that is what relates to a flexible labour market, and Business New Zealand is a good example for that. They said that, “nothing in the bill provides any support for the idea of a highly productive and high wage economy. Business [New Zealand] recommends that the bill not proceed”.

Now, to be fair, I would like to look at other submissions as well, those who actually said that, “Yes, this is a great first step”. So let’s look at those submissions. These submissions came from—I’ve just picked two examples: one came from the New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union. Of course, unions would love this bill. They are saying that of course it should be extended to more types of working arrangements, including casual workers. Then we have another submission from the largest union in the country, the New Zealand Public Service Association. Of course, they are very supportive of this bill and they’re saying, “Yes, great first step towards ensuring protection”.

Clearly, we can see that this bill is just to serve unions, but here in Parliament we’re not here to serve just unions. We are here to serve every sector of our country. So we strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you very much. I don’t blame you for having a bit of a pause when you looked at me, Madam Assistant Speaker, because it is very difficult to remember everybody’s name, and I am very less memorable than some other members in this wonderful House.

But it gives me great pleasure to take a short but punchy approach to this bill. I want to congratulate Kieran McAnulty for getting his bill drawn out in the first instance. I just want to articulate that the support from New Zealand First to get this bill to select committee was one with reservations at the first reading. We said, “Look, we want to hear from submitters. We want to know what people think of this.” We had some concerns, as a caucus, with regards to one aspect of the bill, which was about the issue around collective bargaining. I have to say, what an absolute great pleasure it is to stand up and support this bill through to the third reading, for good reason. The select committee process has shown us a pathway through a bill that has had some problems and, now, has had those problems ironed out.

When I listen to the speeches across the House, when they talk about some of the comments that are being made, they’re talking about comments that were made by certain aspects of the community that had concerns about the collective bargaining aspect of this bill. It has now gone. It is null and void. It is not there. When you listen to what people are saying, including Business New Zealand, who suggests that this is now a much better bill than what it first was, we have to have some confidence that it’s actually addressing a problem—albeit a small problem, but a problem none the less—that needs to be fixed up inside these triangular employment arrangements.

Where you have a primary and a secondary employer employing an employee for a range of different jobs all around the country and, in fact, the employment groups that—the hire-pool people hire tens of thousands of people around the country every single week. We think, when we think of hire-pool companies, that they’re actually just hiring low-end labour to dig posts, or students in the holidays—that’s not true at all. In fact, there are a lot of hire-pool companies that are out there on a professional, high-skilled basis employing white-collar workers in corporate positions with high skills in the medical industry and in many, many parts of our community. Hire-pool agencies work. It works perfectly well for those employees looking for a casual arrangement. Invariably, they get better wages, but they are looking for that casual approach to their work, and it also benefits the employers looking for people on a short-term basis.

So we understand there is a necessity for a very, very small group of businesses that have the opportunity to exploit some of these workers, whether they be blue-collar workers or white-collar workers, and this bill addresses that problem by simply sharing the responsibility from the primary source of the employer and the secondary employer that now share that responsibility over a personal grievance.

Now, I’ve personally gone and spoken to a number of hire-pool companies, labour hire-pool companies, who are very comfortable with what we’re doing here. In fact, some of the discussions that I had with them was exploring their thoughts for future works and discussion on what their feelings were if you looked at an Australian model that has a casual loading aspect in these types of arrangements. They said, “We wouldn’t even be worried about that.” The collective bargaining issue was the biggest concern that they had, and that has now completely gone from this bill, which leaves this bill very, very easy for New Zealand First to support and see through to the third reading.

Again, I want to commend Kieran McAnulty for the work that he’s done. I also want to commend all of the members across the House through that select committee process and all of the people that have taken the time out of their day to submit on this bill. We have been very studious in ensuring that we’ve actually listened to what the concerns are, that have now been addressed, and that’s exactly what the select committee process is there to do. And I believe we’ve now got a bill that we can all be proud of. We commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Do you know, it’s not often that I feel a sense of unbridled excitement when the honourable member Clayton Mitchell is speaking in the House. But just for a moment I had that rush of emotion, because I thought, from the way that he started, that he was going to say, “New Zealand First had opposed this bill at the first reading but let it go through so that it could go to the select committee, and we now realise that it’s an unnecessary and, frankly, counterproductive bill and we’re going to go through with our reservations and vote it down.” I thought, yes, that means that National and New Zealand First together will have the numbers, we can get rid of this one, and get on to some significant legislation. But, oh no, Mr Mitchell has let us all down and my excitement level went down quite considerably as well.

This bill is another example of Labour’s payback to the unions for their efforts at election time, and we see that coming through time and time again. It is an unnecessary bill. It’s clearly an anti-business bill, but it’s also an anti - workers’ rights bill. And I say that because a basic right of workers is not to join a union, if they choose not to or if that doesn’t suit their circumstance, and yet this is part of a suite of employment law changes that we’ve been seeing coming through from this Government for the last 18 months or so which are all about union recruitment.

💬 Hon Clare Curran: What a silly man.

So let—that’s so kind of the member for Dunedin South! It’s possibly the nicest thing she’s ever said to me. I could perhaps give a dissection of the merits of her speech a few moments ago—

💬 Hon Clare Curran: Seriously, though, could you run a decent argument?

—but that wouldn’t be particularly edifying. I’ll let her just sit there and insult me. She might actually do me the courtesy of listening, because this is about union recruitment.

Mr Mitchell mentioned a few moments ago that he’d listened to some of the submissions and they had substantially improved the bill. Well, I do pay tribute to the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for the work that they did, but let’s not be under any illusion here. Mr Mitchell mentioned the Business New Zealand submission. I’m holding it up here and the Business New Zealand submission includes, right at the outset, “Business NZ opposes the Bill and recommends that it not proceed in any form.”—in any form. So for Mr Mitchell to suggest that suddenly they’re quite happy about it flies in the face of reality. Now, to be fair to Business New Zealand, they’re not suggesting for one moment that exploitation of workers should be condoned. Of course it shouldn’t. Nobody in this House would argue for exploitation of workers. Of course workers have the right to be protected from exploitation, but the suggestion that this bill will prevent that from occurring is fanciful.

I’ll just make one final point in conclusion. The union narrative that underpins this bill is at odds with recent international agreements on non-standard forms of employment and fair recruitment. Those were negotiated by Governments, unions, and employers in tripartite fora at the International Labour Organization during 2015 and 2016. So this is an issue that has been recently dealt with in a consensual way by representatives of the different interests in Labour relationships, and it has been quite clearly found to be unnecessary.

So the National Party strongly opposes this bill. We’re very disappointed that New Zealand First don’t seem to be prepared to stand up for the principles that they were enunciating earlier in the debate. I’m sorry that it sounds as if it will go forward further. I hope I’m proved wrong.

I call Jan Logie.

Earlier than I expected, but nevertheless I am pleased to rise and offer the Green Party’s support for the member Kieran McAnulty’s bill, the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill.

I would like to acknowledge the member Kieran McAnulty for getting this bill back to the House, and it seems, with us standing, that the bill has a majority and will be able to progress through, which is good news for people in New Zealand. I also want to acknowledge Darien Fenton, who devised this bill about, I think, over 10 years ago now after a trip to the UK, I understand, where she spoke to a member of Parliament there who was looking at the increased casualisation of labour and use of labour hire companies, and was quite concerned at the impact that he was seeing on working people in the UK. So she got the idea to develop this legislation from starting to see the pattern of that happening here.

And now we are 10, 11 years later, and indeed this form of employment relationship has grown significantly and with very mixed results, if anyone is being honest about it. We know that this form of relationship really works for some people, and we also hear consistently of stories of people talking about not feeling as if they have the stability or the certainty in their relationship, in their employment status, to be able to raise concerns and have them addressed safely, and a concern about the undermining of the employment conditions of workers around the country through the overuse of temporary contract and labour hire workforces undercutting other workers.

On that point, I spoke with some workers from Vodafone earlier this week who were raising that concern with me directly—that they are in a very, very uncertain position. A huge number of workers around the country fear that they are going to be losing their jobs, that those jobs are going to be contracted out at reduced conditions, and that vulnerable people will be left without support in our communities. Ultimately, when I hear members from the Opposition describing unions as if they’re, kind of, another form of drug dealer, it really just does boggle my mind, because the gap between the stories they must be hearing about the experiences of working people really struggling to be treated with dignity in their workplaces, have safe work conditions, be paid fairly, and knowing that the unions often are the only mechanism that people have to be able to challenge those poor employment practices—it seems very strange to me that they would see that as a bad thing.

However, back to the point of this bill, which originally sought to address two core problems: one, to make sure that employees in the triangular employment relationship were able to take a personal grievance; and, secondly, to ensure that employees could access the same pay and conditions as direct employees. So the intent of that was, really—the second point was to be able to address this, kind of, drive to the bottom in employment conditions that we have been experiencing around the country. We just hear terrible stories and there was a case that led, preceding this, of some workers in a triangular employment relationship, who had been working for years over 60-hour weeks without any holidays, without any ACC coverage, without sick leave, or holidays, or KiwiSaver—extraordinary. It was some unscrupulous employers seeking to exploit the lack of clarity in terms of that relationship, and it was good that the courts redressed that.

But that gave an example of what this bill was initially intended to address: it was to remove that incentive for exploitation that exists through the lack of clarity and the ability to underpay people in this relationship compared to permanent employees. However, through the select committee process, the submissions, it was discovered that the form of this bill wasn’t the best mechanism for addressing that concern, that the complexity would be very hard to manage, especially with people potentially having multiple assignments, there being multiple unions across different workplaces, or multiple collectives. So it wasn’t manageable and was removed from this piece of legislation.

I will say, though, that this is outstanding work that needs to be done. We have, I believe, a responsibility in this House to lift people up in this country and ensure that they are safe at work, that they are properly paid for the work that they do, and I take some encouragement from the work that’s been started around the fair pay agreements as an ability to address that problem—that this bill sought to set some standards across industries through enabling people to access collective agreements. So that would have just been in a workplace. But our fair pay agreements give us the ability to do that right across industries, and I think that is even better. So I am looking forward to that work progressing.

I will also note that the Holidays Act Working Group that’s going on at the moment with employers, and unions—and I understand that those are very constructive relationships, unlike the impression the National Party may give. It’s amazing how often that business manages to work successfully with unions to resolve recognised problems. So that is also an area where people in more precarious employment have struggled to access their full entitlements as they’ve been intended by legislation, and so that is another piece of that puzzle to make sure that working people in this country are treated fairly.

I do also just want to note that the changes around the personal grievances that the FIRST Union, who—we’ve heard from the other side that this was just a recruitment exercise for unions, and that unions can’t access these workers. Actually, FIRST Union represents a lot of workers in these arrangements, and they’ve brought to our attention a real concern around the prevalence of sexual harassment for workers in this triangular relationship. I think it’s incredibly important that those workers have access to the same pathways for redress against the harassment as people in permanent employment. They should have rights to a personal grievance, as they should have access to the Human Rights Commission to lay complaints, and the Health and Safety at Work Act, to ensure their safety in the workplace.

This legislation gives them that right to access a personal grievance approach, and I hope that that will help strengthen their protection in the workplace—that these employers, who may be a bit dodgy, will actually now realise that there’s potential for consequences that they thought they were free from prior to this legislation. That is progress for the people of this country, and the Greens are happy to support it.

It’s a pleasure to rise this evening in opposition to the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill, a bill that was drafted in 2007—12 years ago. Yet the world has moved on, and I don’t think this bill reflects the scale that this world has moved on that we have seen in the last 12 years. Just to give you a sense of the perspective, 12 years ago the iPhone was launched. Think about the dramatic changes that we’ve seen in technology over the past 12 years. That bill was written the year the iPhone was made, and, unfortunately, this bill is not fit for purpose, and that’s why the National Party is opposed to this bill.

We’re opposed to this bill because, fundamentally, this is going to destroy the labour hire industry. It is also going to remove flexibility from not only employers but the very vulnerable people that that side of the House claims to represent. It’s going to increase costs for business, and these costs are going to be passed on to customers. Most fundamentally, it takes us backwards. When the world has moved on, this legislation takes us back to the age of unions, and that’s why we’re fundamentally opposed.

But don’t take my word for it—let’s look at the submissions that were made during this process. “This bill will kill the industry.”, said Roana from the Shamrock Recruitment Group in the select committee process. “This bill will increase the cost of doing business.”, said Simon from AWF Madison. “This bill will hurt the majority who are good employers and good contractors.”, said—

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: How?

—you read the submission—Alan from ELE Ltd. “This bill only benefits unions, and firms won’t hire these workers because they’re going to be more expensive as a result.”, and that came from Business New Zealand. “There are going to be fewer opportunities because it’s going to be more expensive, and it’s going to slow down the productivity of small to medium sized enterprises in this process.”, said Max from the Whitehead Group in the select committee process.

The majority of employers and the majority of contractors are good contractors. Most of these contractors and labour hire companies don’t tolerate the exploitation, and the flexibility is the key to this industry. We’ve heard it loud and clear throughout the process for the Education and Workforce Committee that firms want the ability to be consistent with their demand throughout the year. Worker choice is going to be affected because of the number of people that choose to go into the labour hire industry. We just have to look at some research. I mean, there’s research coming out from Uber, which is in a gig economy - type operation. Research from Uber in Australia indicates that 78 percent of Uber drivers choose that job because it’s flexible, that three out of five workers would not do it without that level of flexibility, and that half of Uber drivers that were polled in this research have kids and family with children under 18.

So the number of people that choose this genuinely for the flexibility that labour hire offers—and in terms of the elderly, women, students, and entrepreneurs, they all desire that greater level of flexibility in this job environment. Flexibility drives job satisfaction. We hear all the time about well-being over on that side of the House. Well, job satisfaction is a key input for well-being, and that is why, from the Education and Workforce Committee, we heard that 80 percent of the workers that go into this industry end up with a full-time job at the end of it.

So the question that I ask is: what is this bill trying to solve? What is the problem that this bill is trying to solve? We’ve heard it from the member himself. He said there are rogue operators out there. But this bill, said many submitters in this process, does not lead to the solution of these rogue operators. We should license this industry. We should destroy these rogue operators and send a clear message that if you are to go away from or disrespect your workers, then you will be caught, you will be fined, and you will be outed. That is what Queensland did most recently by passing the Labour Hire Licensing Act that was mentioned in the select committee process. Now, under this Act, firms that use labour hire must be licensed. Now, if you are mishandling workers, you’re fined up to $400,000, and they’ve got a beefed-up inspectorate as well. So there are other ways that we could have resolved the issue and challenges of rogue operators without resorting to this bill.

In summary, let us discuss and build laws for the future of work, not for the memorabilia of the past. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Look, I thought it was quite admirable, my colleague Dan Bidois getting through that quite intolerable barrage of heckling and interjections coming on, and I just would refer your attention to Speakers’ rulings 59/3 and 59/4, referring specifically to that constant barrage being entirely intolerable. The constant asking of questions that we saw from Mr Lees-Galloway, with his yapping in the front row, was actually quite disorderly in regards to my colleague’s attempt at his contribution. So I would encourage a little bit more decorum from that side of the House, and on the last note referring to the previous ruling with regards to boxes on displays as well. Thank you.

I want to thank the member, yes, and it’d be really helpful if both sides adhered to that kaupapa. I was noting one of the members behind the member that was speaking having an interaction with a member on this side. But, quite correct—members have the right to be heard. I think Mr Bidois did very well to continue with his speech. At the end of the day, you know, it’s up to the members in the House to monitor their own decorum. I could be the whistleblower all night if I wanted to, and I don’t really want to, so members should control themselves. Kiritapu Allan—five minutes.

Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the privilege of being able to speak on this member’s bill, the triangular employment bill. I will ensure that I bring the tone down to ensure a debate that is filled with decorum, because for us on this side of the House, we are the Labour Party because we genuinely believe in the right of all workers to be able to work with dignity, to be able to operate in environments where they can show up—all of us can show up, do our bit, do our hard yards for our employer, and that we have all of the rights that we on this side of the House have fought for for generations to ensure that the workplace environment is a safe environment for every single person that shows up.

Now, I note that there is this constant mantra over on the opposite side of the House that what is good for business is good for the economy. Now, in my view, what is good for hard-working New Zealanders is good and fundamental for New Zealand’s economy, in order for it to thrive. Now, there doesn’t have to be this oppositional tension between business and workers. What we see in a majority of environments is that where there is a good employer, where they look after their workers, where they ensure the dignity and fundamental rights of that worker, well, there’s no problem. But that’s not the case in all environments, and that’s why this side of the House is absolutely adamant that every single person has the right to be fully protected from the tyranny of any employment practice that undermines their ability to show up, do their hard yards, and walk away with a pay cheque.

Before I turn to the substantive—and it’s been mentioned before; I do really want to just applaud the work of Darien Fenton. She’s been a lifelong advocate for workers up and down the country. The first time I ever met Darien Fenton was on the floor at AFFCO in Wairoa. She could not be a more diligent and passionate advocate for our labourers out there in electorates like mine, in the East Coast, where folks might not know the nuances of the Employment Relations Act (ERA) but you have people like Darien who, day in day out, strap on her boots to go and make sure that our workers are protected, and I am absolutely in admiration of her.

I too just want to acknowledge my colleague Kieran McAnulty, who picked this bill up—and you’ve actually flown with it. The way that you’ve engaged with small business, the way that you’ve engaged with unions, the way that you have really tackled, got to the heart of the issues, which is why—and I’m glad that my colleague from across the House, Mr Bidois, just mentioned a submission that was originally filed by Max Whitehead from Whitehead Group Employment Solutions. Now, they had some concerns about this piece of legislation when it was originally tabled. Well, because of the hard work of my friend here, Kieran McAnulty, and others in the select committee, going through the process, listening to over 180 submissions—this side of the House wanted to make sure that that legislation that’s going through struck a balance between ensuring that the rights of workers were protected and not hampering the ability of those good employers to play the role that they do. Now, what Mr Max Whitehead wrote in December after the suggested amendments through the select committee were made: “Hi Kieran”—he sent this by way of an email—“I’m going to make a short video saying how pleased I am with you for the fair process that you’ve engaged in.” Now, that is the type of feedback that this side of the House got from Business New Zealand, got from labour hire companies up and down, because we are concerned.

Now, labour hire companies play a critical role in the modern labour environment. Look, we’re not living back in a day gone by, and we’re acutely aware of that, but what the ERA didn’t do was ensure that where we are seeing more triangular employment relationships, workers who work in these types of contracts—the original legislation didn’t contemplate these in the same way that this bill does. So what it basically, amongst other things, ensures is that all workers have the right to take things that we all take for granted—the fundamental right to a personal grievance against the people that are in control of us all day, every day. And that’s not necessarily the hire company—thanks to them for getting us into the work—but it’s the people that are controlling us. I applaud this legislation to the House. Good work, mate.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Kei te kōrero ki te kaupapa i te wā.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I speak to the current matter.]

This bill is the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. I’m doing my mahi kāinga, my homework, for the MPs’ Te Reo class—giving it a good go, anyway.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Ka pai.

Yeah, thank you for the “ka pai” across the House.

I would like to read from a particular submission—I’m not going to say who the submission’s from, but as I start to read, you can get a really good idea. New Zealanders are of course working under triangular employment relationships, and labour hire firms are a classic example of those relationships. Here goes some of the submission: “We draw on workers in South Auckland area, who could mostly be described as low socio-economic. They prefer to work in often temporary assignments that align with their need for flexibility and provide them with many micro-learnings, increasing their employability. A large proportion—around 80 percent—go permanent within 6 months.” That’s fantastic, right? It carries on: “Our industry is often criticised as being low paid, but of our workforce of over 80 people each week, only one persons—1.25 percent—is on minimum wage. That person on minimum wage is doing basic work and is young, but is gaining valuable skills and building a work history.”

This attack on labour hire will undoubtedly reduce employment opportunities for a local workforce which is mainly comprised of young Pacific and Māori who are already marginalised, and especially for those who rely heavily on agencies to get into the work—they’re often the young ones—or to get back into work after having a child or transitioning across careers, because we have multiple careers now, and downscaling those who are of mature age.

It’s 2019. We live in an age—and my colleague Dan Bidois pointed this out—that is requiring a flexible, productive, and innovative workforce. You can’t grow New Zealand by putting a handbrake on productive business. We need employers and we need employees who have autonomy and the capacity to do whatever is needed to be flexible in this modern and global workforce.

We don’t support this bill. It came from a very long time ago. We on the Education and Workforce Committee could see how it was floundering, and it has found a way through by the skin of its teeth, in our opinion.

If you want to get down to bad egg employers, there are a few, and that came out in select committee, but they’re just a few. If you want to get down to the topic of the exploitation, New Zealand law already provides a minimum standard to address exploitation matters. All this is doing is putting yet another handbrake on to business, and that will not grow New Zealand.

It is a true pleasure to speak in support of this bill here this evening, the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. I really would like to congratulate my colleague Kieran McAnulty for the work that he has done in shepherding this bill through select committee to the stage that it’s at at the moment. In fact, I would have to say that it was a pleasure to watch Mr McAnulty and the way that he was able to operate with the different submitters and work with them to strengthen this bill to the point that it is now a very good bill that meets the needs of a modern labour workforce.

I was really interested to hear the contributions from the other side of the House, because I felt like they were stuck in a bit of a time warp. I felt like they were stuck in a time warp before the bill had actually come back from select committee. In fact, we even heard Max Whitehead being quoted by Mr Bidois across the House. Now, I remember very well the afternoon that Mr Whitehead submitted, and at the end of when he submitted, Mr McAnulty was so fascinated by that submission and impressed by it that he contacted—right there at the select committee—Mr Whitehead to see if there was further input that could go into that bill. In fact, on 17 December, after this bill was reported back, Mr Whitehead sent this email—a second email—to Mr McAnulty: “Good afternoon, Kieran. I have just read the report that was published today. Overall, I’m very happy. I think this is a fair”—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Yeah, very happy.

—very happy; that’s right—“and reasonable law. Thank you for indulging me and allowing me to have my input. Regards, Max Whitehead, from the Whitehead Group.”

This bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000. It strengthens the personal grievance provisions of this Act. Tens of thousands of people—and I heard that from my colleague from New Zealand First, Mr Clayton Mitchell, over here—are employed through hire companies daily, weekly, and on a yearly basis. We have heard from many of the speakers on this side of the House that one of the reasons that this bill was first drafted was because of the lack of clarity in those employment situations.

It has been really hard for some people. We have heard some examples being given. Mr McAnulty here told us of the example of the woman who had got pregnant and then was fired straight away, as soon as that pregnancy was announced. Now, we did hear some interjections being thrown across, saying that they had a right to do something about that, but the law is unclear as it stands at the moment. The whole idea of this bill is fixing a gap that exists in our employment law.

Now, we also heard “This is 2019. What are we doing looking at this law when it’s 2019? We’re going back in time.” Well, it’s because it is 2019, and changes have occurred in work structures so that we have a far more casualised workforce than we’ve ever had in any other point in our history, and we are looking at strengthening the law to protect them. Not only does it protect them but it protects our businesses as well, which will in turn lead to a stronger economy. That’s where I fail to understand why our Opposition failed to see that strengthening workers’ rights is actually good for business and our economy.

As I said, the bill fixes a gap in employment law, because an employee in a triangular arrangement has a limited ability as it currently stands to raise a personal grievance against the controlling third party, and it’s the controlling third party that at times can make the work conditions extremely difficult for that particular worker. I am excited to see this bill progressing.

Something else we heard from the other side was “This is just a small number of employers.” Well, it was really interesting at the Education and Workforce Committee. In fact, I was sitting next to Mr McAnulty in one of those select committee hearings, and every time we had a hire company come in, I could predict that they would tell me that “We know that there are rogue operators out there. We’re not one of them. We’re a good employer, but we know that there are rogue operators, and it needs to be fixed up.” Every single one of them said it—every single one. So that tells me that if they’re there and they know that, then it is more than just a few. It is actually quite a number, and they know who they are within their industry.

This bill puts protections for the worker and adds to those protections, and anything that adds to the protections for the worker and for the vulnerable workers—and, as I said, we heard from a few of those vulnerable workers as well—has got to be a good thing. We need to look at those rogue operators, too. Maybe, Mr McAnulty, that’s a piece of work down the track a wee bit. But at the moment, we are looking at strengthening the rights for those workers.

We heard a number of submissions, and I just really wanted to end on this point. We did have 174 submissions. It was pretty evenly spread: 89 of those submitters were in support of the bill and 81 submitters opposed the bill.

We heard some of those submitters who supposedly attended in front of our select committee and presented in front of our select committee, quoted here this evening from the Opposition. It was really funny, because we heard one of those submitters and what they submitted to in select committee, and they read a piece of their submission. The only trouble was that that group never did submit an oral submission to our select committee. They pulled out at the last minute and never got another chance to come in front of us. So I really wonder how much thought has been put into the argument by the Opposition at this point, or whether it’s just “We see this as being something that we’re going to have another attack at unions about, so let’s just get in there and see what we can do.”

This isn’t about unions. This is about workers and protecting their rights, and in my mind and in the minds of every person on these Government benches, when we can protect workers’ rights, that is a good thing. I commend this bill to the House.

I want to take the rather old-fashioned step of returning to the actual bill we are debating this evening. It’s a bill which you only need look at the pages of—which I’ve helpfully highlighted—to show you how gutted it in fact was at select committee. There they are, Mr McAnulty, all of the bits in your original bill that had to be excised because they would have destroyed the labour market hiring part of our economy.

So let’s tell the real story of this bill, because what it was was a terrible bill. It was a bill that was written over a decade ago by a unionist who was part of a global movement that was trying to undermine labour hire companies—labour hire companies which speakers on both sides of this House tonight have acknowledged play a very important role in our economy. And what the bill sought to do was forcibly join people in labour hire arrangements to collective agreements. That’s what the bill sought to do as its primary objective.

Now, fortunately—and I’ll praise Mr McAnulty for this—he has sensibly got rid of that provision, because we heard submitters line up one after the other. There were 81 of them, most of whom were giving original submissions—unlike the form submissions and support—who said this will be a disaster. But what we’ve had on the other side tonight is, instead, many speeches that have claimed that, actually, this bill is going to create workers’ rights, it’s going to protect people, it’s going to do all of these things. I just want to again return to the facts, because you don’t need to believe me, you can believe the departmental report, which says clearly, “The status quo already allows employees to raise personal grievances if they have been unjustifiably dismissed, even if they are working in a triangular arrangement.”

So let me just put very clearly on the record that there is nothing in this bill that creates a new right for a personal grievance that didn’t already exist. In fact, what this bill does—and I wish that members on the opposite side of the House wouldn’t be so grandiose in their claims for it—is it says that you can join other people to a personal grievance. So, really, what we have here is a bill that talks about how you divide up liability. We have a bill that says how do you divide liability when there’s been a personal grievance. And what it actually could do is undermine employment relationships that have been working successfully, and it could actually contribute to a lack of legal clarity.

So here we have, I think, a bill that is absolutely typical of this Labour Government. It is a bill that promises the world. It says we’re going to protect all these people; terrible things are happening. Well, actually, terrible things aren’t happening. The bill does very little. It’s utterly different from what was promised, because this is a Government—and Kieran McAnulty is a member—who have overpromised and woefully under-delivered.

Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. I will attempt to bring a little bit of common sense to this debate tonight because this bill will not ruin the labour hire industry. I do challenge the Opposition—we were asking as the speeches were happening—how will it ruin the labour hire industry. No answer came forward, because it’s just empty rhetoric. Another argument we heard was it will cost businesses money. How will it cost businesses money? There was no answer, again. We also heard that it’s an old bill, so therefore not relevant today. The sad truth is that, yes, it is an old bill, but it’s still relevant. We’re still faced with some of the challenges that we had 12 years ago.

So I’d like to acknowledge Kieran McAnulty for the work that he’s done in bringing this bill to the House. I’d like to say well done on having it drawn from the ballot in the first instance. Also, I would like to join with a chorus of others around acknowledging Darien Fenton and the wonderful work that she’s done over many, many years for workers in this country. She’s been a tireless advocate, and she remains so. I’d also like to thank the Education and Workforce Committee. I was a member of the committee while this bill was passing through, and I was able to personally hear some of the submissions on this.

The Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 to strengthen the personal grievance provisions of the Act. And that’s the key point: the personal grievance provisions of the Act. It will allow workers employed by one employer, but working under the control and direction of another business organisation—commonly called triangular employment—to apply to the Employment Relations Authority to have their host employer or controlling third party joined to a personal grievance.

The key point here is around fairness. This bill equalises conditions between permanent and labour hire employees. Currently, there is a gap in our legislation, which means that labour hire employees are treated differently to permanent employees. There is a vulnerability for labour hire employees, and that was raised quite clearly by the Hon Clare Curran that there is a vulnerability—and when I move on to some of the submissions, they will certainly highlight that. It’s important that all employees have a sense of security in their workplace. They’re all there, they’re working hard, they’re doing their bit to contribute to our economy, and there should be a strong sense of security for all employees.

So a small but significant number of employees are exploited in the absence of law in this area. If we’re going to build an economy that’s working and growing for all of us, we must ensure that workers are fairly and well treated. I’d just like to highlight some of the submissions.

So as we’ve heard, there were 174 submissions to the select committee on this bill. So there was certainly a lot of interest in this bill from a range of agencies, unions, businesses, and general members of the public. So there was certainly a lot of interest here. A number of changes were made at select committee in response to submitters’ feedback, including replacing the term “primary employer” with “employer” and “secondary employer” with “controlling third party”. The second key change that was made was the removal of the collective agreement provisions because of the complexity it would introduce to the labour hire model.

I just want to move on and highlight a couple of the submissions that we heard. The first one I’d like to bring to the House’s attention is from the National Council of Women of New Zealand. Now, the National Council of Women of New Zealand is an organisation representing 245 organisations—so it’s an umbrella organisation, so it’s certainly very significant. And they note in their submission a couple of points that I’d just like to highlight. They note, “The purpose of this bill is to ensure that employees employed by one employer, but working under the control and direction of another business or organisation, are not deprived of the right to … allege a personal grievance.” We have heard from the other side of the House that they aren’t deprived, but the reality is that they are.

Many of them are vulnerable workers. There is quite a clear power imbalance, and that’s a key point that must be remembered in this debate. There is a power imbalance, and it’s important that workers have the security and the confidence and the ability to lodge a personal grievance if the relationship breaks down. The National Council of Women of New Zealand carry on; they say, “We believe that the amendments in this bill support the object of the Employment Relations Act 2000 … which includes the building of productive employment relationships”—very sensible, which is a key to our economy. It’s a key to business productivity that there are productive employment relations. And it talks about promoting this through good faith: acknowledging and addressing the inherent power imbalance in employment relationships. Common sense—common sense, I’m sure the members would agree.

The final point I’d like to highlight from the National Council of Women is where they talk about the protections for vulnerable workers. “[The National Council of Women] supports this bill because we believe it will improve the working lives of low-paid, mainly female employees working in fields such as”—and here’s some of the industries where there are a lot of vulnerable workers, which is why this is so important—“cleaning, catering, laundry, and orderly services by restoring essential employment protections.” The ability to lodge a personal grievance is quite clearly an essential employment protection. “Māori and Pacific women are disproportionately represented in these fields of work”—the submission goes on—“and given the links between their lower incomes and lesser access to health care and lower home ownership rates”.

The second submission that really interested me and I’d like to bring to the House and make those listening tonight aware of was from the CTU—the Council of Trade Unions.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: They know a thing or two.

They do indeed. “There is a large agency workforce in New Zealand subject to these unfair triangular employment relationships …”—and this has clearly been highlighted tonight from a number of speakers, such as—“on building sites, farms, in factories and at the airport in varying capacities.” These employees are paid at minimum, or below minimum wages—how can someone be paid below minimum wages?—due to being contractors many times, and are not entitled to annual leave, sick leave, or even KiwiSaver.

So there are issues out there in our workforce, and this bill addresses one of those key issues. And that’s why it’s excellent that this bill is passing through the House. What we know, the CTU says, is that “The current framework regulating labour hire/triangular employment is inadequate to ensure fairness”—a keyword “fairness”—“and basic employment and health and safety protections for workers engaged [as] labour hire.”

This is not going to ruin the labour hire industry. This will strengthen the labour hire industry, so I am confused—and I’m sure members over this side are confused—as to why the Opposition won’t support this bill. So why won’t they support workers being able to raise a personal grievance?

💬 Hon Andrew Little: They hate workers.

I’m not going to pass a judgment on their view of workers, but I am confused. I am genuinely confused. I’m not sure if they’re playing politics. I don’t know what’s going on over that side of the House. But vulnerable workers—there is a power imbalance, and it’s important that those workers have the right, have the ability, have the confidence to be able to raise a personal grievance?

Many of us have worked in businesses, in various aspects of employment, where, unfortunately, a relationship has broken down between the employer and the employee. Fortunately, it doesn’t happen too often, but every now and then it does, and it’s unfortunate when it does. But when that relationship does break down—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: You want to have a place to go.

You’ve got to have a place to go, as a great man once said. You must have a place to go. An employee must have the ability to lodge a personal grievance. So this is about fairness and this is about people having the ability to lodge a personal grievance in confidence. Thank you.

Amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority agreed to.