Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill

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

I’m delighted to see that this bill has made its way through the House to the third reading. It has been quite the journey. It started out under the name of Darien Fenton, and I wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge her in the work that she has done not only in the labour movement but in supporting me personally in seeing the passage of this bill through the House.

It has changed somewhat, because when it went to the Education and Workforce Committee it had two parts, because the select committee was done, particularly from the Government’s side, in a manner which respected the views of those that submitted. It took on board those views and made some amendments, and now we have a very simple bill to achieve a very simple objective. The Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 to strengthen 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 or organisation to apply to the Employment Relations Authority to have their host employer or controlling third party joined to a personal grievance.

It is very simple but it is also very powerful, because this Parliament has an opportunity today to send a message to all workers that the basic provision and right of a personal grievance should be applied to all workers in this country, regardless of whether the circumstances under which they find themselves employed were not envisaged when the law was originally drafted. The point is that a triangular employment arrangement was not foreseen and it is essentially a loophole.

There is no argument that I have seen from that side of the House, despite their making the same points at every single stage of this debate. They have failed to outline to this country why workers that are employed under a triangular employment arrangement should not have provision to the basic right of a personal grievance that the rest of us take for granted. Why is it acceptable in this country where a worker, who was employed by a labour hire company under the direct control of a controlling third party, found out she was pregnant and was dismissed the next day with no recourse whatsoever? It is unbelievable and unacceptable, and under any other circumstance in 2019 in this country, that would not have been accepted. But because they were under a triangular employment arrangement, that was OK under the law. That needs to change, and today it will change.

My challenge to the National Party is this: take the opportunity to stand up and justify to this country why they are not supporting it, because they have failed to do so at every opportunity under the sun. I was a bookmaker at the TAB for a long time and I know how to read a game. I know how to read a game and that is exactly what that side of the House are doing. I can predict what they will do. The Hon Scott Simpson will stand up with utter distain in his eyes and talk of his hatred for unions, which by extension means his hatred for workers, because if you have a hatred for unions, you have a hatred and an incapacity to understand the imbalance of the relationship between a worker and an employer.

I would like to point the House’s attention to this particular quote: “I can fully understand the feeling of power imbalance between employers and employees that comes through quite a lot.” Thank you, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, for pointing that one out. I would also like to show this quote: “I think there are some important things that this Parliament can do to safeguard the rights of workers, and I think this is an important part of any Parliament.” Thank you, the Hon David Bennett. I would also like to point out this: “Employment standards are not optional and National is committed to stamping out dodgy and deliberate employment breaches.”—the current leader of the National Party, Simon Bridges. If it’s OK for that side of the House to support basic provisions like personal grievance, which this bill delivers, if it’s OK for them to support it when it’s their idea, it should be OK for them to support it now.

What they have to do is stand up and explain to this country why they are failing to stand up for the most vulnerable in our society when, when they come up with it, they are shouting it from the rooftops. And now they’re back to their traditional anti-worker, anti-union, pro-business rhetoric that we’re all sick of and which is the reason they got voted out of Parliament last election.

The member who has been promoting this bill spent five minutes pretty much talking about anything and everything except his bill, and there’s a reason for that. The reason for that is because it’s a nothing bill—it’s a nothing bill.

It was a bill that he signed up to when he came into the House. It was a bill that was put into the ballot about 10 years ago by a former member Darien Fenton, and I think that in the previous speech I referred to her as Darien “Fentonne”, and apparently it’s “Fenton” and she took some offence at the pronunciation of her name. So it’s Darien Fenton, I think. She came from the trade union movement, has done her time in the House, her compulsory Labour Party service in the House, and has now gone back to the trade union movement. This fellow picked up the bill—didn’t realise how out of place it was or how hopeless it was. It went to select committee and was completely rewritten—completely rewritten. Never before have I seen in my time in this House a bill so woefully inadequate, passed at first reading, gone to select committee, and then being completely rewritten. The bill was gutted in every possible respect.

The primary purpose of the bill was originally to provide for increased trade union membership through ensuring that people who were employed under triangular contracts would eventually become members of various collective union agreements. That was utterly unworkable. Fortunately, the member sponsoring the bill had the good sense to delete it and take it out before it got to this stage.

So what are we left with in this bill? Well, we’re left with a bill that purports to provide for people who are employed by labour hire companies, maybe temp agencies—those sorts of things—where they may be employed by the agency but actually do work for a third party. Those sorts of people are, under this bill, on the face of it, given an ability to take a personal grievance, should the need arise.

So here is the nub of the nothingness of this bill: they already have that ability. They already have in statute that ability, and I refer to the departmental report from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on this bill, which points out, at paragraph 2.4 of their report, “The personal grievance provisions in the Act already apply to the relationship between the worker and the on-hire firm, if the worker is an employee.” They already find that the primary purpose of this bill exists. It’s a nothing bill, so the Parliament has gone through a charade really, where time has been spent on a bill, submitters have presented on the bill, changes have been made on the bill, the bill has been gutted, reformatted, and sent back to us.

It will pass, because the dynamics of the coalition Government are such that it will pass, but on this side of the House we oppose it. And we oppose it quite simply because it does nothing—it does nothing but confirm what is already available and in existing statute. So, on the basis that the bill is a nothing bill, that the member took up from a long since gone, former member without really understanding it, on the basis that it’s been gutted and rewritten, on this side of the House, we oppose it and we do not commend it for further advancement.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I would just like to correct the previous speaker, Scott Simpson, on his incorrect assertions. He is picking and choosing from a paragraph that, actually, clearly outlines that the departmental report recommended to our select committee that we extend the provision of personal grievance by way of this bill. This actually goes to the core of how the Opposition does not understand how this works in real life, for real people.

I’d like to outline it with an example: there’s an owner of a building who gets his building cleaned. He complains about the cleaner. There’s no particular reason given for this complaint; however, the owner of the building says, “Look, I just don’t want this cleaner around.” The cleaner may have raised a concern about health or safety practices. The cleaner may have flagged an issue around bullying or harassment or sexual harassment—whatever it is, the cleaner is told that they’ve lost their job, because the employment contract states that they need to be given access to the building. So, under the current law, that worker has no right to a grievance, Mr Simpson—that’s the second part of that paragraph you left out. Under the current law, the worker has no right to raise a personal grievance. So at least this particular bill will provide some protection to those workers. Now that cleaner can sue the owner of that building and get his justice.

There was a submission put to us that I’d like to read because it goes to the core of what our workers are facing: “Labour hire workers never know whether they have a job tomorrow or if they’ll be able to make the rent next week, have enough petrol in their car to get to work, or afford lunch for the kids. They are employed on zero-hour contracts that allow the host company to determine their ongoing employment. If they get sick, suffer bereavement, or take leave, they can find their hours cut or their assignment ended without notice or reason.” These people are in precarious employment, and the other side of this House has denied them their human right to even bring up a personal grievance, in case they get dismissed without notice.

This bill contains a fundamental right. I’d like to congratulate the member Kieran McAnulty for bringing it to this House. Thank you very much.

It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill, and I’m speaking to this House today not only as a National MP opposing this bill but also as National’s spokesperson for the future of work. I must say that the future of work looks bright and, while that side of the House may look at workers and think that they are all victims, with things like technology and the likes of AI and the automation that’s going on, we’ve got a lot of opportunities in New Zealand to raise productivity, to raise incomes, if we get our legislative framework right.

On this side of the House, it’s very clear that productivity is our No. 1 goal for employment relations in a flexible and fair working place. And, unfortunately, this bill takes us backwards. It does not contribute to productivity, and that’s why we are opposing this bill. This bill, as the Hon Scott Simpson said, is not necessary; it is going to reduce flexibility in the workplace. It’s watered down, because—remember—this bill came to the House 10 years ago under the name of Darien Fenton, and that bill was gutted in the select committee.

💬 Simeon Brown: How much is left?

Virtually nothing—all there is is a statement about personal grievance, and it’s not very clear to us how that helps workplace productivity. It’s also sending the wrong message to our community, to our workers engaged in labour hire, and also to our business community about how we see productivity in the future and how we see the important role that these people play in national productivity.

The effects of this bill are going to be very clear, from where we stand: it’s going to raise the cost of engaging labour hire companies, which will reduce the job opportunities for people that, in fact, do that—

💬 Marja Lubeck: How?

💬 Kieran McAnulty: How?

Because it raises the potential, or perceived, costs of engaging labour hire companies. And it’s very telling that that side of the House asks the question about how, because probably none of them have worked in the business world and understand the likes of the negative effects of this.

So that side of the House clearly sees labour hire companies as evil and as companies that they don’t want to have proliferated or increased in New Zealand, but we heard very much in the select committee that a lot of these labour hire companies are not, in fact, evil but are providing opportunities for workers, that they treat their workers and those that use labour hire with respect, and that they hold the third party companies accountable if they are not playing host to their workers very clearly. So most are, in fact, good employers, and the question is: well, if they are not good employers, what do we do about those? And National would encourage this industry—let me make this very clear—in a flexible workplace with growing opportunities and a growing gig economy and flexible contracting expected to be the case in the future—we want to see more of these types of companies in the future, where people choose this type of work because it’s flexible, because they’ve got families, and because they don’t want to work the nine-to-five day that that side of the House expects everybody to work: a nine-to-five, robots-coming-to-work - type arrangement.

So National would encourage this type. Maybe we would consider—and this is not party policy but it’s something that we ought to consider—better regulations around this sector. We heard, in a select committee process, about what’s going on in Queensland and the labour hire licensing laws that they, in fact, instituted just last year. It’s been hugely successful, and I would certainly encourage my colleagues, and also that side of the House, to look at implementing something like that in the future as well.

Now, we’ve heard a lot about wellbeing and about how this Government is focused on wellbeing. Well, it’s not clear about how this contributes to wellbeing. How does this weak bill that is really a nothing bill actually contribute to productivity or wellbeing? It’s driven by ideology. That’s very, very clear. They just don’t like these innovations and these sectors sprouting up, and therefore they want to stamp that out very, very clearly.

So, in summary, I do not support this bill. National will vote against this bill because it’s not helping our productivity; it’s making our workforces far more inflexible in the workplace. I do not support this bill in the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great pleasure for me to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to confirm our support for the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. In doing so, I’d like to just start off by commending the member bringing the bill to the House, Mr McAnulty. I do so for two reasons: firstly, to curry some favour. I note that he, along with Mr Bishop, has announced himself co-captain of the Parliamentary Cricket Team travelling to the World Cup. I do prefer to bat at three and open the bowling downwind. So, hopefully, this will be remembered during those discussions with your co-captain. The other point, actually, in a more serious note: I do know that Mr McAnulty, having witnessed him speaking both out in front of groups and in select committees, is always someone who has the interests of workers at the core of the questions and the viewpoints that he brings forward. I know that this is one of many bills that you will bring forward in your parliamentary career, but I think it’s fitting that it’s one that benefits workers.

When it came forward, there were two intents for the bill. One was the one that has, ultimately, come through, which is the personal grievance provisions and strengthening those around controlling third parties. The other part, which got culled out through the select committee process, in the bill that you inherited, Mr McAnulty, was around the collective agreements, and we did hear a lot of feedback from the sector that that was unworkable, and to the credit of the committee, I think, we worked through that pretty quickly—that that wasn’t something that was going to take away flexibility. This is a very important sector—an employment group. It does allow flexibility for our employers, and we didn’t want to nullify that. In fact, just going back to the notes I’ve got here, there was one Mark Patterson in the select committee, who made the following quote—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Top bloke.

Well, this is a slippery slope, maybe, to starting to refer to myself as the “second citizen of the regions”. But I did say there that we don’t want to be stymying those employers—people who are risking their own capital. So we’ve got to make sure that we get the balance for employers as well as employees. We have to ensure that there is flexibility so that the unintended consequences of these good intentions are not that people actually don’t get employment or miss out on opportunities in the first place.

So we worked through that pretty quickly for those reasons, I think, but the personal grievance situation is a real one. They are increasingly used—these types of contracts. There is a plethora of companies out there providing these labour hire companies, and it’s just clarifying that and giving the workers some certainty that they can bring a personal grievance forward and that the responsibility for that lies where it should, with the actual company that they are working for, as opposed to who they might be being employed through. So we absolutely support that in New Zealand First.

I will actually say, in regard to the previous speech, made by Mr Bidois, that New Zealand First also sees some merit in the Queensland regulations—the licensing. I think, when the companies came forward to present to the bill, they did reference that. They did suggest that they were willing to go into some form of licensing scheme. They did admit that there were some cowboys in the industry, but the vast majority were responsible and would be prepared to come into such a scheme, and also there are provisions for casual loading, I understand, in that legislation, which is something that we may have to look at also in the future. New Zealand First would be supportive of that.

This is a very good first start. I commend the member on bringing the bill forward, and New Zealand First has pleasure in supporting it to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to take this call. I would like to start by actually congratulating the member in charge of this bill, the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. While I congratulate the member Kieran McAnulty, I also want to say that the member is in a very unfortunate situation. We can visualise what actually happened. As the members came in after the last general election, there was this big pressure on them to put their members’ bills in the ballot, because they could clearly see that the Opposition side was winning when it came to members’ bills. So the member had no choice; there was this bill sitting from 2007—Darien Fenton’s bill. So he decided to quickly put his name on that bill and put it in the ballot. And it got drawn. So I don’t know if it is a fortunate situation or an unfortunate situation for the member.

We are opposing this bill. We are opposing this bill because we know that this bill is not good for the labour market. We know that submitters clearly said that this bill is not a good bill, because this bill is not providing any flexibility or fairness that we stand for. So we don’t see any reason why we need this legislation. As this bill was introduced, there were two main provisions. During the select committee process, we got rid of one provision completely because it was that bad—and I’ll talk about that in a minute—but the second provision, which remains in this bill, I have to say, is a redundant provision because any employee can take up a personal grievance case. What this bill does is just set up a framework, set up a process, for how they can join in the third controlling party. It’s not like the third controlling party, as defined in the legislation, cannot be joined in in any personal grievance case; they can be. But setting up a process for how they can be—that’s all this bill does. So it’s not like there are employees that do not have access to this kind of provision to raise a personal grievance; that is not the case. Anybody can take up a personal grievance case against their employer, and then, later on, the third controlling party can be joined in.

In this legislation—let me just clarify that “Employer” is the hire agency, for example, “Employee” is the person that is sent by the hire agency to different businesses to work, and the “Business” where the employee works is the third controlling party.

From the start, we saw that this bill was all about unions—all about the unions. The collective agreement provision that we got rid of was about unions. This one is also about unions, because I have heard unions repeatedly going out and saying that they have a better ability to take personal grievance cases. So this is to say that if an employee has a personal grievance case, they should become a member of a union so that the union can go out and represent them. That is all this bill is about. We know that a big proportion of people in the private sector, around 90 percent of people, are not union members. That is what is hurting that Government—90 percent of private sector workers are not union members. So they know that, yes, they want to support unions, they want unions to do well because in return they’re going to get favours from unions. That’s all this bill is about.

Now, as this is a third reading—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We all encourage robust debate, but it is highly inappropriate, and against the Standing Orders, for a member to suggest that this Government is putting forward legislation and then, in turn, to get kickbacks from another organisation on the back—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you’re correct, but I was listening and I didn’t think that the member actually said that. I thought that she was making a link between this piece of legislation and what the unions were actually saying. The member can continue.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. During the select committee process, while chairing the Education and Workforce Committee, what I noticed, along with the other members on the select committee, is that the bill was totally rewritten. When I say “rewritten”, it was really hard to find what is there from the original version of the bill. Then, during that process, I asked the officials if there was any influence from the Minister’s office or from the Minister in the way the bill has been put forward in the revised form to the committee. Then what happened? I received a letter from the Government side; the letter was signed by Jan Tinetti, the deputy chair on the committee, saying that that was really, actually, wrong—I should not have done that; I should not have asked that question to officials. How could I even think that there was a link between the officials and the Minister’s office? So what I have done is I have requested, under the Official Information Act (OIA), some documents—and I’m very happy to table these documents—to make it very clear to Government members that there was direct communication between the Minister’s office and officials.

This is not a new process, so I hope that members on that side will understand how the process works. To my good friend, Jan Tinetti, I would say: please be careful next time before you put your name or signature on other people’s words, because it will be your name and your signature on that document. Here, through this OIA document, I can clearly prove the kind of communication that happened between the Minister’s office and officials. That is the reason why the collective agreement provision has been removed from that legislation. It wasn’t about submitters; it is about the direct communication between the Minister’s office and the officials.

There are several documents which I have stapled in this; the recommendation under the impact of bill proposals reads, “We note there may be possible benefits in addressing some of the inequities between permanent and temporary workers, especially where those workers may be in artificial triangular relationships. It’s unclear to us, at this stage, that the potential benefits of the proposal outweigh the possible harms”. So this has come from them. Another document here says, “The purpose of this is to provide you”—this is to the Minister—“with a copy of the initial briefing we will present to the Education and Workforce Committee on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill and to invite any comments you have on the initial briefing. Then we will brief you on policy options regarding the bill and whether a Government position would be helpful”.

Yes, there is more. Then there is another document, different date—2 August 2018, to help members to dig out this document from the Minister’s office or the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. It’s action sought from the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. Actions sought: “Agree to develop a Government position on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill so that changes can be sought through the select committee process”—a recommendation, clearly, of what we saw in that rewritten bill. It states here, “The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment recommends that you agree to develop a Government position on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill so that changes to the bill can be sought to: a.”—it says—“extend the personal grievance provisions so that the Employment Relations Authority or court can independently join a host organisation to a personal grievance. B.”—very clearly—“remove the collective agreements”—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, Kieran McAnulty. I can anticipate your point of order, but she is actually talking about—the third reading is quite an open debate—the processes through the select committee process of the passage of this bill. It is perfectly in order.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is, Madam Speaker; that’s not my point of order. My question is: is it OK to use a third reading speech in the House to subvert the leave process of tabling a document? The member indicated that she wished to table the document, then started reading from it.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, she’s perfectly entitled in the debate to read from a document. If she desires to table it at the end of that, or in the middle of that, or at the beginning of that, that’s entirely up to the member—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Thank you for answering my question.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: All members have the responsibility to work that through.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This “b.” part in this says, “Remove the collective agreements”. I repeat: “Remove the collective agreement provisions”—that is what the recommendation says—“due to the complexity and potential unintended consequences that the provision would introduce”. I can see it’s hurting those members. I can see it’s really hurting those members, so I suggest that next time, my friend, Jan Tinetti, be extra careful before she puts her name and signature on someone else’s words, because it’s not a good look. It’s not a good look because it reflects on her.

Yes, the whole document continues like this. Clearly, we know that there was a clear communication and the officials didn’t like this provision, and that is why the collective agreement provision has been removed from the legislation. So the one provision which remains in the legislation is, again, to discourage the triangular employment relationships that exist that are working really well for our labour market. They provide the flexibility; there are several kinds of circumstances in workplaces where people have to go out and seek somebody who is there to fill in just for two or three months. They don’t have enough time to go out and recruit from the start and then train them. By that time, the time they wanted that person for could be finished. So we do not support this bill.

I call Jan Logie.

💬 Hon Member: This will be much better.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure, to be honest, how great it’s going to be. I want to congratulate the member, Kieran McAnulty, for shepherding this bill through Parliament. I, too, would like to acknowledge the original member, Darien Fenton, for initiating this piece of legislation around 11 years ago. There’s been a long gestation to get to this point of bringing this law change to life.

Where it came from was her being on a parliamentary visit to the UK and seeing similar legislation being introduced there, in acknowledgement of the increased casualisation of the workforce in the UK. The former member, Darien Fenton, was looking at the change in employment relationships in New Zealand and seeing the similar levels of casualisation and a concern that with that casualisation, and what’s sometimes described as “flexibility”, there was some collateral damage for people around being able to take personal grievances, and a loss of conditions for people in pay and ability to control their conditions. So this bill was an attempt to rebalance that to ensure that, while the benefits of labour hire employment practices were able to continue, there was a guarantee that there wasn’t a loss in conditions and employment rights that went along with that.

The legislation, as it was initially introduced, addressed the personal grievance aspect, as well as making an attempt to extend collective conditions across to those employed by labour hire organisations. Through the select committee process, it was found that that aspect didn’t really work in this context. So the member accepted that and that aspect of the bill has been removed. We’re now left with quite a simple piece of legislation to ensure that people are able to easily—where appropriate—take the personal grievance.

And those third party employers—those people who, in effect, manage the staff on a day-to-day basis—we encourage them and have this legislative framework to ensure that they are good employers. We’re not removing that responsibility, as that’s kind of, effectively, been removed up to this point, because there hasn’t been that guarantee that grievances could be taken against bad behaviour. So we’re now ensuring that that pathway is clear.

So the Green Party is very pleased to be able to support this as part of a package of reforms that this side of the House is supporting around rebalancing employment relations to make sure that people who are doing all of the work are being fairly compensated and protected in their workplaces.

I think it’s very telling that the sponsor of this bill could barely make it to five minutes when he came to have the opportunity to address the benefits that this bill will create. And that’s because, as others have mentioned during the course of this debate, the bill we see in front of us is a mere shadow of what was originally brought to this House. That’s because the bill that was originally brought to this House had a very clear purpose and intent and that was to demonise labour hire companies. That was the purpose of the bill. It was to make out that somehow labour hire companies are exploitative agencies that abused workers and don’t provide good employment conditions.

In fact, what we heard at the select committee was that labour hire companies in fact perform an incredible role in our communities of providing flexible work to a range of employees, who might not otherwise find employment, of providing flexible contracts to people who have changing work requirements, and, in fact, they are a very important part of the modern working relationships in New Zealand. We heard that message loud and clear. So Mr McAnulty’s attempt to demonise labour hire companies failed at select committee, and his bill had to be gutted.

I want to clear up some assertions that have been made on the other side of the House during this debate, because it is absolutely National’s position that we support worker rights. That is very important to us. We also support people having access to the jobs that labour hire companies create. What we are also clear on is that the current law should not and does not allow for exploitation against workers. The current law allows people hired by labour hire firms to raise personal grievances. That was made clear to us by officials, by submitters, again and again throughout the process. So what this bill actually does is something very technical. It’s the sort of amendment that lawyers will really enjoy, that they will make much hay out of, because what it does is it sets up a rather elaborate process in which a controlling third party can be joined to a personal grievance and then the authority or the court can give rise to a great debate about how liability should be divided—who’s more liable and who’s less liable—and I would suggest that that is not what New Zealanders think courts should be spending their time on. In fact, I don’t think that necessarily serves the needs of workers, because, actually, what workers want is clear decisions made in quick time. What they don’t want is endless legal debates about apportioning liability, and that’s what this bill does.

This bill creates more legal ambiguity. It is actually a bill that was intended to demonise labour hire companies, who perform a very important role in our economy. It is simply a bill that will make hay for lawyers; it is not a bill about worker rights. If there is any clearer endorsement of that, it’s the fact that the sponsor of the bill could barely make it to five minutes of arguments in support of it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Actually, I’m very proud to stand in support of this wonderful bill, the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. I would like, as is the custom but certainly is very heartfelt today, to commend my good friend and a thoroughly, thoroughly good bloke, Kieran McAnulty, for shepherding this wonderful bill through the House.

This bill is very simple. I’ve heard today that we don’t know anything about being an employer. Well, I’m currently an employer in a private business, a construction business. So we have at times had to use, in emergency situations or situations where we’ve been caught short, labour hire firms, who we like. And most of us in the Labour Party are quite happy to do so, and I don’t think that there is any reason that the last member should say that we are hating on that industry. We’re certainly not. But what myself as an employer and our party and, in fact, this Government says is that every worker deserves the right to be able to take a personal grievance. As an employer, I stand here and say very clearly that absolutely we have, as an employer, no issue—no issue—with this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this third reading. I was part of the committee that heard this particular bill when it was introduced. I spoke on the first reading. It started off with a bang, a bang of embarrassment, and that was because it was a reheated bill from 2007 from Labour Party MP and union boss, Darien Fenton, and we could see all over the face of the MP that sponsored this bill—it’s in his name—that this was going to be problematic as it made its way through the course of this House and the committee. It was not hard to see that there was not a lot in the bill that was going to be tenable and palatable for us here in the House.

We heard from submitters like Auckland Council. Auckland Council was a late submitter but they were very, very clear—crystal clear, in fact. They were so crystal clear because they had had the opportunity, I think unintentionally, to read prior submissions. They gave a response to the committee based on their reading of submissions that had already been put in, and this is what they said: “If the purpose of the bill is to afford greater protection/additional benefits, our observation is that these may be better delivered in alternative ways. We noted that within the submissions made in support of the Bill”—submissions already put in—“the types of concerns raised did not appear to be well connected to the solutions/changes proposed within the purpose of the Bill.” They’d surveyed what was already put in and they had said, “Well, whoever submitted on this, the disconnect between what the bill actually does is very clear and apparent for all to see.”—highly embarrassing, as I just said earlier. They finished by saying, “We do anticipate significant adverse, unintended consequences which means that we do not support the proposed legislation.” So that’s the context as we heard from many submitters.

So what happened next: the bill got gutted. The sponsor of the bill used staff to their fullest potential, I’d say, and changed it in all but two places—a completely different bill, gutted, and that’s what we had to work with. No wonder it’s been very difficult for submitters or anyone to keep track of what the full intention of this bill was. I wonder what Darien Fenton would be thinking.

So we had to go through the process. There had to be something salvaged and brought out from the bones that we were given, and the staff were scratching around to try and make it worthwhile. So what we’ve got now are changes, as they are, to some collective agreements and personal grievances, and the result is, quite frankly, a continued barrage on business and a handbrake to our economy. If you want our economy to get ahead, you need to create jobs, you need higher wages, you need people to be able to support their families. That’s the basics; that’s what we know. And, yes, that even applies to labour hire companies. They are part of a flexible workplace environment. We heard from many submitters who are helping out people in low-income families with just that: a flexible work environment and consistent and steady work, especially from those submitters that we heard from from South Auckland.

So what we have got here, though, is a Government slowing growth down and taking away opportunities, and putting yet another set of handbrakes on business. The Labour Party are reviewing fundamental parts of our economy, including tax, ports, and electricity, and all of this is adding to knocking business confidence. We need to be really mindful when we pass any legislation in this House about what does grow the economy, what does get people jobs, and what does allow businesses to have the flexibility and the space to prosper our economy. Is this going to fundamentally help? We answer no. That’s why we’re opposing this bill here this afternoon.

We want to stand for, and we do stand for, a flexible industrial relations framework and a flexible labour market. This bill does not assist in that. It’s another set of regulations that someone in business has to look out for.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’ve heard a very confused argument from the Opposition here this afternoon. According to them, either this bill is a nothing bill that does nothing, or it’s a bill that demonises labour hire companies and the sky is falling in. I don’t know that those members opposite over there can actually work out their own argument. Instead of being either of those things, this bill is a great bill about protecting workers’ rights. It is very good.

I have to do two shout-outs: first, to Darien Fenton, who first introduced this bill to the ballot many, many years ago, and to the member who has picked it up and worked with it, Kieran McAnulty. I too sat on the Education and Workforce Committee, and I am proud to have sat beside the member who has shepherded this bill through the House. He has done an absolutely fantastic job. He listened to those submitters. The submitters that we heard who were labour hire companies that came in all acknowledged that there were issues in the sector. He worked with those companies. He contacted those companies and worked with them to get a bill that would protect the workers’ rights and that was also something that those labour hire companies could work with. This might be a start—who knows? But it is a very, very good bill, and I am proud of the work that has been done to bring it to this point.

Unfortunately for my colleague Kieran McAnulty, a fellow Wairarapa MP, he got given the hospital pass. He didn’t want this bill. I know that because we speak to the same sorts of employers around the same electorate, and I know that I got a lot of people, a lot of employers, telling me that the original bill was a terrible, terrible bill. I know that Mr McAnulty would have received exactly the same messages from exactly the same people. Unfortunately, he caught the hospital pass given to him by his senior colleagues and he has found himself in an embarrassing situation where the bill as originally brought to the House has been stripped—has been stripped.

Following select committee discussions and agreement to changes, all sections relating to collective agreement coverage have been removed. Now, that was the whole purpose of the bill. That was the whole meat behind the bill. This bill has been stripped, and we’ve found a shallow framework of the original intentions of the bill, because, as previous speakers have said, this is a beat-up on the contractors that provide a fantastic service. We’ve had a member opposite absolutely telling us about the use of the contractors and how important they are to her business, and I would agree.

We’ve also heard from this side to say that there is already protection for employees to take personal grievances and employment grievances to the court. There’s absolutely adequately protection for employees already. So this has created another layer of bureaucracy, another layer of compliance—a feast for the lawyers to get themselves gorged on.

This is an opportunity not to protect employees, and it’s certainly not a bill that is going to increase productivity. It’s not going to help businesses thrive. It’s not going to reduce compliance. It’s not going to reduce bureaucracy. In fact, it’s going to do exactly the opposite of those things. Overall, it’s going to take away opportunity and it’s going to reduce GDP, if you like—if you want to call it that. It’s going to reduce wellbeing—if you want to use the term that the opposite side use frequently—from the communities that we all live in.

I know Mr McAnulty will be pleased to see it passed, but it has been quite clear to me what a tough road and probably quite a disappointing road it has been to track. With that, I am very pleased to oppose this bill.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do want to acknowledge you for always making an effort to pronounce my name correctly. Along with Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, people also get Kieran McAnulty’s name incorrectly pronounced—so it’s the Irish and the Tongan here.

Anyway, it’s a pleasure to stand here to be the last speaker on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. This bill is in the spirit of getting a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, and when one feels a grievance about unfair treatment, one should be given the opportunity to air that unfair treatment through this process, which is what we are talking about here. All the members on the other side have forgotten that this is about the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill.

I want to commend Kieran McAnulty. This is historic for the class of 2017, and Kieran McAnulty, for his leadership and for the passionate delivery of the passage of this bill in the House, has been excellent.

I want to finish off by saying that every worker in New Zealand deserves to have their grievance aired, regardless of who the employer is—regardless of who the employer is. I commend this bill to the House. Malo ‘aupito.