Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It’s an honour to be standing here and to be able to bring the third reading of this bill to the House. I think it’s fair to say that it’s possible many of us thought we would not get there, in terms of this bill being introduced in the last Parliament and now with the change of Government. I couldn’t be happier to be here, being able to shepherd this bill through the House.

First of all, I just wanted to acknowledge a personal thing, which is that it’s my father’s 70th birthday today. Happy birthday, Dad. He’s been a lifelong champion for justice in the workplace, so I think, hopefully, he’ll be very happy to see that, although I won’t be able to spend much time with him today, I’ll be in the House bringing this bill to the House.

This bill criminalises intentional theft by employers to their workers. Why? Why is this bill needed? This bill is needed because of the injustice that many workers face in New Zealand to this day. It was brought to this House by a very, very good man, a very close friend of mine, a former MP of this House, who, I believe, is watching tonight, who came to New Zealand as a refugee. He experienced injustice in the form of wage theft. He then became a member of Parliament and brought this bill to the House to stop any other workers suffering what he did. I think, really, that is a story of New Zealand and also of this party. I can’t see whether he is here, but, hopefully, he’s watching today. Ibrahim, this bill is really for you.

I read, when I was preparing for this debate, his first reading speech. It’s really a fantastic speech, so I do really encourage anyone to read that speech, rather than listen to my speech tonight. I thought it would be pertinent to read an extract of that, because it really summarises why this bill was so important to him and how important it is for so many workers in New Zealand, especially migrant workers. This is what he said:

“Not long after arriving in New Zealand, I got my first work in the Wairarapa. It was farm work, with my employer shuttling me from Lower Hutt to Martinborough each day for work. At the end of my first week of work, I was told by a contractor that I had done a poor job that was not worth the cost of shuttling me to and from work, and that I did not deserve any pay. I was told that if I had any decency, I should be paying back the employer his costs for the week as the work that I’d done had amounted to nothing. I was told that I would not be paid and that if I did not like it, then I should piss off.”

He said, “Not knowing what my rights were, I just walked away from my payment for my week’s work, but as I became involved more with migrant workers, I found out that my experience was not the exception.” And, unfortunately, this experience is not an exception in New Zealand, and it regularly happens in New Zealand. Unfortunately, some businesses deliberately rely on regularly underpaying their employees and have it baked into their business model. This bill imposes serious criminal sanctions in order to stop this practice.

Now, we know that most employers are good employers. In fact, almost all employers are good employers. This bill really applies to the businesses who are not acting within the law. It doesn’t impose any additional sanctions on employers. Essentially, it allows good employers to continue doing what they’re doing without fear of anything happening to them. It doesn’t, unlike many other employment-related laws that come to this House, impose any other conditions or work or bureaucracy or anything on employers. It just asks them to pay employees what they’re owed, to pay them their fair wages, to make sure that, when they contribute their labour, they are fairly recognised for that.

Taking this bill through the House, I’ve regularly been asked by people if we have a lot of evidence around wage theft, and I just wanted to cite a few of these different examples to really show how this is a problem in New Zealand and how I hope this bill will be able to address it.

In 2019, there was a report by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that found that wage theft was one of the most common forms of migrant labour exploitation in New Zealand—the most common forms. We’ve seen examples, as this bill has gone through the House, of migrant workers working as cleaners being underpaid by $17,000; workers who worked over 900 hours being paid only for a small percentage—being paid for only 32 hours. We’ve seen people who’ve been paid an equivalent of only $7 an hour for their work at bottle shops. We’ve seen cafe staff, hospitality workers, and construction workers, unfortunately, deliberately underpaid by employers who are taking advantage of the fact they could.

This has to stop in New Zealand. These are all New Zealand workers who deserve respect. I was very honoured once my colleague Ibrahim Omer brought this bill to the House in April 2023 to then see this bill come through the Education and Workforce Committee. We had, I think, 84 percent support of submitters at select committee—so quite significant support from the people who were able to submit on this bill. I was very, very pleased then to see it reported back to the House. I think, really, the circuit breaker for this bill not going in the dustbin of good ideas was the fact that we were able to obtain support from parties across the House.

We were very privileged to have the support of the Green Party and of Te Pāti Māori throughout the readings on this bill. And then, after select committee, we were very, very pleased to get the support of New Zealand First to allow this bill to go through the House. I want to really thank the members of New Zealand First for looking to their values and seeing that many of the values that we have we share—especially when it comes to standing up for vulnerable workers, for making sure that there isn’t exploitation in workplaces, and for fairness. I wanted to thank especially the Hon Mark Patterson and the Hon Casey Costello for their work on this bill.

Their work did lead to an amendment to this bill, which I think has actually made this bill stronger. This bill now very clearly applies to employers who deliberately steal without reasonable excuse from their employer. That, I think, is the original intention of the bill and really has clarified the purpose of this bill. It’s really clear, and if you look at the draft that we’ve got here today, I think we’ve improved on that bill since the select committee as well. I really want to thank New Zealand First, and, of course, Te Pāti Māori and the Greens, who have supported us throughout the process.

This bill is not an unusual bill, either, in terms of international comparisons. We know that in Australia many states have had wage theft laws, and since 1 January 2025 Australia has outlawed wage theft under its fair-work conditions. We also know that Norway has laws against wage theft, and also California has laws against wage theft. Really, this bill brings New Zealand into line with world leaders in standing up for injustice at work and provides a real avenue for those who have faced terrible injustice with what little they have. We have to remember that, for many people, especially people who come to New Zealand, the only thing they have—the only thing they can use—is to sell their labour in order to make money. If the value of that is taken away on purpose by someone who professes to be an employer, those people should be held to account for that.

I just want to reflect on why many of us come to this House. I think we come here to stand up for justice, to hold people to account, and to protect the vulnerable, and I think this bill does all of those things. I want to again acknowledge my colleague Ibrahim Omer for bringing this bill to the House. This has been a collective effort, my friend. We wouldn’t have been able to do it without you having the bravery to bring this bill to the House—and, indeed, many members of the labour movement who were able to raise this as an issue and to assist. I especially want to acknowledge, as you did in the first reading, John Ryall and Peter Cranney for their assistance with this.

I very much hope that we can pass this bill tonight and that this bill will become law and it can be something where members across the House can be proud of their Parliament for standing up for the dignity of work, for justice, for fairness, and for working New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

The House is resumed. Members, when we left the House prior to the dinner break, we were on the third reading of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. We were up to call No. 2, and it’s a National Party call.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Look, tonight we are speaking on the third reading of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. I wasn’t actually fortunate enough to speak on the second reading, and so I feel like it’s my opportunity to make my fulsome comment on the bill in the third reading, which is absolutely A-OK.

I am the chair of the select committee that heard this bill, the Education and Workforce Committee. We went through a very rigorous process, as we always do when we go through members’ bills, and I think there’s a few points that I would quite like to make. Look, I understand that it’s likely that this bill will go through its third reading, as it passed the second reading, and so I am just acknowledging the nuances and reinforcing the very reasons that in the second reading, we did not support this bill, for the reasons that I will outline.

One of those, of course, is the impact that it makes on the criminal justice system. Of course, to acknowledge the points that we’ve already made and continue to make, there is already an Employment Relations Act that covers any dispute between an employee and an employer. The process exists, the civil court action exists, and making it a criminal offence—obviously, adding penalties, adding criminal repercussions to employers—not only clogs up the justice system, as we have made clear, but also takes down a different path something that has otherwise had a path for resolution between the employer and the employee. Look, not to say that it’s a slippery slope, but if we do this for everything that we have currently civil action for, making things criminal, including increasing penalties, what then do we have left in the Employment Relations Act and in the civil courts?

One thing I will just do, going through the points, is just acknowledge, obviously, of course, as has Camilla Belich, the member currently shepherding this through the House on behalf of Ibrahim Omer, and just commend his involvement in the process. Of course, he came to select committee and was acknowledged through that process and his participation, and we did hear some stories from people that have had a very challenging time. I think it’s important that we acknowledge those people. Obviously, whether it’s migrant exploitation, whether it’s worker exploitation, you know, those are things that we absolutely don’t want to see. The point that we make, and the point that was well made by Business New Zealand, is that what this does is further divide the employer and the employee and the relationship that they have in the workplace.

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Only if they steal.

I think the point to make—and the point that the Opposition are trying to make quite loudly is “Only if they steal.” Well, actually, the first person that has to take this as a criminal offence to the police is the employee. This is not to say that in every single case what they take to the police is valid. Members opposite have mentioned this in the first reading, the second reading, that every case that is taken to the police is not always going to be grounded. What we are doing is adding another criminal offence to the justice system, further clogging up an already very lagged justice system, a criminal system that’s having to deal with retail crime, gang crime, violent crime, additionally now adding a further crime to the Crimes Act.

The point that we’re making here is that in every case where an employee has been hard done by, by their employer, or perceives that they’ve been hard done by, by their employer—whether it’s $2, $20, or $200—they have to take that to the police. They have to have the police investigate the process, and they then go through the criminal justice system, if it is in this case—if the amendment has been added—an intent to be dishonest. Look, that’s something that we debated heavily through the select committee process, and as we mention in our report—

💬 Rachel Boyack: “Tough on crime.”

—that, of course—actually, Jo, I’m going to come back to that point. Members opposite said, “Tough on crime.”—absolutely. Do you know what I’d rather our police be dealing with? I’d rather our police be dealing with people crashing cars into a dairy, people robbing someone’s house, and people wearing gang patches in public and intimidating members of the community. I would rather the police be dealing with someone being stalked. I would rather the police be dealing with just about anything other than a dispute between an employee and an employer that can be dealt with through the civil court. This is the point that we are making. We are absolutely tough on crime, and now all we are doing is adding an additional crime for police to get involved in when there’s a dispute process already in place.

The next thing is that the Opposition are going to be introducing crimes for dealing with tenancy disagreements—I bet we’ll see that coming. Unfortunately, they’re probably already going to go there. They’ve probably got it drafted up ready to go, but the point that we are making is, at the end of the day, this is not—[Interruption]

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Interjections are fine, but this is becoming a barrage from both sides.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This is not the point that is trying to be addressed. As we have always said, every time we work for the worker and we work for the business, we want to make that relationship closer, not for somebody to feel that they have to take that to the police to have a dispute resolved. This is the point that we have argued from the beginning and what we heard very loudly from Business New Zealand.

Now, I just want to identify that, obviously, in the select committee process, we hear from all sorts of people. Of course we heard from the unions. We heard from individuals that have been impacted, that have had terrible stories from their workplace relationships, and that’s something that’s really important for us to acknowledge, but Business New Zealand, in this very case, has represented a lot of businesses—businesses who haven’t come and spoken in their own case.

To acknowledge that the member Camilla Belich did say, almost every business and almost every employer is a good employer, but, in so many cases, it is inevitably going to happen that police are going to be entering a workplace, pressing charges against someone or investigating someone for what has been perceived to have been done to an employee. That is absolutely without a doubt going to have an impact on their reputation as an employer in the first place, whether or not this ends up being something that gets pursued or ends up going to court, or, even if it goes to court, whether or not they end up winning the dispute. It’s really important for us to identify those repercussions, and Business New Zealand made that very, very clear. That’s something that we can’t ignore and we didn’t ignore on the Government side of the select committee.

Look, I think it’s really important to make sure that, in every single case, we are thinking of the perverse outcome, because we are absolutely and by no means putting to the side the experience of the worker; we made that very clear, and we heard some very telling stories from people. I am absolutely acknowledging the intent that the former member and now the current member have with this bill and what they intended to bring to the House, but the point that we continue to make is that the additional pressure on the criminal justice system for something that has a pathway for its dispute to be resolved through the civil courts, through the Employment Relations Act, now to have further penalties and, actually, for some employers to face a year in prison—if people didn’t read that in the documents, make sure that it’s very, very clear. This could be over a couple of hundred dollars—that someone has the right now to take this to the police, that that employer could then face lifelong reputational damage, the inability to ever operate a business again, and face up to a year in prison.

It’s not to say that there might be people out there that do something that deserves a course of action—absolutely, but to say that now people have to go through this process, to be investigated, to be part of the criminal justice system, the impact that that places on them and their reputation and the feeling that that has in the workplace for others, that is something that absolutely has a pathway to be solved and resolved through the current system. We feel that that is a slippery slope towards having a criminal approach to just about everything that we have civil action for. We’ve made it very clear in our select committee report, and I’m sure you’ll hear from my colleagues throughout this evening our position on this bill.

At the end of the day, to make something that has a current pathway through the Employment Relations Act a criminal offence is adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to a process, and it is taking away from our police and from our criminal court system, from the very real crimes that this Government, who is absolutely tough on crime—to be focusing on something that has already got a resolution process. With that, we do not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. Now, what I omitted to say before the last speech was that the question is that the motion be agreed to.

I absolutely agree the question should be agreed to, Madam Speaker. We’re hearing tonight about people being soft on crime or tough on crime, but that side of the House is very selective on the crimes that they want to prosecute.

I do acknowledge that Katie Nimon is a good chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, but I cannot agree with what she has said just before, in that speech, and I had hoped that the National Party would be supporting this bill. We expect the National Party to sort of hug the middle, but, unfortunately, they seem to be incredibly distracted and incredibly attached to the ACT Party mantra.

It’s disappointing, and we expect this from the ACT Party—you know, they’re the big business on hyper-capitalism. We know that they will do anything to burn down workers’ rights. That’s what they’re about, and we expect that. We also sometimes have hope for the National Party that, actually, they’ll see the light and try to hug the middle, but, unfortunately, that is not the case. They are still, unfortunately, subservient vassals to the ACT Party. I was hopeful, actually, that the smell of burnt plastic in school lunches might have convinced them to support this bill, but, unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. Fortunately, there is a Government party that does sound like they have unshackled themselves from the neo-liberal freight train of capitalism and will be supporting this bill, hopefully, at the end of this as well.

I do want to acknowledge Ibrahim Omer, who brought this bill to the House in its first reading. I acknowledge his presence here today, as well. What a momentous occasion for him to be back in the House to see this bill, hopefully, be passed into law, and I feel that it will happen.

It is important, and people have spoken about it before—because I spent a bit of time tonight reading his first reading speech, where he talked about his actual experience of having his wages stolen from him. In the case that he talked about of himself, he was working on a farm in the Wairarapa, and then his employer told him that they didn’t like his work and just took his pay. As the previous speakers from the Labour Party have said—and I do want to acknowledge Camilla Belich’s expert shepherding of this bill through the House. They noted that there was a 2019 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment report that said that there was such a significant impact on migrant workers, and that significant impact was wage theft—wage theft.

This bill is incredibly simple. It is incredibly simple. If you nick something, you get pinged for it—if you nick something, you get pinged for it. If you’re an employee and you put your fingers in the till, you’re going to get pinged for it, and that’s what’s there at the moment, but if you’re an employer and you put your fingers into your employee’s pocket to take their money, you don’t get pinged for it. We hear from that side of the House—well, that particular corner of the House—that there is a pathway for workers to take and that it’s a civil action pathway. For those of us who know, who come from families who are migrant families where mum and dad don’t speak such good English—they’re just recent immigrants here—how are they able to access that pathway? How are they supposed to at least not only access that pathway but afford that pathway? It is outrageous.

That’s why it’s so important that this House turns its mind to supporting this bill through the House and to supporting and upholding workers’ rights—because it is a basic right. It is a decent right. If you do a hard day’s work, you should get a fair day’s pay. If you do a hard day’s work, you should get a fair day’s pay, and people shouldn’t be allowed to hold back your wages. That is what is at the centre of this.

I don’t want to prolong this kōrero, because we want to get to this bill being assented to here in the House, but I was thinking of a whakataukī, and it goes “Ko te amorangi ki mua, ko te hāpai ō ki muri—ko te amorangi ki mua, ko te hāpai ō ki muri”. What that means is if you’ve got things sorted out the front and you’ve got things sorted at the back, that’s when things are harmonious. When you’re on the marae and people are doing things well in the kitchens and your workers are doing well in the kitchens, that enables people in the front to do their bit well at the front as well, and what that points to is good relationships.

We need good relationships in the workplace, and I acknowledge that for many, if not most, employers, they won’t be having their fingers in their employee’s back pocket, but it points to the importance of making sure that we have those good relationships. For those employers that are stealing and that are thieving from their employees, this bill goes some way to addressing that. On that, the Greens support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I love doing some speeches after the Green Party. Firstly, what I would like to say is ACT is not anti-worker; in fact, we are extremely pro-worker. I understand the intent of this bill and I want to, firstly, acknowledge the previous member Camilla Belich for bringing this bill forward.

I think everybody in this House can agree that, if an employer intentionally withholds money, that is a very, very serious matter, and none of us wants to see employees exploited. I think that is pretty huge, but there are reasons why we can’t support this bill. Katie Nimon has articulated all the points very well, I would say, but let me remind everybody—and it’s not because we don’t believe in the cause. In fact, we really do believe in it, but there are already key mechanisms in place. We have the Employment Relations Act, we have the Immigration Act, and we have all kinds of other little bits and pieces so that you are able to do that.

I think what might be quite useful for everybody is to actually go through what some of these processes actually are and how they actually look, or how effective it is. Present data shows the effectiveness in the current system in resolving employment issues, including the number of enforcement actions and penalties awarded. If we look at the 2022-23 financial year, there were 112 direct enforcement actions that were taken, resulting in approximately $1.13 million in penalties awarded by the Employment Relations Authority. In 2021-22: 212 investigations and $685,000 in penalties awarded. In 2023-24, of the 400-odd complaints, most of these were resolved without enforcing penalties. The system is actually working. Why would this House want to create another layer of bureaucracy on top of what we have, under the premise of keeping our workers safe?

It’s all great to hear all the stories, and I do believe it is really stressful. I remember one time when an employer didn’t pay me and you’ve got automatic payments coming out—if you’re living week to week, it’s extremely stressful if you know you’re not getting that money at all. That’s absolutely horrible, and I don’t think any of us can accept it, but we’ve got a system. We’ve got mechanisms in place. We don’t want to see an employer being potentially victimised. We don’t want to see our police going around and knocking on the doors of businesses when they’ve actually got real crime to deal with. We do not support this bill, and I think it’s very clear why we do not support it. Thank you very much.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. There’s nothing, I’ve found, in this House like employment relations to open up the old fractures between Labour and National, and the parties to the left and the right of them. This is the old battle between capital and labour, and they are the proxy wars that have gone on in the House for probably close to a hundred years between those two parties. This is where New Zealand First brings real value to these debates—we see ourselves as Switzerland. We believe it is the Government’s role to be a referee.

We do believe and our voting record over time is that we do believe quite strongly in flexibility in the labour market. We have fought really hard over time for the 90-day trials and have supported Minister van Velden in this Parliament, and when we were last in coalition with Labour, we fought really hard to keep those 90-day trials for businesses of under 20 employees. We also supported recently around the process of supporting the excesses around the personal grievances to try to bring that back into some balance.

At our core, our values are that we are an egalitarian party. We believe in fairness and that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. We have consistently championed for rises in the minimum wage when we’ve had the opportunity to be in coalition negotiations, including in this Parliament as well, although I must admit it’s a bit easier when you’re in coalition with Labour—they’ve been a bit more meaningful. At the very least, the very lowest bar that you should be clearing here is that you should be paid, and you should pay if you’re an employer.

We have evidence that this wage theft and exploitation does happen in this country, and it’s not something that we should be proud of. That’s why other jurisdictions also have brought in laws to address this issue, and we know that the original proponent of the bill—and it’s great to see him here—Ibrahim Omer, was a victim of such a crime himself.

Just a history of our involvement, for those that may be tuning in for the first time. We were not in the House during the first reading of the bill. It was in those dark days when New Zealand First wasn’t represented in this House in the 53rd Parliament, and we were not represented on the Education and Workforce Committee. We had the first opportunity to engage with the bill only during the second reading. We did vote it through to the committee of the whole House stage, but we did share some of the concerns of our colleagues on this side of the House that it wasn’t tight or strong enough to protect employers that may have genuine cash-flow issues or genuine reasons why they might not have been able to make payroll. We worked diligently—and through an amendment from my colleague Casey Costello—in that committee of the whole House stage to get this bill into a state that we felt we could further consider it.

In terms of what we’re being asked to do, fundamentally, Camilla Belich, the proponent of this bill, was asking us two key questions: why do migrant workers here on work visas have the protection of a criminal process when New Zealand citizens and permanent residents do not have that same legal recourse, and why is it a crime for employees to steal from employers and the reverse does not apply? They are questions for which New Zealand First has yet to hear compelling answers, and that is why we will be using our key swing votes to assist this bill into law.

This bill will not criminalise the 99.9 percent of good, honest employers. All they have to do is continue to do what they do now: pay their wages and their contractual obligations to their employees. This bill will punish unscrupulous employees that seek to exploit the time and the labour of often vulnerable New Zealanders. Now, let’s be honest here: most of these are recent immigrants, many of whom have come to this country for a better life, often with English as a second language and often from countries that do not have the same strong labour protections as we do. It speaks to our values, I think, that we would want to protect these vulnerable workers. They often do not have the means or the knowledge to go down the civil pathway that is being referenced by our colleagues on this side of the House.

The other point is that this is a deterrence factor. We are a law and order party. There should be consequences for a crime. We fundamentally believe that, and this bill does provide that deterrence factor.

I would like to commend my colleague Casey Costello. As I’ve said, we did have some concerns about this bill when we kicked it round a little bit, and Casey tabled the amendment to new section 220AA(2) of the Crimes Act, inserted by clause 4 of the bill. Casey brought a depth of experience to this issue. She had been a trustee of the Migrant Exploitation Relief Foundation prior to coming into Parliament and had represented vulnerable workers. She was also vice-president of the Police Association—under Greg O’Connor, I might say. I’m not sure how Greg managed to get in above Casey, but that’s a question for the Police Association. She has represented the police workforce, of course—the police union, essentially—and, of course, with 14 years’ active service in the New Zealand Police, she knew the realities and was able to ground truth how the police may interact with this bill and how we could make it clearer for them. I’d like to thank Casey for that work.

The real congratulations here are to Camilla Belich, of course. This is a substantive legislative achievement, Camilla. The members’ bill stuff—there’s a continuum there, or a range, but this is at the substantive the end of those bills, I think. I congratulate you. Thank you very much for your constructive engagement on this bill, and I thank you and your team. There was almost a mini - select committee going on as we thrashed this out, and you were always open-minded to sensible changes.

The real hero here today is Ibrahim Omer. I only got the chance to meet you during the dinner break. Your experience was pivotal to this bill. We talk a lot in this House, and every time you’re asked as a politician, “Why do you want to be a politician?”, well, it’s to make a difference. I don’t know where your political career will lead you in the future, Ibrahim, but you have made a difference today. It was your experience in putting that bill in the biscuit tin, and it was an example of Parliament working at its finest. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call.

Ka pai. Tēnā tātou, e tū ana ahau ki te whakapuaki i ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori mō te ture e kīia nei ko te Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. Enei kōrero ka tukua ki te reo Māori. Tika tonu kua roa te iwi Māori e noho nei ki roto ki te rāngai kaimahi o te motu. Nō ngā rima tekau, ono tekau, whitu tekau, tōia mai o mātou mātua tīpuna ki rō tāone noho ai hei kaimahi. Nō reira, taua ao, kei te mārama nui nei te iwi Māori ki ēnei tūāhuatanga.

Nō reira, hei tākiri i te ia o aku kōrero, e tika ana kia mihi ki te tangata nei ki a koe Aperahama, Ibraham, tēnā koe. Haramai, tōia mai ō whakaaro nui hei wetewete mō tēnei Whare. Hākoa, kua kore e tino whai whakaaro nui tēnei Whare ki te manene, ki te tangata whenua, ki te iwi parauri i roto i ngā tau. Nō reira, ēnā tū āwangawanga, ēnā tū wero katoa o te hunga taketake ka tōia mai ki roto ki ngā kōrero, nō reira tēnā koe, Aperahama.

Nō reira kei te Pīka, ehara i te mea ka tōaitia ngā kōrero. E tika tonu ana, ko tā te iwi Māori e mea ana, kia kotahi te ture, kia kotahi te ture kia mana ō kupu, kia māia tō ū ki ngā tikanga. Nō reira, mēnā he tikanga rua tō te whare, tō te Tāhūhū o te Ture rānei, whakatikahia. Ko te wā tuatoru pea tēnei, tuarua, tuatoru kua tū au ki ki te kōrero mō tētahi pire kua roa e noho waikura ana i roto i tēnei Whare. Te hanga nei kāore tēnei Whare mō te whaiwhai haere i ngā ture kua roa e taka hē nei kātahi ka hoki mai ki te whakatika me te patipati i tōna anō tuara.

Nō reira kei te tautoko atu mātou, mārika, kia kotahi te ture, ahakoa kaipakihi, ahakoa kaimahi rānei. Anā, ko tāku e āpiti nei ki ngā kōrero, ko te iwi Māori kua roa e noho hunga kaimahi ana i roto i ngā rāngai mahi katoa o tēnei motu. Nō reira koia tā mātou e mea nei kei te tautoko ake. Tika tonu kia kotahi te ture, tika tonu kia hāngai te kupu o te Whare ki tōna mana, e ai te wāhi ki a ia, ki te kore, hei aha mā te Whare? Nō reira, ka waihohia ake ki reira. Kei te tautoko mātou i te pire. Tēnā tātou.

[All is good. Greetings to all, I stand to voice the sentiments of the Māori Party with regards to the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. These sentiments will be delivered in te reo Māori. It is only true that Māori have for a long time been a part of the labour force in this country. In the 50s, the 60s, and the 70s, our ancestors were dragged to the cities to live as labourers. Therefore, that world is something that the Māori people understand well.

To strike at the gist of what I am saying, it is only appropriate that I thank you Aperahama, Ibraham. Welcome, bring with you your wise opinions for this House to ponder, in spite of this House not being very considerate to immigrants, to indigenous peoples, or to brown-skinned people in the past. So all of those concerns and challenges of the indigenous peoples are introduced into discussions, so thank you, Abraham.

To the Speaker, I will not prolong my speech. The axiom of the Māori is true, that there should be one law and that your words are your bond, and to hold fast to code. Therefore, if there are dual rules in this House, or of the Ministry of Justice, then this must be rectified. This is perhaps the second or third time that I have stood to talk about this bill that has been sitting here rusting away in the House. It is as if this House is not adhering to the rules that it has long been disregarding, and now is trying to correct it and stroke their own back.

So we support it wholeheartedly, for there to be one law, whether it pertains to a business person or a labourer. I would also like to add that Māori have long been labourers in all sectors of the country. Therefore, that is why we are in support. It is only right for there to be one law, and that the House is true to its word, because if it is not, then what is the point of this issue to the House? I will leave it there. We support the bill. Thank you all.]

It’s a great pleasure to support this bill and, hopefully, it becoming law. I just want to commend Camilla Belich and Ibrahim Omer—who is here with us today—for the work that they have done to bring this issue into the debating chamber.

I think, at the core of it, this bill is asking us to consider whether not paying an employee their wages is theft—pretty bloody common sense, I reckon—and I think, to me, that should spark a broader conversation politically. Workplaces are nothing without the workers, and therefore we should be willing and be brave and aspirational in saying who should have control of the workplaces and who should retain the ability to make decisions around how workplaces run, including how the profits and the wealth generated from workplaces are, therefore, distributed to workers.

I think this bill has sparked a really important conversation. Having worked in hospitality, as with my peers, I know this is a huge issue in the hospitality sector. I know that Ibrahim, coming from the union movement, has heard for himself many, many stories—as has Camilla Belich, as well—of workers talking about, basically, those workers not having had their wages paid by their bosses and, basically, that profit, that money, having been kept from them, and there are the impacts on people on the ground. It’s the difference between being able to put food on the table, being able to pay your bills, and being able to actually engage in your workplace constructively.

I think, to me, that the key to the success of this bill will be continuing to keep a really close eye to whether the deterrence factor applies. If it doesn’t, it’s actually not a failure of the purpose of this bill, but it actually should be a call for Government to do far more, to give greater power to workers in the workplaces, so that this issue doesn’t keep happening again. I look forward to this bill becoming law, and for us continuing to have brave and bold conversations about who should have control of the workplaces.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I’d like to acknowledge Ibrahim Omer, here in the House this evening. Thank you for the contribution you made as part of the select committee process and for your willingness to continue to engage in this legislative process that we have in this special place. I just want to welcome you back here this evening. I also want to acknowledge Camilla Belich for shepherding this through the Education and Workforce Committee, for her willingness to have a kōrero, a conversation, about some of the nuances of employment law in New Zealand. Certainly, I did learn through the process, and I want to acknowledge that this evening.

I want to acknowledge the select committee for the hard work that they put into shepherding this through, the conversations that happened, led by New Zealand First and by the Hon Casey Costello, and the amendment that was put forward as part of the committee of the whole House stage. I’m not sure that that amendment has been particularly explained so far this evening, in that there were some key words added, which included “without reasonable excuse”. That was part of why the National Party, as part of the committee of the whole House, did support that amendment—so that, if the bill did become law this evening, it would be a better law for it. I just want to, as I say, acknowledge our coalition partners and the Hon Casey Costello for bringing that amendment to the House and ensuring that the piece of legislation is better than it would have otherwise been.

It troubles me this evening that this has become a conversation about whether or not employees should get paid. The answer to that is pretty simple: employees should get paid what they are due for the work that they do. That is not the question here this evening. The question here this evening is whether or not the system that we currently have in place adequately, appropriately addresses that concern. It’s important to note that we have the Employment Relations Act that makes it very clear that underpayment and breaches of employment agreements can be dealt with; that the Minimum Wage Act and the Wages Protection Act ensure workers receive their full entitlements and prevent unlawful deductions. We have the Holidays Act, which requires payment of leave entitlements and imposes penalties for non-compliance.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Talk to some workers.

Look, I’m not going to take side comments from the Greens this evening, who want us to hug the middle, right? We’re talking about stealing money from employees, but they don’t want to give them tax cuts and put more money in their pockets. Quite frankly, I can’t even see why they feel they’ve got an opinion this evening on this topic. We’ll just keep that kōrero over there quiet while we focus on the current law that we have—a law that protects employees, gives them rights, and ensures that they have the right to deal with issues in their employment relationship when they come up.

Now, what was interesting through the process, both here in the House and in the select committee, is that we asked for data around theft from employees on a number of occasions. What we were given were broad challenges, using the current system that provides for grievances, that didn’t and couldn’t accurately provide a number for theft from employees that’s currently occurring. What is being proposed this evening, and proposed through this process, is something that tries to deal with the exception rather than the rule. I take the point from our New Zealand First colleagues that 99.9 percent of all employers are good employers.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How do you know that if you say you have no data?

Well, I’m simply quoting a member who has shared that perspective earlier this evening, and a perspective that I value significantly more than anything that comes from that corner of the House.

The point about the 99.9 percent of employers that do a good job is that, while this bill doesn’t target them, it is going to increase the compliance burden, the expectation, and my concern is the mental health of the small and medium employers, small and medium enterprises, who are going to have another thing that their HR consultant comes along and says, “Are you aware that you could go to jail, that you need to come to this workshop, you need to learn more about this?” It’s going to add another thing that employers and businesses have to learn about that doesn’t actually solve a problem—that doesn’t add to the set of tools that are already in our legislative framework to deal with this sort of problem.

Now, the comment was made earlier this evening that businesses don’t work without employees. I agree with that. In my journey as a businessowner, without a team we couldn’t have achieved anything, but, similarly, employees don’t have a job without an employer. It is a relationship that requires both to be involved. Yes, you can talk about some of the larger ones and how it’ll be easy for them to ensure they comply with this, and, of course, there are already remedies if they don’t. We make that point very clearly in the House this evening. There are already remedies for those where this happens. I feel for an employee that is in this situation where they have had the effective theft of their wages by an employer. I feel for them, but there are already ways, avenues within our law, for them to ensure that they get their wages paid.

I am concerned, as I say, for those small and medium employers, those sub-20 that my learned friend spoke about earlier, and what this will mean for them. The question for us this evening is: when we add a law to the statute book, does it add to the set of tools? And is the cost of implementation—and I’ve heard it said a couple of times over recent times, the cost of red and green tape. We have to remember that those two things are tied together in this House. When we talk about thieving from the pockets of employees, we should also be talking about the fact that both of those parties—who are so concerned with employee earnings in this country that they voted in this House against tax cuts for those very people, which I just find very ironic with their concern. We have to think about the cost of implementation of these laws when we already have a legislative framework to deal with this challenge.

Now, during the select committee process—and it might not have actually been on this bill specifically, because we have the unions talk to us on basically every bill in the Education and Workforce Committee, and our chair, Katie Nimon, effectively guides us through those discussions. The point was made recently by one of the unions that, in employment relationships, there is a good-faith requirement as part of the employment agreements. They argued that this covered all manner of issues that may come up in an employment relationship. While I’m certainly not suggesting this evening that that is the only component of employment law in New Zealand that an employee who has had theft of their wages can rely on—because I’ve already referred to the actual specific statutes and the language within those statutes that ensures protection for employees.

I did think it was sort of rather ironic that, on the one hand, the unions argue, on the occasion that suits them, that good faith covers everything, but, on other occasions, maybe good faith isn’t enough and we need much more specific language within our legislation and within our framework. Of course, we don’t support that. The biggest thing that this does is it shifts one aspect of employment law from the civil jurisdiction to the criminal jurisdiction. We don’t believe that that actually improves in any way the ability for employees to get recompense when they have had their wages withheld or stolen. Therefore, I don’t commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I do want to start by congratulating Camilla Belich for bringing this here today; and, of course, my friend and colleague Ibrahim Omer, who’s here in the House tonight, who brought this bill to the House in the first instance. They’ve done a great job, not only of drafting an important bill but also of doing that other thing in politics, which is marshalling support around the House. It does demonstrate that Parliament can do a fantastic job, particularly around members’ bills, where our job is to genuinely persuade our colleagues from every party and marshal support. Well done.

I don’t often tell personal stories in this House, but I want to start with one. It’s the story of Charmaine. Charmaine, whose name is already public, worked with me at a law firm. She was the human resources manager, and she was very good at her job. But she wasn’t honest. What she did—she was clever—was when it was someone’s time to leave, she would add some extra holiday pay. Over the course of several years, whenever someone left, she’d get an extra week of their holiday pay. It’s called fraud; it’s theft. She stole, over the course of several years, hundreds of thousands of dollars. She went to jail. She was sentenced to more than three years in prison, and that was right because she was dishonest and she stole from her employer. I was a partner at that law firm. There was a bit of a joke that, because of her theft, some of the partners couldn’t upgrade their Porsches.

I want to tell you another story. It’s fictitious. It’s a story about an employer who, when people leave, short-change them their holiday pay; who don’t give them their holiday pay; and if they don’t ask, they don’t follow it up. Over the course of many years, they steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from their employees. Their employees don’t miss out on a Porsche; they miss out on their mortgage payments. And do you know what? The National Party would want the world to stay that way. That is ridiculous. Charmaine stole money just as much as an employer who short-changes someone on their holiday steals money. I find it unbelievable that the National Party—and I cannot believe that Carl Bates called not stealing a “compliance cost”. I cannot believe that he said that that was a “red tape burden we shouldn’t put on employers”. Charmaine went to jail for a reason.

Katie Nimon, who at least had the decency to not sound like she believed what she was saying, would say Charmaine should deal with that in the Employment Court; it’s a civil matter. Now, we know that when people are dishonest, when they steal money, when, in the words of this bill, they “intentionally” and “without reasonable excuse” take money, the criminal law should kick in. Look, the ACT Party I forgive, because they’re irredeemable. But the National Party? Really? The National Party, who put themselves out as a thoughtful party who wants to get the law right? Why? Really—why?

The fact of the matter is that this went to the Education and Workforce Committee and 84 percent of the submitters there were totally in favour of this reform. All we’re asking for is an even playing field: when an employee steals, they suffer the consequences; when an employer steals, they suffer the consequences. Just because the employer happens to have the money that the employee is entitled to in their bank account doesn’t change things.

Now, I want to be really clear. There’s been scaremongering and I want to be really, really clear: if the employer doesn’t have the money in the bank; has tried their best and is not intentionally depriving someone of their wages, it’s not theft—it’s a liquidation and the civil law deals with that. All the reckless trading provisions deal with that, as they should. No one’s going to go to jail for not having the money to pay their staff because the sales weren’t enough that week. It’s really important to remember that. The fact of the matter is that a party that we look to for responsible government—

💬 Grant McCallum: Oh, that’s good of you.

Yeah, we do. No, no, we look to you because you are in Government and we expect you to make reasonable decisions about things like this.

I do want to recognise New Zealand First on this because they have come to the table and they’ve brought a thoughtful and considered approach, and an open mind, which is all we ask. Thank you for your support for this bill, because I think it reflects on the fact that we will not agree on everything—we didn’t when we were in Government together, and we won’t if ever that happens again. But on this we agree and we can come together, so thank you for that.

This bill is actually an unbelievably simple bill: if you steal, pay the consequences, and stealing is the same whether you’re an employee stealing from an employer or an employer stealing from an employee. That’s why this bill will pass tonight.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill because I think this an opportunity for the National Party to explain our sensible opposition to this bill.

None of us wants to see migrant workers or any workers exploited in any way, and I want to just acknowledge Ibrahim Omer for his bringing of this bill, likely to become law, to the House. I can understand the reasons behind it and what you want to accomplish, and nobody disputes that. Nobody wants to see the bad actors, the people who are using their positions of power where they have more understanding of how to take advantage of people. Nobody wants to see that, and that’s not right, and we do not in any way condone that.

I think, when we talk about legislation, from our position, we look at what is the problem that we are trying to solve. From hearing the story that you brought, the problem was that there was an imbalance of power and not understanding what the rights were or what the correct thing was to do.

When you make something a criminal offence, does it really deter people? That’s the real question. This is creating a new pathway into criminal law when there is already a pathway for resolution through the civil courts. The ability of employers already exists to use the Employment Relations Act, the Minimum Wage Act, the Wages Protections Act—all have provisions that prevent unlawful deductions from wages, as does the Holidays Act.

When we think about what is it that we are trying to do here, putting it in under a new system or a different way of approaching this is not going to make it any quicker. This is not going to increase people’s access to justice. It may increase people’s access to legal aid, and maybe that’s the real reason that we’re looking at it through this avenue, because if you were to bring a matter through the civil court, my understanding is you don’t have the same access to legal aid. Again, this is another problem. This is the problem: people can’t afford to take the actions, and, therefore, they’re not getting access to justice. That’s a real problem, and we do need to look at that.

By creating a pathway through the criminal system, we will actually likely slow down people’s access to justice, because it takes a lot longer for these things to go through a criminal proceeding. Some of my colleagues have also spoken about the impact of the police needing to be involved in these proceedings as well. We can imagine a situation—and, yes, there’s always hypotheticals to discuss—where, as an employee is leaving an employment relationship, for whatever reason, they can raise an allegation through this. The fact of having to raise this allegation means it’s then investigated. It goes through the police process. They come and knock on an employer’s door. The employer has to defend themselves, and it adds more cost because they have to then employ a lawyer. Look, the lawyers are the ones who win in this; it’s always the lawyers, isn’t it? The ones who win here are always the lawyers; they’re always the ones who win here.

I’ve got the privilege, now, of sitting on the Education and Workforce Committee, and I’m very, very, very sad to see that Camilla Belich is no longer on it, because I felt we would have had some good across-the-seats discussions. However, now coming to speak on this bill, I can see that—through the process, as the chair, Katie Nimon, pointed out so ably—it was very well discussed and traversed all through the select committee. I thought it was very interesting that some of the concerns that were raised through the submissions haven’t been fully addressed. I thought it was interesting to read that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions pointed out that it would be hard to establish mens rea for non-natural persons. Do we actually have a resolution for that? I’m not sure.

Also, Business NZ noted the high threshold of beyond reasonable doubt imposed through the criminal system compared to the balance of probabilities that lies in the Employment Court. This then makes the proving of intention quite difficult. The prosecutors have a greater burden of proof to say that this was an intention. We know that proving intentionality can be very, very difficult.

💬 Katie Nimon: They’ve still got to prove it.

They’ve still got to prove that’s the case. Then, if they’re able to do that, is this a pattern or is this a one-off thing? This is going to be an interesting part of the question.

If you allow me to indulge for one very quick moment, the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee pointed out to me that she omitted to make a very important acknowledgment during her speech. I’ve undertaken to fix that error for her. She is no longer here, but anyway, she needed to acknowledge her husband, Jeremy, and his birthday tomorrow. Happy birthday, Jeremy, for tomorrow. Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Speaker. Look, this, as I said—

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You can stretch it; only three more minutes, Vanessa. You can do it.

Only three more minutes, says Duncan. Yes, thank you. Do you have any more contributions to make to my speech?

Look, when we are looking at this, we absolutely acknowledge the good intentions behind it. There will be unintended consequences that come from this. My colleague Carl Bates pointed out that employers are a very valuable part of this relationship. A relationship of trust should be in existence between employers and employees. This is a matter that’s likely to affect very few people within an employment relationship, because it is a very small number of people that are at that extreme bad end—

Ricardo Menéndez March: You don’t know that. You just said there is no data.

The member opposite says that we don’t know that. It’s already been pointed out that neither do they, because there is no good data on that, and maybe that is because there hasn’t been the ability for people to bring this before the law. It will be very interesting to see what happens. However, everything that happens that is added through this process will slow down the justice system. If every problem that needed to have a really careful, nuanced approach to it was given a new legislative agreement, a way of going through it, it really is just going to clog things up.

It’s not solving the problems, the underlying problem being a mismatch of information, a mismatch of power that is abused. That’s not going to be resolved by this change in the law, changing of avenues of recompense, and it’s not going to solve fully the fact that we have issues with access to justice because of cost in this country. That is a different matter; it is a different problem. It is something that should be seriously considered, but taking this course of action to solve that problem—that will result in other consequences—may not be the effect that we wanted to achieve.

What we want to do is to eliminate migrant exploitation; we absolutely want to do that. I do not commend the bill to the House for that reason.

This bill amends the Crimes Act to clarify that intentionally not paying an employee their wages is theft. The law as it stands does not address this; it’s currently carried out in a civil jurisdiction. This bill corrects that and makes it a matter for law enforcement through the police. This bill supports Labour’s continued effort to protect workers’ rights and ensure they get a fair deal by strengthening laws around labour law.

I’ve heard the most sorrowful speeches ever done in this House tonight. I’ve heard that theft from an employee is equivalent to a layer of bureaucracy. We’ve also heard that not stealing is too much compliance—we don’t want to do that—and also that making it a criminal offence doesn’t deter people. Well, that’s a new one from National; I thought it did, according to them. I’m quite astounded by what we’ve heard tonight, and I look forward to reviewing some of those speeches later on and having a good laugh. But it’s not a laughing matter, because wage theft is a real and constant problem in New Zealand. This is a wider issue: many New Zealanders still have fewer rights at work. Many workers never even see a written employment contract, even though there is a legal requirement for them to do so.

I would like to acknowledge Ibrahim Omer and his work in bringing the bill so far. He has worked incredibly hard and he has real experiences of this happening in New Zealand. I’d also like to acknowledge my colleague Camilla Belich for continuing the good work and progressing this bill in order for it to pass into law. I would like to acknowledge all those union workers and activists who continue to fight for workers’ rights in a time when that has been incredibly difficult. I know that we’ve still got a lot of work to do in this space.

For many New Zealand workers, the era of the Employment Contracts Act in 1991 has never gone from the workplace. There is still an inherent inequality of bargaining power that is very much alive, so this bill takes an important step to rectifying this imbalance. Fair Pay Agreements also did this, but that’s already been stripped away by this Government. By having this bill in place, it actually makes it better for those people experiencing wage theft.

Tonight, in a break, I heard a story that was of wage theft where someone who was working in New Zealand was due $3.50 extra an hour. That had accrued over a period of months. It came to thousands of dollars. They pursued it through their union delegate, they wrote letters, they inquired as to how they would get that money paid back, and there was no engagement from the employer. What happened was the delegate forwarded the link to this bill to the employer and said, “This will be made law in New Zealand and you will be breaking the law.” Within a short period of time, the full amount of unpaid wages was paid. In situations, funnily enough, where there’s predetermination—white-collar crime—actually having a crime is a good deterrent. If it’s clear what the penalty is, in some areas like this, it does deter employers from taking money from employees unnecessarily.

I’ll try and keep my call short, but I’d like to say that for those migrant workers in New Zealand, this adds to their protections in place. For those employees that have to fight for their rights, there is now something in place—equivalent to Australia, equivalent to other jurisdictions. The penalties aren’t as tough here, but I really hope they go towards building a body of law that protects workers to earn a fair wage and to have enough money in their pockets to hold their head up, to put food on their table, and to be proud of being a Kiwi. And it’s a damn shame that side opposite doesn’t agree with that.

It’s a pleasure to rise on the third reading of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. I wasn’t going to take a call, but, sitting here, I felt compelled to get up and share my views on what is, I think, an important debate. I would like to start by acknowledging Ibrahim Omer for your contribution and Camilla Belich, a Northcote local, for taking this member’s bill on.

Where I start from is similar to where a lot of people on this side of the House start from, which is that we believe in individual employment relationships. There’s no secret it is an ideological debate that the left and the right have had for decades, and we will continue to have it. From my perspective, we believe in employment relationships that should be employer and employee led—individual. The Government shouldn’t have a role to play; it should just set the parameters and let those relationships get on.

I’m of the view, having lived around the world—I’ve lived in different contexts. I’ve lived in France, which has had a very heavy-handed approach to employment relationships. Look at where they’re at, at the moment. I’ve also lived in America, which has a completely opposite approach, and look at where they’re at, at the moment. Actually, there is no right or wrong way; it’s what fits for New Zealand’s context. I think where we’re getting to is getting back to that individual employment relationship.

I think that this bill is heavy-handed. There are already a lot of ways in which employees can go about exercising their rights under the Employment Relations Act, the Minimum Wage Act, and the Holidays Act. Zooming out, there are a lot of laws in this country that aren’t policed. You look at the litter laws in New Zealand. I’ve got police in my own family. I don’t want police going around making sure that people are fined for littering, because there are laws in place for that. There are by-laws in place as well. We’ve got more serious crimes that we want the police to focus on. In Northcote, in the member’s own electorate, there’ve been some serious crimes committed: robbery, armed robbery, stabbings, murders.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Where?

In the great electorate of Northcote—come over and see, Willie.

💬 Katie Nimon: They don’t really take crime seriously.

They don’t take crime seriously. I want to commend the hard-working police of the Waitematā district, who have gone out to bat for those types of crime, who found the offenders and who are bringing them to justice. That’s the crime that we want to focus on, because that’s the crime that’s actually going to make our community safer, on this side of the House. Look, I’ve heard some good debate in this House today—

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Not from your side.

—from both sides—around why this bill should or should not go forward, but, again, I want to bring it back today to the core crux of this, which is that we don’t think this is needed. We don’t think this is needed. We think that there’s unintended consequences. We want the police focused on improving the safety of our community and we want an employment relationship that works at the individual level. We want Government out of our lives. Northcote voters, except that person over there, want Government out of our lives—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Who?

Camilla, and she lives in the most wealthy—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Two names: first name, last name. Thank you.

Camilla Belich. People in her neighbourhood—I’ve door-knocked every door in her street, and I know the sentiment of her community. They would not approve of such a bill, because they believe in employment relationships at the individual level. They believe in the current architecture and that it’s sufficient, and they want our police focused on what matters to them. I do not commend this bill to the House tonight.

I’m trying to imagine the National Party caucus meeting when they discussed this bill and Katie Nimon put her hand up and said, “Camilla Bellich has got this member’s bill, and it will make it a criminal offence if people intentionally steal money from other people.” I’m trying to imagine what the discussion was in the National Party caucus that led them to think it was a good idea to oppose this at the third reading.

I actually think tonight’s debate could be really, really useful for teaching young people civics, because, as an MP, from time to time some young person will say to you, “What does the National Party stand for? You know, the blue team—what happens if you tick the blue colour?” Well, tonight is actually a really revealing demonstration of what the National Party stands for. The self-styled “Party of Law and Order” is voting against a bill that will criminalise the intentional theft of money by employers from their employees. That’s what’s going on in the Chamber tonight.

We’ve seen—just unbelievable things that we’ve heard from that side of the House, not from the New Zealand First colleagues, I would say. Katie Nimon thought that this offence would clog up the courts; it was a layer of bureaucracy and red tape. Carl Bates, God bless him, worried that this would be bad for the mental health of business owners because the HR consultant would come running in and say, “You could go to jail if you steal money!” It’s just absolutely unbelievable. What it does illustrate, and what it will teach generations of civics students, is that the core value of the National Party is to protect the economic interests of employers at the expense of everybody else who works for a living. That is the core value of the National Party.

It shouldn’t really surprise us that they want to defend the interests of employers in the face of logic, of morals, of principle and reason, that they will reflexively support the right of employers to steal money and not be held accountable for it, because they opposed every single increase to the minimum wage—every single one. For as many years as I can remember, they trashed fair-pay agreements as one of the first things they did when they were elected, because they didn’t want low-paid workers to earn a decent living. They restored unfair trial periods and they’re also in the House at the moment bringing in a bill that will allow employers to deduct money from a worker’s wage if they so much as wear a badge or a T-shirt during industrial action. That’s the kind of party that the National Party is. That is their core values.

Tonight’s debate reveals this incredible double standard: that they will stand up for employers, defend their economic interests, do everything they can to drive down the cost of labour at the expense of working New Zealanders, but they will not support a bill that criminalises the intentional theft of money. Absolutely unbelievable. I want to thank and give credit to Ibrahim Omer and Camilla Belich for bringing this bill to the House and showing generations of civic students what kind of party the National Party is.

Well, I’m the last speaker on this bill, and sometimes you’re that person: you’re the last speaker at a function before everyone goes to have a beer. Well, that’s kind of where we’re at, at the moment.

I’d like to start with this: the previous speaker, the Hon Phil Twyford, was—let’s see—focused on what it would be like in the National caucus. Well, I’ve got a question: I wonder what it was like in the Labour caucus when they were in power. Let’s go back, and this concept of putting a bill forward which actually says what—and then this bill came up for discussion. Did they think it was so important then that they would actually put it on their own Order Paper and pass it? Oh, hold on, hold on, what happened? Nothing. Crickets—no noise.

I find it a little bit hypocritical that suddenly they’re all in behind this bill when they have had their opportunity. In six long years of destroying the New Zealand economy, they didn’t have enough time and priority to actually put this on the Order Paper, and that was what was missing. I take these crocodile tears with a rather large grain of salt, and I’ll just put that right out there, right now. But then—

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Indian salt.

Yeah, good salt—very good salt. It’s from Blenheim. They make great salt there—very good. Good to hear from you—welcome to the House. It’s great to have you here. Look, now, so that’s—[Interruption] God, I’m getting a lot of commentary here. Everyone is very excited about this bill.

Now, I think it’s important, actually, and I would like to acknowledge that getting a member’s bill drawn is quite an achievement. I think we have to acknowledge that, and I would like to acknowledge the original mover of the bill, Ibrahim Omer—congratulations—and also then Camilla Belich, who has followed this bill through to this point, where you’ve obviously managed to convince one of our coalition partners to support the bill, and well done to you.

I’d also like to just acknowledge the other members of the great select committee that we sat on, the Education and Workforce Committee, although it’s all been blown up recently because we’ve got new members coming and going. I’ve lost count of who—I’m not quite sure who’s on it any more, actually. I’d just like to acknowledge our great chair, Katie Nimon, who did a great job, and her husband, Jeremy, who was in here in the House earlier tonight—good to have him here. I acknowledge the deputy chair, Carl Bates, who did a great job; also Mike Butterick, who was part of that committee for a while—great to have you here—and then there’s Parmjeet Parmar. But then we go to the other side of the House—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: He’s got 7½ minutes to go and he’s doing his thankyous.

Look, thank you for the advice—I really appreciate it. Thank you. Then there’s all the other members from the other side of the House: the Hon Phil Twyford, Camilla herself, Jan Tinetti, and Ricardo Menéndez March, who was here earlier. It’s fantastic.

Look, I think it’s important: the thing that concerns me most is that being an employer, when you are an employer, you’re taking a big risk. You’re the person, or a group of people, that actually starts a business, takes a risk, and creates the opportunity for employees to work for you. Good employers do a great job, and so do good employees, and I have to acknowledge that up front. We all want to make sure that people absolutely get paid for the work they do, but when that doesn’t happen, for whatever reason, then there is already a process that takes care of that. There’s a civil process that can actually take care of that, right, through the Employment Relations Act currently, and the Minimum Wage Act and the Wages Protection Act. They all provide that opportunity, right?

Think about it as an employer, where you’re doing your best and suddenly out of nowhere something happens and next minute you get a knock on the door and the police are turning up and you are being questioned about whether you’ve done your payroll properly or not. That is a big stress and worry as an employer. Running a business is not an easy thing—it’s not an easy thing—and I think it’s really important people remember that and acknowledge that, right? I think it’s very, very important to keep that in mind.

When you think about the employers who get out there and create businesses and do things and create economic wealth in our country and take those risks—I’m thinking about all those great employers who in the not too distant future are going to come up to the great area of Northland and they’re going to build a big highway called the Northland Expressway. They’re going to build this expressway, and there are going to be lots of different employers and subcontractors who employ people. This is really important: we need to actually open up the economy of Northland, and these are the people that are going to be the employers that own the bulldozers and the graders that do the work. This is a tough enough job as it is without actually having to worry about having police knock on the door and call out for a criminal offence. I think that is really, really concerning.

These are the people that are going to build the roads. These are the people that are actually going to drill the tunnels that are going to take us through the Dome Valley, all the way up to the great electorate of Northland. I just think it’s really important we remember all that.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: Grant, you were doing so well.

I’m getting great advice. The thing here is I think it’s really important. The irony of the Hon Phil Twyford making a lot of noise at the moment is that he was the one that cancelled our road that the employers could not work on. I haven’t forgotten that, the Hon Phil Twyford—the employers never had the chance, so therefore you took that away from us, and you took that away from all the businesses in the North—right? You missed that opportunity. I really think—

💬 Hon Member: Toll the roads of Northland.

Absolutely. The roads of national significance are back. The employers of national significance are back, which is great news, right—great news.

I would like to acknowledge, actually, that this bill was improved a bit with New Zealand First’s contribution—at least to really put a focus in on the word “intent”. That is the one good thing that did come out of this whole process, and I have to acknowledge that from there. The thing is, there’ve been lots of bills and so forth passed or rules created with good intent, but the stress that comes, and then the lawyers get involved and the legal system gets involved, and good farmers, for example, suddenly find themselves at the mercy of law, for example around farming practices, and it comes back to haunt them—well, this could be the same here. The extra stress that puts on a business owner is something else.

I think that probably just about covers it all off, because, actually, we’re about to get to the point where I will have to sit down, and we’ve only got a couple of minutes to go—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

—and I’m sure they’re all disappointed on the other side of the House—all very disappointed. Even the audience on the rear benches over there are disappointed. [Bell rung] Oh, there’s the bell—I’ve got two minutes to go.

No, look in all seriousness, congratulations, Camilla Belich. I mean, the opportunity to actually get a bill through the House is a really good—

💬 Steve Abel: Are you going to cross the floor?

No, I’m not going to cross the floor. That’s not a very good suggestion. But thank you, Camilla. Look, I really commend you for bringing this to the House, where National has made its case as to why it does not support this bill, and we do not commend the bill to the House. Thank you.