Employment Relations Law Reform Bill

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Could you tell me how much time we have left, firstly, before the dinner break and, secondly, for the member who was last speaking when the debate was interrupted.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I was just about to say that. We have 3 minutes left. When the Committee was last considering the bill, the Hon Richard Prebble was speaking and has 3 minutes, 5 seconds remaining, if he so wishes.

This is a complex bill and, as I noted last night, Part 1 has 117 clauses. I want to make a particular point, since I notice that Mr Tamihere is in the Chamber, which is a rare occasion. I point out that there is a special Supplementary Order Paper that allows Mr Tamihere to vote for a 90-day probationary period for new workers. That Minister goes up and down this country, I know, saying that that is what is needed in our industrial law. Perhaps later this evening he will have the opportunity to vote for precisely that, because I have drafted a provision that deals with that very issue. I would expect that the Minister will be a man of his word, will have the courage of his convictions, and will vote for that proposition. New Zealand employers want that, and that Minister knows it. He should therefore vote for it.

I want to speak on two further issues in this debate. The first is on the sale of businesses, which goes under what might be seen as the benign title of restructuring. Actually that is quite duplicitous.

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

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not think I need to have this assurance, but I would still like to have it. The Committee resumed about 3 minutes before 6 o’clock and I would have been able to give you an excellent speech. I hope it will not be held against me that I could not be here then, and I will go for a call later.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I look forward to hearing that excellent speech. Before the dinner break Dr Wayne Mapp was speaking and he has 3½ minutes remaining.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Prior to the dinner break I was talking about two particular issues, and the first is in relation to the value destruction provisions in this bill. Those provisions known as Part 6A, inserted into Part 1 by clause 30, are said to be about restructuring, but are more properly called value destruction. This Government has created a mythical concept of so-called vulnerable workers, who will have extraordinary powers to receive information about the possible intents and plans of people to sell their businesses. They may well get that information—in fact, will get that information—before the businesses go on the market. Those people will have the opportunity, by industrial action and the like, to diminish and reduce the value of those businesses. The Minister has the power by Order in Council to add anyone he wants into that category without reference back to this Parliament except by way of those statutory regulations.

That is fundamentally wrong. To give those sorts of powers to these extreme leftists—these hard-left unionists who infest the Government—is wrong. The Minister himself is paying his dues today by supporting this bill. When I hear this slur—I guess it is—about “Swainy and the boys”, I know that it is a falsehood, because this bill is proof of it. In fact, it is him paying his debt to his union mates.

By creeping erosion the value is being destroyed in New Zealand businesses. People will be advised early and, effectively, get redundancy. That redundancy will come straight off the top of the value of the business. It will reduce the sale price, and because people have early notice they will be able to manipulate it to reduce the value even more than would be the case. That is fundamentally wrong. Why would the Government go out of its way to hurt hard-working business owners who have had to put much more than a 40-hour week into their businesses to build value, only to have the Government by its manipulative interventions destroy that value?

I will seek a fourth call on another issue. It is a fundamental issue, and it is the politically correct madness of putting the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi right through all legislation.

Hon Dover Samuels: Here we go again: knock the Māoris.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Mr Samuels thinks it is a good idea that in employment law we have the principles of the treaty inserted into that legislation. There is a new schedule to that effect.

I move, That the question be now put.

This is one of the more significant pieces of legislation this Government has introduced, and it has been drafted in such a way that makes this part one of the largest I have seen. Just before the break the other night, I raised the matter of the extraordinary actions under clause 37, where a decision of the Court of Appeal in the Wilson and Horton—that is, the New Zealand Herald—and Oram case is reversed. Some members might remember the case. Mr Oram was a journalist who saw that there had been a major crime, and he thought it would make a great front-page story. He saw the name, went to the file, pulled out a photograph of a person of that name, put it on the front page of the New Zealand Herald, and, of course, it was the wrong person. He was fired. The New Zealand Herald had to immediately pay out thousands of dollars. He had not done any of the checking that a journalist should do before going ahead with the story. Under this legislation, the Government is now saying that the New Zealand Herald should not have done that.

If the New Zealand Herald had to pay out tens of thousands of dollars to someone who had not done even the elementary checking, how on earth can the Government say it is prepared to pass a law stating that a person in that situation cannot be fired? That is the effect of this decision. I would like to hear the Minister—“Swainy and the boys”—explain why it will now be perfectly OK for a person to be so negligent but that the employer cannot fire that person. Under clause 37 it will be even harder to fire people who are so negligent.

The Minister said that it is perfectly OK that non-union members should be forced to pay a bargaining fee. The reason he said that is because the employer, the union, and a vote means it is OK. What happened to freedom? He also said that if people do not want to join a union, then they do not have to. He failed to mention that the unions do not pay the wages, that it is the employer who does. This law makes it illegal to pass on to all of one’s workforce the same wages for the same job. That is basic Kiwi fairness. The Government is saying to employers: “You can’t pay everyone the same—that is, if it undermines the collective.” Who decides that? The union can bring the case. Who can the union take the case to? It can take it to the Employment Court, appointed by Margaret Wilson, so it is all OK.

This is compulsory unionism without the benefit of people at least getting union membership. Employer after employer appeared before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to say that the union never negotiates anything. Every time there has been a significant advance, it is because the employer has made the offer. But if an employer does make a better offer, then under this bill it will be illegal to pass it on to people who do not want to join the union, unless they pay the union. I call it a blackmail fee. Why does the Government want that? We know that unions are the Labour Party’s biggest source of funds. By increasing the unions’ funds—

Hon Dover Samuels: Working people!

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: The Minister has got it absolutely right. He is voting for a measure to extract money from working people to support his political campaign. He no doubt honestly believes it is in the best interests of working people. What happened to democracy? What happened to freedom of choice? What happened to the many people—now in the majority, I understand, in his electorate—who do not intend to vote for that honourable member at the next election? Why should they be forced to pay a bargaining fee, and if they do not pay it, then by law they cannot be paid the same wages as the person working alongside them. If an employer did that, members opposite would be outraged. This is an outrageous clause. It is a disgrace. It is worse than compulsory unionism. The unions used to do very little for their fee, but now they do absolutely nothing, and they still get paid.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. When this part opened up I raised a point of order about the length of the debate, and at the time the Chair did make some comments on it. This debate started at 8.48 last night. It went for 1 hour 5 minutes. It started at 3 minutes to 6 this evening, and obviously, it has been going for 13 minutes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): What is the member trying to point out?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: The point is that so far the debate has been going for a total of 1 hour 18 minutes. Government members are already seeking the call to close this debate. The bill has 117 clauses, and it is only reasonable that it should be thoroughly and properly debated.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member. The Chair is not unaware of what was discussed yesterday. We will see how it goes. Everyone will be treated fairly.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the fact that yesterday debate on all parts of the Holidays Amendment Bill was closed down early by the Chairperson. Indeed, when I raised the issue after he had closed down Part 1 that New Zealand First had not had its proportionate amount of calls, he told me—and I am certain that he meant well—that we only have to have calls in proportion in the 2-hour debate. I have since looked up the clause in Standing Order 102. I draw your attention to the fact that we have had one call in this debate thus far, and we will be seeking plenty.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member’s concerns are noted. I was in the Chair last night and I have to say that members from your party did not seek the call, but that is not relevant.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I strongly support the ruling you have made. However, I invite you to think about something that might help the debate. If you were to indicate to the House that you will be taking more calls, that would be helpful. One reason it would be helpful is that I would like to hear from the Government. Instead of Government members wasting their calls on closure motions, if they know from the Chair that the Chair will not accept them then we might have Government members responding to some points. That would lift the standard of debate, and I know that is something the Chair is always in favour of.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank all members. I am more than looking forward to the debate.

It is a great pleasure to make a contribution on Part 1. Although many of the remarks that have been made on the bill to date have had an edge of flippancy to them, this is very serious legislation. It is very serious and very draconian for several reasons that I will turn to shortly. But I shall say this in advance of those comments: the only people in New Zealand society who will benefit from this legislation are the lawyers. They will be the only people in New Zealand who will gain any real financial gain from this legislation.

When one reads through the confused clauses that make up Part 1, and the sloppy drafting the Minister has allowed to get to this point, it is almost embarrassingly transparent to see how this legislation has been designed essentially to do only one thing—that is, to continue a steady stream of funding to the New Zealand Labour Party via what can only be described as legislation intent on driving this country back to an industrial relations paradigm that is stricter and offers less freedom and choice than many of its predecessors, including the Industrial Relations Act of 1987. When a Government is so miserable as to deny a group of people an exemption certificate for compulsory unionism when specifically asked to do so, then that is not reflecting the wishes of workers in New Zealand; it is reflecting an inbred prejudice against those workers in New Zealand who choose, of their own free will, not to belong to a union. In fact, we are talking presently about 83 percent of working people in New Zealand. After the introduction of the Employment Relations Act in 2001, only 17 percent of New Zealand workers have chosen to belong to unions.

Call me old-fashioned, but the question has to be asked—why is it the case, with the Employment Relations Act in place, that only 17 percent of workers in workplaces choose to belong to unions? The answer is simple. The unions do not do the job of representing workers’ issues well, decisively, and fairly. National contends that the only group of people unions are interested in protecting the rights of are those in the unions themselves, not the workers those so-called unions purport to represent.

The Minister is allowing legislation into this House that effectively says to 87 percent of working New Zealanders: “No, we’re not going to let you 87 percent of New Zealand workers choose not to belong to a union. We’re going to bring to this House legislation that essentially picks up all those pieces of the Employment Relations Act that were stripped out under the winter of discontent in 2000 and 2001, and rehash in a new Margaret Wilson - Ross Wilson type of provision, with “Swainy and the boys” being sent out the front to market it.” Margaret Wilson would not show her face in any environment other than in a union annual general meeting held at Victoria University, Wellington, during the week that this House is sitting. What was not realised is that “Swainy and the boys” are as much under the thumb of the unions and Helen Clark as Margaret Wilson was. To be fair to Margaret Wilson, at least she had the gumption to front the thing in an honest way. “Swainy and the boys” did not.

I move, That the question be now put.

First, I want to correct what my honourable colleague Simon Power led into. He started by saying that 83 percent of people were not in unions, and before the end of 5 minutes it became 87 percent. I think he was closer in the first instance. There is no reason whatsoever why employers should be nervous of unions, and basically they are not. I have not met an employer that is nervous of a union. Maybe some small employers are fairly apprehensive, but—[Interruption] The member says that I was on the waterfront. I have spent my lifetime dealing with two of the toughest unions in this country—the Seafarers’ Union, and the Waterfront Workers Union. [Interruption] Mr Power’s colleague brought up the waterfront.

I do not think that anybody is advocating—well, I am certainly not advocating—that we give blanket power to unions, any more than my National Party colleagues are, but I just want to get the whole thing in perspective. I want to come back to the bargaining fee, because the Hon Richard Prebble made some interesting points. Again, he widened the area, as if we should live in fear.

Many employers have a workforce that is largely made up of union people. I would say that many of those employers—but perhaps not all of them—would welcome the opportunity to deal with one set of people to negotiate for everybody. [Interruption] They do not have to. A Supplementary Order Paper in the Minister’s name states that first, the employer has to agree with the union.

If I were an employer and did not want to have a bargaining fee arrangement, then I can say quite categorically that I would not have one. I certainly would not have one if the majority of my workforce was non-union. However, if the majority of my staff were union members, I would probably give it some consideration. [Interruption] Would Mr Mapp please shut up!

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a very well-known principle in this Chamber that when a member is on his or her feet, those around him will remain silent. I ask that Dr Wayne Mapp restrain himself, in the interests of proper parliamentary debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I was just going to make that point. I thank the member for raising it.

PETER BROWN: I was saying that if I had a largely union-oriented workforce then I would consider a bargaining fee arrangement if most of them were in the union. I would even consider, if I were an employer, negotiating the fee with the union, and possibly paying it myself. Workplace harmony is a very important issue.

I move on to Part 6A, “Continuity of employment if employer’s business restructured”, inserted by clause 30. This all sounds very good in theory, but it will not work. The provision is flawed. It was flawed at the time the last employment relations legislation was enacted, and it was removed, I think at the select committee. I believe that the Hon Richard Prebble referred to it yesterday afternoon. It is contentious and it would not work.

If an employer wanted to sell his or her business to another employer who was faced with a major redundancy bill, or, alternatively, the first employer’s agreement had no redundancy clause in it, then the first employer would sell the contract. He would not sell the business. The staff would go, and there would be nothing left. How do I know that—and we are talking largely of small businesses, such as cleaning organisations? Employers have told me. They will not be captured by this sort of legislation. What the Government is trying to do will backfire not only on the Government itself—it will not feel the pain—but on the individuals it is trying to help. The Government should think twice about this measure, because bringing it in will add costs to employment. It will be a downside to employers who want to employ people. They will take on people on a casual or contractual basis rather than give them permanent employment. When a business has to be sold to another business, they will look for a loophole—they are very easy to find—and therefore avoid any extra costs and payments. This bill is flawed immensely.

I rise on behalf of United Future, which will not be supporting this bill. I read in the commentary on the bill that this legislation will enable the Act “to better meet its key objectives of promoting fair, productive and effective employment relationships between employees, employers and unions.” I think that wage increases are always achieved through bargaining and consultation processes between the employer and the employee, and, in some cases, the union. That is just a fact of life. It is either the union with the employer, or non-union staff with the employer.

The employer is the one who ultimately has to pay any wage increase and who is always concerned about the state of his or her staff and their welfare. Most business people would say that their staff are their greatest asset. My greatest concern about this measure is for genuine employers—and this may be more relevant in the case of smaller-sized business than larger businesses, where a lot of it is less personal—in a small to medium sized businesses who have two or three union members and seven non-union members. They go to the negotiating table with both categories of employees and agree to a fair package because they want their workers to be rewarded equally. It then becomes ludicrous when they cannot offer them all the same package. If they offer to their non-union employees in individual agreements the same package they negotiated around the table with a union representative, they will be penalised under this measure. What will the employers do? Will they have to pay the non-union staff just a little bit more so that the package is not the same? What will the unions do then? They will jump up and down.

I have no problems with unions. I believe that many of them probably do a very good job, but just as a business has to stand on its own two feet to survive, so also should a union have to stand on its own two feet to survive. It should not need any Government assistance to do so. The figures that have been put out are interesting. If only 17 percent of employees choose to belong to a union, then a very good question to ask is: why is that the case? It would be great if we could return to business conditions in New Zealand where we have a genuine negotiated arrangement between employers and employees. Over the years, that has greatly improved, not deteriorated. Therefore, I agree with my colleagues that this legislation is taking us backwards at a time when business is having to face the challenges of working in a global economy and with the competitiveness that that brings. Things can change in a matter of months or weeks, or, in the car industry, they can change in a matter of days. It is immoral for an employer not to have the right to be able to negotiate with his or her employees on things that are relevant—even, perhaps, to the survival of that business. No business wants to have a noose around its neck to the extent that it cannot operate and therefore loses staff.

I agree with the many speakers who have already said that many aspects to this legislation will be very negative for workers. If only 17 percent are choosing to belong to a union, why do we not take notice of the fact that the great majority of them are happy and very comfortable in negotiating directly with their employer? What choice do employers have when they want to bring uniformity into their workplaces between union and non-union members? I would say that they have very little. I agree that the bill started out as a way for the Government to pay back its union mates. That stands out very clearly. The bill makes it very difficult for employees to avoid joining a union.

The Green Party has three amendments it would like to make to this part of the bill. They are on the Table if anyone is interested. The first and to us the most significant of these amendments is a proposed change to the schedules in relation to the categories of workers who can receive protection when their jobs are restructured or sold out from under them—the old transfer of undertakings clause.

The Green Party is supporting the Service and Food Workers Union in calling for caregivers in residential care facilities to be added to that list of workers who will get protection once the bill is passed. I can think of no earthly reason why caregivers in rest homes were omitted from the list in the first place, as they are surely one of the most exploited and vulnerable groups in the country. I do not think there would be many employers, or even politicians in the Chamber here tonight, who could disagree with this. These workers earn mainly between $9 and $12 an hour, and many of them are actually on the bare minimum wage of $9 or just over it. The work they do is physically and mentally demanding. Many of the workers are older women who are really risking their health and welfare doing this work at pitifully low wages.

Rest homes change ownership often, so they fit right into the category of the other kinds of vulnerable workers that we are talking about in relation to this bill. When the business is sold, these hard-pressed, low-paid but essential workers are at risk of losing not only their jobs but also all their service-based entitlements, such as additional holidays if they have worked there long enough. I know that the Government is reluctant to add any group of workers at all into the coverage, at this stage, but the Green Party believes strongly that Labour could and should make an exception just for this one group of workers—caregivers in rest homes. If that is not possible, I would urge the Minister and the department to do everything they can to assist the service workers union, and other unions involved, with the process for getting caregivers added to the schedules as soon as possible.

The second amendment that we are putting up tonight is to clause 30. We would like to see it changed to allow all employees who transfer to a new employer the right to bargain for redundancy entitlements. This is again in the section dealing with the transfer of undertakings. Unfortunately the bill, as drafted, excludes vulnerable workers from bargaining for redundancy if they have an employment agreement that expressly excludes redundancy entitlement. The Green Party believes that the bill provides a strong incentive for employers to put in a redundancy exclusion—not a desirable outcome at all—and I doubt that the Government intended that. We need to remember that these clauses relate to some of the most vulnerable groups of workers in the country, who are prey to having their jobs and conditions changed. We should be doing everything we can, with this bill, to protect them. I call on Labour members to reconsider their position on this rather minor amendment, and support the rights of these workers.

Our third amendment is to do with new section 4A, inserted by clause 6A. Although we are pleased that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee strengthened this section, we would like the Committee, and in particular Labour and New Zealand First, to consider one further, minor change. The current bill states that employers are liable for penalties only where the breach of good faith was “deliberate, serious, and sustained”—all those things must be met. The Green Party believes there are circumstances where a breach may be so serious that it requires a penalty. We want new section 4A to provide that the action is “serious or sustained”, so that either can apply. It could be that the action was minor but sustained over a long period of time, thereby eroding good faith and confidence in collective bargaining. The change we propose would allow the Employment Relations Authority to consider penalties in these kinds of situations, but they will not be mandatory. I call on the Government to consider supporting this very minor amendment.

Finally, I would just like to turn quickly to the question of bargaining fees. The Green Party does support the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper on bargaining fees, and sees it as a very minor addition to the bill, unlike the Opposition parties. This is not setting up the American system of closed shops at all, as Mr Prebble said last night. All it does is allow workers and employers to negotiate an agreement that includes an arrangement for bargaining fees. It is simply just the right to have it—it can be by negotiation only; it is not something that can be imposed at all. It is something that can be done only after a vote in the workplace.

As a member who sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I want to say that Part 1, which of course is the bulk of the bill, is of considerable concern to the National Party, and something that we are totally opposed to.

I want to start with the clauses in this part that require negotiations to be carried out and concluded. So here we have the Minister legislating to require the unions and employers to continue to meet when they cannot agree. What is the purpose of that provision? It is clearly a purpose from the trade unions’ point of view, because they do not want employers to say that that is it, they cannot agree so they are walking away from the table. It is in fact the employers who lose money and whose management time is taken up by having to sit at the table with trade union officials, and it is employers who have to let staff off to negotiate.

This provision tilts the table enormously in favour of the trade union movement. If the parties cannot agree, then employers know that economically it will cost them because they have to keep fronting up. It does not matter to the unions, but it matters to the employers. But what did we hear tonight? At 5.40 this evening, we heard Trevor Mallard, Minister of State Services, and Paul Swain, Minister of Labour, announce a new bureaucracy, attached to the Department of Labour. This was probably the bureaucracy that Ross Wilson was telling the department officials would come when he was in the meeting room with them yesterday. Tonight we were told of the establishment of a new $1 million bureaucracy. The Government is fronting up with $1 million for a semi-autonomous unit, attached to the Department of Labour, as an advisory group for unions and employers when they cannot agree and have to keep on meeting.

The Government said that it will legislate to keep the parties in the room, and then chuck another $1 million at the Department of Labour, and set up a semi-autonomous, not totally autonomous, unit. So the Minister’s grubby little fingerprints will still be on this unit—a semi-autonomous unit attached to the Department of Labour—so that it can sit there to do I know not what. We have to believe that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions will be all over it, because in the press release the Council of Trade Unions President, Ross Wilson, welcomed the move, and we heard nothing from business. In fact, did Business New Zealand and the business groups even know it was coming? Have we, in the Department of Labour, under this Government, totally given up any pretext of trying to straddle the fence? It looked like it in the select committee. It looked like it with the advice that we were getting. It certainly looked like it in the lobby last night—it certainly looked like it there.

Brian Connell: It looks like it tonight.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: It looks like it tonight, as my colleague is saying. It is a shabby deal, stitched up to indirectly give the union movement another $1 million of partnership advice for the public sector to grow the bureaucracy, while all the time it is aimed at keeping the employers at the table until they cannot afford to stay any longer, and they give up.

I want to say to the Minister that I was in Nelson recently. Hospitality industry people told me that they were outraged that their staff would be able to say that they did not agree, they could not agree, but that the employers would have to keep fronting up in their time, and that they would keep the employers at the table for as long as it took to break them.

Jill Pettis: Oh!

Hon ROGER SOWRY: I tell the member that that was what the restaurant owners in Nelson were saying.

We first heard it here—the New Zealand First Party is a pro-union party. Is it any wonder that the word on the street is that a vote for New Zealand First is a vote for the Government? Can they fix it? No, they cannot.

This legislation is about as draconian as it can possibly get. This is a step back to the 1970s. This will do more to impact on our international and our domestic competitiveness than any of the hare-brained schemes that “Swainy and the boys” and his Government mates have dreamt, up to date. I see us going back to the huge industrial unrests of that period, and I would have thought that any clear-thinking person would want to avoid that. But no, not this Government. This is payback time, big time. This is reward and recognition for the 24 members of the current Government who served as union officials.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Including the Minister.

BRIAN CONNELL: Including the Minister in the chair, Paul Swain, as one of my colleagues has said. No wonder he is out there saying one thing to business, but quietly and in a sneaky way he is doing dirty, grubby deals in the lobby of this House with the boss of the union movement. In fact, he should declare whether Ross Wilson is in the precincts tonight. I would not be surprised if he is.

Simon Power: He has a room in the lobby.

BRIAN CONNELL: Does he have a room in the lobby? Is he paying rent? He probably has a permanent place in the Minister’s office, because he is really the guy who is driving this legislation.

Hon Roger Sowry: He’s in the Department of Labour head office.

BRIAN CONNELL: He probably does have his own office there. This legislation is about compulsory unionism. The Minister can beat it up any way he likes, but that is what it is really about.

Dover Samuels called out before and said it is for those hard-working members, and for the hard-working people of New Zealand. Well, it has already been pointed out to him that 79 percent of the hard-working people he has referred to do not actually belong to unions, at all. I say to the member and to the Minister that if unionism is so damn good, why does it need to be made compulsory? Why do they not just let people come to it naturally? The same argument was run with communism in East Germany. If it is so good, why did they have to build a wall to keep people out—or was it to keep them in? I suspect it might have been the latter.

I want to talk specifically about the restructuring provision in Part 6A, inserted by clause 30. I have personal experience of having led a management buy-out of a large business here in New Zealand in 1990. This kind of nonsense was in existence then, until there was a change of Government. A company that had assets of approximately $12 million only got the value of $5 million because the company was broke and the people who were buying it knew there was a contingent liability on the books for $35 million. They said that if they could not restructure the business the way they wanted, then they would not pay fair market value. Do members know what? The Government did that deal because it knew it had no option. The same thing will repeat itself now.

It is a dumb Minister and a dumb Government that cannot learn from previous mistakes. Here we are, repeating the same stuff again. This will have an immense impact on the value of businesses when they are up for sale and purchase. The first thing a purchaser will look at is the terms and conditions that the company has or that the employees enjoy. If the purchaser is buying the business because it is in trouble, why on earth would anyone pay top dollar, or take the risk in the first place, to purchase that business if there is no flexibility to restructure it according to the purchaser’s own needs? It is not rocket science. The Minister should have been able to work that out. If he had not been listening to Ross Wilson and company, he would have.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very appreciative of getting the call, but I note that a number of my colleagues who have not yet spoken will also be seeking calls.

The particular issue I want to deal with is why a principles of the Treaty of Waitangi provision is in this legislation. The Government has said it is trying to narrow the principles down. We hear Mr Mallard, who has authority on the issue, constantly proclaiming that the Government wants to narrow down the scope of the treaty, yet sneaked into this legislation is a treaty provision. New Zealand First seems to be unaware of it. Its members are hunting for it desperately as we speak—even the, dare I say it, rude deputy leader of that party.

I will take members through the sequence. Clause 35 requires codes of good faith. This clause inserts a new part, consisting of several provisions. That explains the count of 117 clauses. New section 100D in clause 35 states that there will be a new code of good faith required in public health sector employment agreements. One might think that seems harmless enough. These are contained in schedule 1AA. For the benefit of members, I will read out clause 7 in schedule 1AA, “Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”, which states: “The parties must recognise and support Part 3 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 which, in order to recognise the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and with a view to improving health outcomes for Maori, provides mechanisms to enable Maori to contribute to decision-making on, and to participate in the delivery of, health and disability services.” That is required in employment agreements. What relevance does it have in collective agreements, or, for that matter, in individual agreements? I would like the Minister in the chair, Paul Swain, to answer the question of what particular principle of the treaty is relevant here. What article of the treaty relates to employment agreements? That is what that provision is all about. Does it mean that in the future the nurses union and the district health boards will have reference to principles of the treaty in their employment agreements and their various practices, which are enforceable by the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court?

We know perfectly well, so does the country, that the Government does not even know what the principles are. It has not been able to explain them. It certainly cannot explain them here. In fact, the Government claims that health services are provided on the basis of need, not race. It actually says that. But sneaked into this bill is a reference to principles of the treaty. No one knows what it means. I am sure the Minister does not know what it means. Can the Minister tell me what points of guidance the Government will give the judges of the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court—and everyone knows that those judges are expert in the principles of the treaty—to determine how the principles will apply in an employment agreement between the nurses union and a district health board.

Maybe it would be a cleaning union. It is very important, I guess, that those so-called vulnerable workers have reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in their agreements to clean the floors of the building. Even I struggle to see how there could possibly be reference to the principles of the treaty in cleaning floors. Maybe it is some kind of joint sovereignty over the floors?

Hon Member: A partnership.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: More than a partnership—joint sovereignty. Maybe a symbolic title, a bit like the lakes, will be given to the parties in relation to the floors of hospitals. This kind of absurdity has no place in employment legislation.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. When you called the previous speaker you indicated that that was likely to be the last opportunity to speak on this part. I invite you to have a look at the record of speakers of this evening and on the previous evening, when this bill was discussed. The Green Party has had only two calls, by my colleague Sue Bradford. I have had no opportunity to speak on the bill, even though I have come down to the Chamber this evening specifically to deal with a particular clause that I have a particular interest in, which is the amendment relating to the Brethren. It is usual in this Committee for members who have not had the opportunity to speak to be given the chance to speak on a particular part. So before we go on, I invite you to reconsider your decision.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for bringing that to my notice.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether I could follow on from Mr Tanczos and make the point that when I arrived, I think Mr Mapp was speaking. He went through a number of calls, and he has just spoken again. Although I respect the fact that he was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and is pretty knowledgable in these areas, I too have been seeking the call the whole way through. I wonder whether you would possibly reconsider that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am aware of all those things.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to speak specifically to the United Future amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 276, to extend the exemption that allows unions to be denied access to a workplace on religious grounds in certain circumstances. Of course, this Committee knows that this amendment is particularly about the Brethren, who already have an exemption under current and past law, and I acknowledge their presence in the gallery tonight.

More than most members of this House, I understand how law can conflict with religion. In fact, I am probably the only member of this House who faces victimisation for practising his faith, so I have some sympathy for the position of the Brethrens. Although I will not discuss the theology of their position—I was tempted to, because I am always keen to engage in a bit of reasoning—and regardless of my interpretation of the Bible, we do have some sympathy for their position.

However, on looking at the issue, it seems to be that a genuine concern for protecting religious rights in this House would make provision for people to practise their faith without persecution, as long as that practice does not infringe the rights of others. So we consider that the law should never require people who have a religious conviction that forbids membership of a union or any other organisation, to become unionised. In fact, the law should never require anyone to become a member of a union if that person wishes not to be a member, regardless of whether that person’s objection is religious or otherwise.

However, the argument that a person who has a religious or otherwise principled objection to unionisation or membership of any organisation, apart from his or her church, should be allowed to impose this objection on the rights of others by denying union access to a workplace in order to offer employees the chance to join a union is not, in my opinion, a convincing one. Religious conviction entitles people to practise their faith; it cannot entitle them to deny other people their rights or protections under the law.

The Green Party will vote against the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 276 to extend the exemption, even though we do have some sympathy for the position of the Brethren. We would certainly support the amendment if we felt that it was genuinely protecting people from a threat to their right to practise their religion, in so far as that practice did not interfere with the rights of others. The respect for religious rights, which United Future, New Zealand First, ACT, and National purport in supporting this Supplementary Order Paper, will be demonstrated not by whether they support an anti-unionist clause in this bill, but by whether they support religious rights in other areas and contexts where they have no hidden agenda.

The last point I would make is that it is contradictory to hear the ACT party, the National Party, and New Zealand First run a campaign declaring “one law for all” in respect of Māori, but then to vote for an amendment that creates a different right for some. The hidden agenda of political parties has little connection to the genuine religious conviction of the Brethren—who, as I said, I acknowledge here today—who have lobbied for this Supplementary Order Paper. We will vote against this amendment.

I have to respond to that speech from the honourable member from the Green Party. That speech seemed to say that the Greens will vote against the amendment because New Zealand First, ACT, United Future, and National are supporting it.

Nandor Tanczos: I never said that.

PETER BROWN: Well, that was the thrust of Mr Tanczos’ speech. I say to the honourable member that this sort of clause has been in the Employment Relations Act from the beginning, and it has worked very, very well. It has caused no harm to anybody—none whatsoever—yet those members want to go against it. I think they should hang their heads in shame.

Jim Peters: It’s just posturing.

PETER BROWN: It is just posturing and making a noise for the sake of making a noise. I turn to my honourable friend behind me, whom I was quite rude to, and I am not normally rude. I am talking about Dr Wayne Mapp. He was interjecting quite severely and as he is only 2 feet behind me it was not easy to take. But I want to draw the member’s attention to the concern expressed in our minority report. I see that only one party referred to the Treaty of Waitangi provision.

Jim Peters: Only one party?

PETER BROWN: Yes.

Jim Peters: Which one?

PETER BROWN: It was New Zealand First. We have been concerned for quite some time about inclusion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and when it emerged in the new schedule 1AA, “Code of good faith for public health sector”, to be inserted by clause 67 of the bill, we were quite alarmed. We were alarmed enough to raise the question in our minority report. I say to Dr Mapp that he can rest assured; we are well up with the play.

There is an inherent fear among some of my colleagues about unions and people who operate in unions. Let me just say that most people who are in unions are decent, law-abiding New Zealanders. I know many of them, and I have had some darned good arguments with many of them—debates over philosophy and debates over practical things—but I do not run fearful of them. I understand their concern when, their having paid for a group of people to negotiate conditions on their behalf, those conditions are then simply passed on willy-nilly. That is what is known as freeloading or free-riding, and I understand those people’s concern. I think every MP here should understand it, because from what I have seen of members in this House, if one political party steals an initiative from another, it causes quite some concern. I just express that point to Dr Mapp, who alluded to our not being up with the play on the Treaty of Waitangi clause—so it does touch a nerve.

I do not see a bargaining agent modification arrangement as any great shakes. I want to make it quite clear that New Zealand First would prefer the right for non-union people to negotiate their own collective agreements. I have said that, if not once, then a hundred times in this House, and we will not walk away from that viewpoint. We believe that a collective employment agreement is the right of anybody, and it should not be a monopoly held only by unions. But we know that the Government will not even consider that, and we know that some of the parties that prop the Government up will not even look at that, so we have this second-best option—both for the working people whom it will embrace, and for the employers. I know many employers who do not want to deal with unionised staff, then have to deal with individual contracts on top of that. Some of the employers alluded to that at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. They referred to things like “independent collectives” or “covert collectives”, which basically means that they negotiate a collective agreement outside the framework of the law. The bargaining agent regime might help them, but they have the choice. That was at New Zealand First’s insistence, and I am pleased that the Minister of Labour took note of it and brought in another Supplementary Order Paper to amend and clarify that position.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. For the sake of clarification, I want to confirm that this amendment relates to the issuing of a certificate of exemption on grounds particular to different organisations. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.