Brown Peter: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5127] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 It is probably true that the Government has fixed the Employment Relations Act 14 or 15 times. That is only slightly more often than the National Party has had changes of leader and deputy leader since Helen Clark became the leader of the Labour Party. I think National has had about 10 or 11 new leaders and deputy leaders. What were those members doing then? Were they fixing something—was that a stuff-up? 
New Zealand First will support this legislation with the Supplementary Order Papers. I will address the Supplementary Order Papers because it is true we have concerns about this type of legislation but we also believe there are vulnerable workers who do need a bit of legislative protection. So we have insisted with the Labour Government that there will be one Supplementary Order Paper in my name that will allow for a review of this whole amendment within 3 years. The second Supplementary Order Paper which is produced by the Government—and which the Minister and I spent some hours negotiating—allows for full disclosure and we will be supporting that. 
The third Supplementary Order Paper is in my name and it is a result of Mr Blumsky’s concern. I think his concern might be wrong but he raised it while speaking in the Chamber I interjected on him and he approached me afterwards and elaborated on it. I think he is wrong. I spoke to the Minister as I promised Mr Blumsky I would. Both the Minister and myself believe there is no cause for concern but we thought it was an issue that might arise if we were dealing with a devious or underhand employer. I do not know any such employers but possibly National members do. So we took it on board and in my name there is a Supplementary Order Paper that will amend the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper along the lines that Mr Blumsky suggested. So I want to see how National will vote now because it knows that this Supplementary Order Paper will improve the situation for employers and that it had a hand in this. I would not mind betting that National will vote against it. 
I want to talk about Mr Bennett’s Supplementary Order Paper. Mr Bennett approached me the other day and asked whether I would take it to my caucus. I did so but the Supplementary Order Paper is flawed. I have explained that to him privately as I have explained it to Mr Wayne Mapp. It is flawed because it basically says that nothing in this part of the bill applies to small employers with under 10 employees—I think I have got that right. Well excuse me but the most vulnerable of vulnerable workers are probably those working for a small company. That Supplementary Order Paper just does not do the job. 
New Zealand First members are by natural instinct not supportive of this type of legislation—I have to be honest—but we have listened intently to vulnerable employees. They can negotiate their wages and conditions up and if we open the door for anybody to take a new contract or take over the firm—which is already covered in the earlier legislation—then those guys will start right on the bottom again. When one listens to their cases and the situations they have been in one has to have some sympathy. People have told me privately that they had been doing their jobs and were regarded highly but when a new contract emerged one way or the other they were told they could still carry on working there but would get paid less or they would get paid less and have more to do or things would be made much more difficult for them by undermining the very conditions they worked under. That is not fair. There is a genuine concern in New Zealand First for those people. 
This legislation closes the  
Gibbs and others  
v 
 Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd 
 loophole. We recognised that the Government produced legislation last term that addressed the principle of what happens when one company is sold to another and we thought that on merit it is worth positively addressing this part of it. We were aware that the Government had the numbers so our attitude in New Zealand First was to get the best possible deal.