Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Well the bill hasn't quite gone through all stages and those of us on the Opposition benches still have some comments to make about this bill before it unfortunately passes into law.I'd like to make a few general comments if I may before I have a look at some of the aspects of this bill. The overarching theme that I have picked up throughout the debates on this bill particularly the committee stage and the second reading is that this is an us and them" piece of legislation. It's not an "us and them" as in the Government and the Opposition; it's a little bit an "us and them" within the Government however. So it's a little bit how the union-backed Labour Party brought the bill to the House in January and had its wings severely clipped by both the Green Party and New Zealand First on the way through so that a number of their particularly egregious provisions have been moderated which has got to be a good thing.But the "us and them" aspect is mostly about pitching employer against employee. All the language in the bill and all the language coming from the various members the various parts of this Labour-led Government is all about "employers are bad and workers are good". It's a little interesting perhaps to hear members on that side of the House talking in terms which I recall from when I was a young person and when I was a child. This truly is an attitude that is flowing back to us from decades ago where the workers are good and the employers are bad.But one also has to remember this: only 17 percent of people who work—and I'm not going to call them "workers"—in New Zealand belong to a union. They do that by choice because they can. They do have freedom of association as my colleague Mike Woodhouse pointed out in his intervention. People who work in New Zealand indeed do have a choice and 83 percent of them choose to have a great relationship with their employer with full protections should that relationship break down—let's not pretend that there aren't good protections in the law already—but choose not to become part of a union. That is a problem for the Labour Party and less of a problem but still a problem for the Green Party and for New Zealand First because they rely on unions for party donations and support at election time.Let's not gild this in any other way. The purpose of the bill and in the purpose statement—and I would find it if it didn't take too long. Here we are: "to promote and strengthen collective bargaining and union rights in the workplace." That is the purpose of this bill so let's draw the curtains aside on this. This is about building on—hopefully as far as the Government are concerned—that 17 percent membership of unions because membership is money.If there's one thing that the Government members are not so good at doing it's getting the support of wider New Zealand so they must turn to support from the unions. If you want to see evidence of that beyond the purpose statement of this bill one only needs to have a look at the 30-day rule whereby if there is a multi-employer collective agreement in place and a new employee comes on board this place of work they are regarded for the first 30 days as being a member of that union. So for those 83 percent of people who work in New Zealand who aren't union members they don't get freedom of association—oh no. They don't get freedom of association because they are compelled and regarded and legislated as being part of that union until they opt out of that relationship.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Wrong.Hon JACQUI DEAN: I have read the bill and it is in the bill.But even more egregious than that—even more egregious than that—is their employer is compelled to pass over their private information to the union. Why? Why would the union want that private information? Well it's pretty obvious and that is to assist them in their recruitment drive so that the real purpose of this bill is realised and that is to grow union numbers because at the moment they're failing. Unions are failing. They come back to us from the 1940s and the 1950s and the 1960s with their "us and them" language. They're failing because only 17 percent of people who work in New Zealand choose to become part of a union so they've got to legislate to grow their membership.So this has got nothing about freedom of association in the workplace and fairness to people in the workplace; this has got every single thing in it which is about growing funds for the Labour Party and growing union membership.Michael Wood: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would ask you to consider whether it is orderly for a member to suggest that other members of this House are passing legislation in order to procure money for their party.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I have been listening very closely—I thank the member for that—and I've been reviewing Speakers' Rulings particularly on page 49 and I know previous presiding officers have ruled on this. I've been listening very carefully to this debate and the member has come close and I think perhaps is slipping over the line of what is actually appropriate. I direct you to Speakers' ruling 49/1 where it's not right to suggest that the Government is acting under improper motives. Also being unduly influenced is one thing but actually when you're talking about the payment to a Government that is actually slipping over the line. So I think you're skating very close. I just ask the member to stay within the bounds of what is proper and within Speakers' rulings and Standing Orders. Thank you.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I want to move now to one provision in this bill which National can applaud and support and thank New Zealand First for making sure that this provision was retained in the bill and that is the provision of the 90-day trial period for businesses with employees of 20 and under. We would have preferred and our position would be that the 90-day trial would apply to all business but none the less it is a true back-down on behalf of the Labour Party because some grunt was exercised by New Zealand First.It is a back-down for them. It must be embarrassing for them and I acknowledge that but none the less what the 90-day trial continues to do and will continue to do is allow young people—and I have heard the word "vulnerable worker" told at us a number of times in this debate. What this 90-day trial which Labour didn't want in the bill—they were trying to legislate it out of the legislation but it is exactly what is allowing a number of young and not-so-young New Zealanders to be given a chance. It has allowed a number of young New Zealanders to get in the door of employment and have a chance to prove themselves. It has proven to be hugely successful. I was dismayed to hear the Minister last night—the union organiser now Minister—[Bell rung]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise—I should've pushed the button earlier. I apologise.Hon JACQUI DEAN: —oh thank you—telling the House that there was no evidence of the benefit of the 90-day trial. I'm sorry—each and every one of us in our own communities throughout New Zealand has heard story after story after story from employees and those people who have worked for them about what a benefit giving someone a go has been. If it's in regard to vulnerable workers that is exactly why the National Government brought in the 90-day trial. So that is the one piece in this legislation that we can support.We cannot support and will not support the measures in this bill which put a handbrake on productivity which put a handbrake on small business and small to medium sized enterprises and large business all throughout this country. There is a reason for business confidence tanking. One of the main reasons around that is the added compliance costs the added compliance requirements that will be brought on business together with the uncertainty about what's coming next from this Government. That is causing business in New Zealand to lose confidence in this Government."