Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16077] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to pick up on a point that Mr English made—that is the whole idea that the union power now resides in the Government. When the Government has the opportunity to bargain it actually pays special incentives to people who are members of the Public Service Association—$500 in one case a one-off payment; $700 in another case; and $600 in yet another case. These payments are authorised by this Government so we have essentially a bribe sanctioned by the Government to get people into the Public Service Association. 
It has had some effect as we might expect. A bribe has meant that some more people have joined the Public Service Association. The Public Service Association is the only union in New Zealand where membership is growing. No rational private sector employer would agree to such an absurdity. Those employers would not provide bribes in their collective agreements for people to join unions even given the special powers that the Government is imposing on them. A rational private sector employer would not allow for a bribe and would not agree to it. 
 But the craven ministries under the direction of this Government are more than willing to do it. That is how they are boosting the membership of the New Zealand Public Service Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute which of course is now the centrepiece and the power base of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. So when Mr English refers to the pink ties the pink ties he is referring to are all those State employee negotiators—members of the Public Service Association. That party on the other side of the Chamber is littered with former members of that association. 
Some people have said that the Minister does not believe in this legislation; I say that the Minister absolutely believes in it. He is a former unionist and union organiser. He might go around to boardrooms and say that the Government is listening to them and is there to help them but his heart is with the unions. If the unions say that they need those provisions he says yes. In fact he made a claim in his second reading speech to provide draconian legislation so that even if there were just an effect of perhaps some undermining during negotiations that would be a breach of good faith. A breach of good faith means penal provisions and that means a fine. 
In my Supplementary Order Paper I provide an opportunity for that so-called gang of “Swainy” and his boys to fight for something they say they want—that is a 90-day probation period for workers. It was carefully gone through and he has had plenty of notice about it. Now he and his cohorts—Mr Tamihere in particular—have been going up and down the country talking to businesses and saying yes that they will provide those probation clauses. The Minister himself actually said in his second reading speech that he would do that. I tell him that I am giving him that opportunity. He can vote for it in this Committee stage. The probationary period is limited to 90 days; it is limited to first-time employees; and it does not remove all protections. The usual human rights protections are all there. But it does give a trial period. It is the sort of thing that would give young people—that additional 4 percent unemployed—a real opportunity to get more jobs. 
Now we know that that 4 percent unemployed are the people who find it more difficult to get jobs. They are the people who have the tattoos. They are the people whom many employers might blanch at when they first see them. So we are saying: “OK. We are giving the opportunity to you to take a chance.” That chance is not wanted by just the employers; it is wanted by those young and not so young people. The Minister tomorrow when we reach the votes could vote for precisely the very thing he has been talking about. That would be proof that he is listening to business. That would be the real test. It would be the only bright spot in this legislation.