Brown Peter: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16144] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 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.