Volume 668 Week 60 - Tuesday 16 November 2010(continued on Wednesday 17 November 2010) 
Volume 668 Week 60 - Tuesday 16 November 2010(continued on Wednesday 17 November 2010) 
[Volume:668;Page:15373] 
Tuesday 16 November 2010 
( 
continued on Wednesday 17 November 2010 
) 
Maori Purposes Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou; greetings. This speech carries on from a flow of great ideas that was rudely interrupted last night but such is the timetable of the House. A part of the Maori Purposes Bill that Labour members are very keen to support lies in Part 2. Unlike Maori members of the House who are not in the Labour Party I will not read a prepared speech; I will speak as a parliamentarian should do from prior experience and from the heart. 
Part 2 enables Maori asset-owning organisations that hold interests in the fishing industry to go through a transition of structural reform without having to add an additional burden on to what is essentially a bureaucratic process. It will allow organisations when they restructure to move from one organisation that is deemed to hold the mandate for iwi governance purposes to another organisation. That is sensible because the social and political circumstances surrounding Maori are not static; they are dynamic. In order for this dynamism to continue unabated we must not and should not leave in law impediments that create additional costs for people wanting to ensure that the structures that hold the assets can change. We do not want to see people lumbered with structures ill-suited to the circumstances that they confront when trying to make revenue money and create dividends from the Treaty settlement endowments. 
In addition to that changes are contemplated in the operations of the Maori Land Court. The Maori Land Court as you would know Mr Assistant Speaker Roy is a source of great debate and dissension on the marae in Maoridom. At one level it is seen as an agent of dispossession; on the other side it is seen as an institution that safeguards the rights of current generations and also provides a buffer of support so that future generations will not lose their birthright or indeed their heritage that is tied up in land. At all times the judges of the Maori Land Court and the staff associated with the administration of the court need to be operating in an efficient manner that does not cause additional costs to lie upon the communities of Maori landowners who are probably in the lowest tax brackets. 
That reminds me that recently when the tax reform changes went through it was a source of considerable concern to our kaumatua and people around Maoridom that the Minister of Maori Affairs had overlooked the fact that Maori landowners now face a higher tax rate as a consequence of his inattention. As a consequence of his not moving the Maori landowner tax rate in a fashion commensurate with the other tax changes that the Hon Bill English brought in perversely enough those groups of taxpayers are at the moment lumbered with a disproportionately higher tax rate. I am quite sure the Minister will get around to it but I rather fear for his long-term survival—the election will arrive prior to that Act coming into force. 
I will continue by talking about other parts of this bill. A number of us on the Maori side of the parliamentarian community have had some experience with Maori trust boards. The trust boards were created in most cases during the 1900s and they were designed to enable the iwi and their leaders of that day to have corporate statutory organisations to hold their assets and to distribute the dividends. As governance has improved a greater level of importance has been attached to the actual people who are the defined beneficiaries having authority over these organisations as opposed to the Minister of Maori Affairs. This bill moves in a direction whereby those organisations will not be responsible in an exclusive fashion to the Minister of Maori Affairs. Such changes have been promoted by the office of the Auditor-General who has a responsibility to audit these organisations on a regular basis. They often represent a very high cost in terms of their audit fees but that is another matter. This movement towards establishing the authority back with the people to exercise oversight in relation to these organisations is a development that should be welcomed. 
Of course these organisations nowadays are regarded as somewhat anachronistic. The Tainui Maori Trust Board the Ngai Tahu Maori Trust Board and a host of others have since been superseded—in the case of Ngai Tahu by their runanga and a variety of satellite organisations the papatupu organisations which give their major authority mandate. But underlying all these structures is the important principle which is why we are keen to support it that the people who are legally entitled to enjoy the fruits—or indeed suffer the costs if things go wrong—of the endowment have the authority to direct how the organisation should be run. Indeed they should have the authority to nominate—either appoint or elect directly—the people who will be the individual governors. Although it is a change that comes after a lot of protestation it is a change that signals that unless people are actually put in a position where they control what is happening to the organisations that they are putative owners of we cannot expect accountability to improve. 
In fact there is probably a good lesson here in terms of how organisations in mainstream society have gone off the boil as well. For everything that might be said of a negative character about Maori organisations they did not lose $6.5 billion that was turned into chaff as a consequence of the various directors and other people—some of whom will go to jail I hope—squandering all the money of the nanas and granddads and other investors which got poured into what has proven to be a bog of embarrassment called the financial sector community. So whenever I hear the ACT Party and others prattling on about problems with Maori stewardship I love to remind them that the last time I checked there were not very many Maori organisations involved in the $6.5 billion meltdown of investor wealth etc. It is almost as if when that happens in our Pakeha community it is natural so there is not a large hue and cry but when there is a fraction of that loss within Maoridom it constantly makes the front page. Unfortunately it is one of the crosses that Maori governance organisations have to bear. 
I will round up this contribution which is the final contribution from us on this side of the House. It is the calm before the storm because legislation is about to be debated that goes to the actual heart of Maori citizens’ individual well-being and wealth. But that is to do with labour relations and those speeches will soon follow. The fisheries structure has been a successful waka for Maori and it is not unrelated to the aquaculture changes which I support and I am glad that they are going to the Primary Production Committee. But the changes to the Maori fisheries iwi organisations and the changes to how Maori iwi organisations might eventually receive their 20 percent entitlement to aquaculture are connected and everything we do to improve the governance capabilities of those organisations and their ability to generate wealth should be supported. Na reira tena koutou tena tatou kia ora tatou katoa. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take what I hope will be a very brief call on the Maori Purposes Bill which will come to the Maori Affairs Committee ably chaired by Mr Tau Henare. This is an omnibus bill. It is a fairly technical bill really that will amend three Acts. It will be split into parts later down the track: the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill the Maori Trust Boards Amendment Bill and Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill. I suppose if there is a common theme in what we are doing—and there generally is—it is that we are working to improve lives and the prospects of all Maori by cutting red tape and streamlining regulations. Effectively I suggest that this bill is pro-business. It is for better management and governance skills for Maori generally and in Maori organisation trust boards estates constitutions and the like—really providing a good environment and good policy settings sound settings for business success. 
I will take this moment while we are talking about doing that and Maori business to just bear a thought for the kiwifruit industry. It is not widely known that part of the backbone of the industry a strength is Maori. Through Te Awanui Huka Pak in the Bay of Plenty one has with its amalgamation with from memory Seeka the biggest pack-houses in New Zealand. They are Maori-run for Maori. They have for many many years been working with and supporting Maori kiwifruit owners of which there are many. So the idea that is out there that Maori are not good at business and that they are new to business is absolutely not true if one looks at the kiwifruit industry. They are as I said a backbone of the kiwifruit industry—certainly in the Bay of Plenty and I am sure if I look through it in other parts of the nation as well. They are going through a difficult time at the moment. It is an uncertain time but the Government is working very hard on it. I am sure that the very best solution to a difficult set of facts will emerge very shortly. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will take just a very quick call with regard to the estate of Pukepuke Tangiora. When Labour was last in Government—yes I know I have something growing on my lip but if you want to donate by all means donate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member should not include me in his speech. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well I thought Mr Assistant Speaker might want to donate. That is fine; it is OK if you do not want to. But can you imagine 120 people giving $5 each for a worthy cause? But I digress. I wanted to take a brief call on the estate of Pukepuke Tangiora because it should have been sorted out by the previous Labour Government’s Minister of Maori Affairs then. He was given a report by the Maori Affairs Committee asking him to sort it out. It is only now—nearly 3 years later—that our Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Dr Pita Sharples has seen fit to do what the select committee asked the previous Minister of Maori Affairs to do. So I say thank you to the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
I will finish by saying this is a great place—this is a great place—when one of my enemies from a long time ago can walk across the House and donate $5 to a worthy cause. I publicly say thank you to the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 11 November. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand with my colleagues and continue my speech in very strong opposition to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I think that when I was interrupted for no other reason than the House rising last time I was talking about the effect on young people of the 90-day “sack at will” legislation being extended to every employer in the country. I remember what happened a very short time ago when the Minister ploughed the 90-day trial through the House under urgency. Of course the Government said then that the legislation would affect only employers with fewer than 20 employees. Under this bill that practice will now extend to every workplace in New Zealand. So this is a very very sad day for workers’ rights and indeed for job creation. 
It is ironical that the Government says it is intent on creating jobs growing the economy and getting us on to a level with Australia in terms of wages and conditions. That is just a joke when every step that the Government takes undermines the ability of workers to get a fair deal. Our concern is all about workers in New Zealand having the ability to get a fair deal without fear of retribution or fear of being undermined. It is all about equalising the employment relationship because if people think that new employees who go into a workplace now fearful of being sacked within their first 90 days of employment have an equal relationship with the employer they are dreaming. 
I acknowledge that there are many many good employers in this country but there are a tremendous number of good employees as well. My concern and the concern of members on this side of the Chamber is about the way that all those good employees are to be treated unfairly— 
David Bennett 
: It only works one way. That’s true for Labour isn’t it? It’s only for one side. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is all right thank you Mr Bennett. We are concerned about the way that employees are treated when they enter the workplace and start the first 90 days of their work. The Department of Labour’s survey revealed that the workers it interviewed felt vulnerable and were concerned about job security and that nearly a quarter of workers were sacked within that 90-day period. If anyone in New Zealand thinks that a quarter of the people in the workplace are not worthy of retaining their job I think that is an appalling indictment. That is what the National Government obviously thinks because it has given employers free rein to sack people—and often they are young people—without any reason whatsoever. Maybe an employer does not like the employee’s hairstyle or the employee wears an earring. Employers do not have to give people a reason for sacking them. 
Darien Fenton 
: Could be too much sauce. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right; they could put too much sauce on the food. That is absolutely appalling. 
If my memory serves me correctly I am pretty sure that someone from the Government benches said the survey findings meant that 75 percent of employees kept their jobs. Well whoop-de-doo! If we think that a 75 percent retention rate after 90 days for new employees is acceptable that is a real indictment on this Government’s thinking—if it is thinking. 
Also while I am on the subject of employment rights I point out that if workers do manage to get through the first 90 days and then subsequently take a personal grievance for wrongful dismissal reinstatement is the primary remedy under the current Act if it is found that they were wrongfully dismissed. I think that is a very good thing; so does my colleague Darien Fenton. Why? Because it states that retention of employment particularly in this environment is the most important thing so if an employer has unjustifiably dismissed a worker then reinstatement should be the primary remedy. We all know that if the employer is an absolute bully or if there are irreconcilable differences between the employer and employee then of course the employment will not continue but that should be the primary remedy. This bill removes reinstatement as the primary remedy so even if a worker is dismissed unjustifiably—that is it is deemed by the Employment Court or by the whole proceedings that the worker is not at fault—the person still does not get the job back. That person will join the thousands and thousands of people in the unemployment queue because this Government is not creating jobs. Apart from the fact that this is grossly unfair it is offensive and is just plain dumb. 
This legislation is not about creating jobs and it is not about retaining people in work. It is just about tripping back to the 1990s under a Government that simply cannot get out of that mode. Although under the previous Labour Government we had finally put ourselves in a position where New Zealanders could hold our heads high internationally because we had labour relations that stacked up this back-to-the-future lot is taking us back to the 1990s. We are being taken back to a time of shame back to a time of people being fearful of losing their jobs back to a time when workers’ conditions were slashed— 
David Bennett 
: Oh come on! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: “Oh come on!” says Mr Bennett the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. This Government is bad enough but the chair and the Government members on that committee did not listen to the vast majority of the submitters who opposed this bill. That chair made a mockery of the select committee process. I congratulate the Labour and Green members on their minority report because what the chair and the Government members did on the committee was absolutely shocking. 
I thank Mr Assistant Speaker Roy for letting me know that it is time for me to close this speech. I look forward to the Committee stage on this bill. Thank you. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Goodness me what a tirade of hyperbole and exaggeration! I think I said in my first reading speech that in this House during this debate on the Employment Relations Bill (No 2) we are seeing a re-creation of a world that ceased to exist many many years ago. The once-proud Labour Party proud to represent the working class of New Zealand now simply wants to re-create the class wars of the 19th century without recognising just how much the world has changed. 
This legislation is all about greater flexibility and about greater responsibility for workers whether or not they choose to belong to trade unions and employers. I suspect that I am like many probably all members on the Government side of the House and probably like most New Zealanders in that I am getting sick and tired of seeing employers—those people who take out mortgages on their homes to start their businesses and to keep their businesses running and who often go without and whose families often go without to make sure that the workers are first and foremost paid—being kicked around. But then again if we step back to look at them who are these Labour members debating this legislation? They are certainly not the representatives of the working class. 
In fact that begs the question of where the next great working-class leader of the Labour Party is. The party has not had one for 40 years; the one it had then took a long time to develop. Where is the next one? I tell the House that that person will not come from the core membership of the current Labour Party. The core membership of the current Labour Party is no more than a group of trade union officials. I was staggered when this legislation was being debated last time the House sat to hear during Mr Henare’s speech that those people on the other side whom I have heard boasting of having led strikes also continued to take their wages at the same time. I wonder how many New Zealand families tremble at night at the prospect of a bunch of trade union officials who now control the Labour Party taking their husbands and wives fathers and mothers out on strike so they can build a reputation for themselves and so they can get a bit of publicity with absolutely no regard for the good of the working-class people of New Zealand. 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought we were on the second reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and were not talking about the trade union movement and Tau Henare’s strike bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Yes the second reading is the tightest of the three debates and I would ask the member to draw his analogies into the second reading. 
Chris Tremain 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No I have ruled. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I will pass just one observation which is that it is interesting to note just how sensitive that crowd over there are to the truth about the real nature of trade unionism in New Zealand and to what that party now represents. Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I say to the honourable member Allan Peachey who preceded me that he reminds me of Jekyll and Hyde. He goes to the Education and Science Committee and is a highly competent chair there which is in absolute contrast to what happens when he goes to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. At the Education and Science Committee he is someone who gets the business through and who can work with the Opposition and with his colleagues. He is a highly talented chair using his experience. Then he comes into the House and hears industrial relations legislation being debated and it is as if he was back as the employer in a bulk-funded school and it is pretty pathetic. It is almost like a reversion; he is back in the past back in the Dark Ages. 
It is amazing that Allan Peachey’s colleagues cannot see his talent—the way that he can take on roles. I am not sure what he taught when he was at school. Maybe it was English because he certainly gives the impression of being a drama queen and has an ability to take on different roles and different characters when he comes into the House. 
I have had a bit to do with Allan Peachey recently. I actually think that the reason why Allan Peachey is closer to the truth—but I admire him for his ability to come into the House— 
Chris Tremain 
: Mr Speaker how is this relevant? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: After that Mr Assistant Speaker wants me to narrow my speech. He is intervening on those members’ side but not on ours. That is interesting—[ 
Interruption 
] There was a point of order earlier. It is not that I am referring to it because that would be inappropriate but the member— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Yes the member is referring to it. He must get on with the speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I note the wide debate that Allan Peachey was allowed by the Assistant Speaker. I will now focus on this Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and look at how this legislation fits very well with the attempt being made by John Key and his Government to drive down the conditions of wage earners and salary earners all around the country and in particular in the Mana electorate. 
This bill is focused on poor people. It is designed to drive out the gap between the rich and the poor between the Aussies and the New Zealanders. This is a bill designed by John Key to make sure that his mates do not have to pay decent wages to people who are wage earners and salary earners. These amendments are unfair; they are absolutely unbalanced. In fact they are about as balanced as Allan Peachey’s previous speech. The amendments are unnecessary because our system is working pretty well already. The amendments are ideological. We can tell from where they were announced that ideology not logic was involved. The amendments were announced at the National Party conference. They were hauled out of the blue with promises of consultation that were broken by John Key. 
It is interesting to see how often now John Key is being caught breaking his word. One thing that Kiwis think is important is truthfulness in their leaders. This is a good example of how John Key has been caught being untruthful and not being loyal to his word. He made a commitment on this legislation to go back to people and to talk about it before it was announced and he broke his word. He did that deliberately. 
We have a Prime Minister whose word cannot be relied on—a Prime Minister who time and time again makes a commitment and breaks it. One of the things that Kiwis value in their leaders is that they are people who tell the truth people who are reliable and people who do not break their word. Kiwis also like loyalty from those people. What do we have now? We have hundreds of photos of John Key and Pansy Wong smiling and waving— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask whether we should not just concentrate on what is front of us. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will be consistent. I ask members to read the suite of Speakers’ rulings on pages 106 and 107 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 about what is and what is not in the bill. In the same way that I asked Mr Peachey to draw his analogies into the debate on the bill I ask this member to do the same. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will focus on Pansy Wong and the changes in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) that apply to her. This is a four-pronged approach in an attack on job security. A loyal employer someone who was a good manager would not weaken the processes in the way that they are being weakened here and were weakened for Pansy Wong. Arm in arm with Pansy Wong was the Prime Minister going around the ethnic communities until there was a problem and where was his loyalty then? It was a case of “smile and walk away”. The amendments extend the range— 
Sandra Goudie 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I fail to find the relevance of what the member is saying to this bill. I fail to see how he is responding to the fact that we are speaking on this legislation when his comments seem to have no relevance to it whatsoever. I am very concerned about that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order I say the bill has a lot to do with job security processes for dismissal rights to appeal and rights to reinstatement. All of those apply to Pansy Wong. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Members are still expected to discuss the main purpose and contents of the bill. I ask that members do that. If they are making analogies then they must draw them into the main purpose of the bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This bill makes it easier to dismiss people and harder for them to be reinstated. It is absolutely clear that that is part of the purpose of this legislation. We now have a classic case under the existing legislation where Phil Heatley jumped and was reinstated and under this legislation Pansy Wong will go and will not have a hope of being reinstated. Why? Because there is no loyalty on the other side of the House and members opposite do not care about processes as we go forward. 
John Key tried to sell this bill as part of a plan to grow the economy but we all know what the evidence is in this area. In New Zealand we have people who will not change jobs for fear of this legislation. We have what is known internationally as a sticky labour market. We used to have a pretty flexible labour market. In fact I have had debates with some of my colleagues in the past about how our labour market was perhaps too flexible. But people could go from job to job to where they would be valued to where they would be paid more and to the opportunities and that was good for our economy. But this bill says to people that if they are on $100000 it might be worth going to a job paying $110000 but that will be no damned good if they will lose the job in the first 90 days. What sort of security for one’s family is that? It is about the same sort of security that Pansy Wong had and about the same sort of loyalty that Pansy Wong was shown. 
It is clear that there has been no attempt on the part of the Government to close the wage gap with Australia because this legislation is designed to drive down conditions for wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand. It is the intention of this Government to drive down conditions in order to make wage earners and salary earners earn less so that the Government’s mates can make bigger profits. That is a very short-term approach because all the international evidence now shows that when workplaces are working well together—where workers are valued where they are trained where their skills are better where there is a two-way commitment and where workers know their employer will not do the “smile and wave” goodbye or take the “smile and walk away” approach towards them—workplaces become more and more productive. Profits go up and everyone is better off: the owners the managers and the wage earners and salary earners. 
New Zealand already has amongst the most flexible labour laws in the developed world. I think it is fair to say that during the time of Margaret Wilson and when I was the Minister of Labour a pretty deliberate decision was made not to go back to the rules of the 1980s to take a more progressive approach to attempt to get something that New Zealanders could unite behind and to have some consistency in labour relations legislation over a period of time. We had an indication from the National Party even before the election that it also thought that was the case. But what we clearly have now is an approach from National that it wants to drive down the conditions of people around New Zealand. 
It shows gross incompetence on National’s part that it is choosing to progress this legislation and progress other legislation later that takes away peoples’ holidays as it goes into the Mana by-election. People in Mana are among the most disadvantaged and they will be affected the most by this legislation. I do not know whether Gerry Brownlee hates Hekia Parata or whether he is just incompetent—it might be both. It could be both but debating this bill under urgency while going into the Mana by-election is probably the biggest case of incompetence I have seen for a long time. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very grateful to the previous speaker Mr Mallard for pointing out that there are differences between this Government and the previous Government. Indeed there was a very speedy process which he claims was quite unfair. I want to contrast that with the previous Prime Minister Helen Clark and her support of Taito Phillip Field. She stood up and defended him and said all that he was guilty of was working hard for his constituents and she paraded around South Auckland with Mr Field in complete defence of the indefensible. Well if that is the contrast between this Government and the previous Government bring it on. I would really like Mr Mallard to talk as much about that as he can. 
He also raised the chagrin that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has over the Prime Minister not giving any heads-up to it. Well here is the news: we now have a Prime Minister who does not have to go cap in hand to the unions every time we want to change employment law. We are not beholden to the unions. There is a very sound relationship and if the president of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions got a bit angry about that I am sure she will get over it. This is a Government that thinks for itself. It does not have to go to the unions every time it wants to make changes and that is a significant difference for employment relations in this country. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why did he promise he would? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I was not there. I do not know what he said but I know he does not have to go cap in hand to Ms Kelly every time he wants to make changes to employment legislation. 
I want to drill into some of the matters that came up during the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s consideration of the bill and in particular the 90-day probation period. Again I thank Lynne Pillay for providing an excellent example of how the 90-day probation period will work. She quoted a fellow who lost his job because he claimed he put too much aioli sauce in the pasta. Here is what she did not say. The 90-day probation period will not apply in a situation like that. That case may be before the courts so I will not talk about it specifically but a person who does not sign an employment agreement cannot be subject to the 90-day probation period. So yet again the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has scored an own goal. This is an example of the process working not of the process not working. No one who does not sign an employment agreement can have the protection of the 90-day legislation which has been in place for a couple of years now. The Department of Labour has done some very good research into how effectively the law is working. 
Members on the other side can take a “glass three-quarters empty” approach to what is going on. But I point out that a great number of those people who were taken on by small businesses under the 90-day provision would not have been employed were it not for that opportunity. It is just too hard otherwise. 
It is also really interesting that of all of the small and medium sized enterprises that were able to use that legislation only half of them did so—only half of the organisations. They did not all rush out and slap on 90-day probation periods. They thought very carefully about when that would be appropriate and when it was OK to take a chance on employees who might be marginalised—they might be coming back from a long period of unemployment or might be new migrants to this country—and give them a chance. But of the half only of the employers that used that provision they did not even use it for all their staff. They used it for only just over half of those staff. So for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth only just over a quarter of the people who could have been employed under a 90-day probation period were. The rest were employed permanently. And here is the good news: nearly 80 percent of them still have their jobs. Nearly 80 percent of them are still employed. For those who are not they were not all sacked. Some of them left of their own volition; for some it simply did not work out. That is one of the consequences— 
Carol Beaumont 
: How many workers were surveyed in that survey? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Enough to make the survey scientific. Nobody is questioning the validity. I understand that members on the other side are worried that those conducting the survey did not speak to employees but it is not employees who are doing the 90-day probation period employing. It is employers. When we are talking to the employers— 
Sue Moroney 
: So they don’t count? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I did not say that. Nobody is putting words in my mouth. Of course they count—that is why we are doing this. I have absolute confidence that when this measure is extended we will see similar discernment from other employers. We had the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists—the junior doctors—come in and say that they would all be put on 90-day probation periods. Well that is nonsense because employers are much more discerning than that. 
Sue Moroney 
: How do you know? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Because I have been one and I know what they are like. As Lynne Pillay said and I will quote from her second reading speech there are many many good employers just as there are many many good employees. But what she did not say is what Labour members really think but do not say out loud which is that they have no problems with there being a few errant employees. They ask why on earth we would want to wrap law up around controlling errant employees but when it comes to errant employers they say we should lock them down. They say we should put all the red tape around them that we can and all the good employers can suffer the consequences of having to put up with that— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Darien Fenton’s saying “Yes”. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Exactly; she has admitted it. Why would she not? It is what she believes. Labour members believe that all employers are errant so we should lock them up in red tape. Well I do not think so. I think employers deserve to be given much more confidence in their ability to grow this economy to employ staff and to have the flexibility that this bill will give them and I support it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is interesting that for a bill that is so important and so vital to the economy we have sitting in the chair the Hon Maurice Williamson a junior Minister from outside Cabinet someone with very little experience in this area and one for whom there is so little respect that the officials have not even turned up to support him. I think it is a sad state of affairs when the Minister of Labour herself not the sharpest pencil in the National box is replaced by Maurice Williamson who I think it is fair to say although he has opinions on lots of things would not claim to be an expert in the labour relations area. He does pretty well on statistics but his talent is relatively limited. 
This is the first substantive part of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). There will be some more substantive parts as time goes on and extra parts start to hit us here in the Chamber. But Labour for starters has tabled a set of amendments that we will be working through in order to attempt to make this legislation—I will not say palatable but— 
Sandra Goudie 
: He doesn’t even understand it! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sorry? What happened there? That is the woman with the brain of Paul Quinn and the voice of Judy Keall. But I am not quite sure what she said— 
Chris Hipkins 
: You’re not going to be invited to Judy’s for dinner again any time soon. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Good. We have a number of amendments here that are designed to make a bill that can never be palatable in being part of legislation that itself is unpalatable slightly better than would otherwise be the case. We have attempted to get the support of the Maori Party and the Greens for some amendments that are reasonable. They are not radical; most of them do not have the substance necessary to turn the legislation round but they would make it slightly better. 
The first amendment for example would put in a clause that would require the employer to provide access to information about a decision to dismiss an employee—and that to me seems just a pretty basic human right. It is part of the fairness that is ingrained in New Zealanders about their relationships at work. If someone gets the sack that person has a right to information about that decision. 
There is another amendment on the issue of the 90-day trial period not being advertised as a condition of employment. I think that is pretty important because at that stage it shows an absolute lack of openness on the part of the employer about whether that will be a condition. One of the things I say to my colleagues is that I think we will get to the point at some stage of good employers doing the opposite. I think that over a period of time we will find that good employers will put in their ads that they do not use the 90-day trial procedures because they trust their own ability to recruit and they trust the processes that flow. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: That’s just what I said. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is exactly right. The member “Michael Woodcock” has just accepted that good employers will not use this system. 
Chris Tremain 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think I can anticipate the point of order—that is that we use correct names. The member did not say “Woodhouse” so I ask him to pay just a little more attention to that in future. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think members on this side understand that members opposite come and go and I get them mixed up over a period of time. Although the member is considerably more talented than the average member on that side it is not a particularly high test. I acknowledge Mr Woodhouse whom I have sat on a select committee with and who regularly supplies me with bottles of wine as his team loses to Wellington-based teams. I acknowledge his name. 
But I want to emphasise what Mr Woodhouse said. He said good employers will not use this system. I go one step further and say I think good employers will make it clear that they are not using this system in order to attract better employees into their workplaces and to give people some security. As I indicated earlier if someone is a talented person who is being well paid has a family to support and maybe has a mortgage such a person does not want to go into a situation even if it is worth a few thousand dollars a year more where he or she could be sacked next week without a reason and without the income necessary to support a family. 
There is another area of amendment for which we are suggesting that unjustified dismissal and personal grievance remedies may be sought when good faith has been breached. I agree with Michael Woodhouse that most employers are good employers. The vast majority of them are good but you know there are some who are not. There are some who are dogs that self-respecting fleas would not sit on. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Hotel workers union. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Tau Henare used to be on the workers’ side against those— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: The hotel workers union was the worst employer in Auckland. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There have been a few sacked since Tau Henare’s time. In those days Tau Henare used to go toe-to-toe with employers—in fact he used to go toe-to-toe with union officials too except that he just hit some of them from behind with bottles. Tau Henare knows that it is important to have procedures when there is unjustified dismissal and when good faith has been breached. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What good faith? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is exactly the point; for some employers there is no good faith. When that is the case there must be a process for their employees. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Feeling the pressure of Unite union are we? How’s Matt? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I understand that Matt McCarten is not very well. I want to say nothing more than that Matt is not very well; that is something we all know. 
There are amendments about communication through collective bargaining because this bill does not require good faith to occur on the part of employers. This bill takes away the requirements for good faith on the part of employers during collective bargaining. 
I ask members opposite what sort of country they want to live in. What sort of New Zealand do they want? Do they want one where we can work together as wage earners and salary earners and employers or do they want to go back to the Allan Peachey approach—the class war? I was trying to work out the analysis that Allan Peachey was giving in relation to this measure when he was speaking in the House and it was actually a Marxist analysis. His analysis was that of someone whom I think has spent quite a lot of time looking at  
Das Kapital 
 and not enough time looking at the way—[ 
Interruption 
]—well Marx and Engels—Kiwis work and what Kiwis’ values are. The cooperation the loyalty and the approach of working together as a team which we pride ourselves on in New Zealand is something that members opposite are trying to destroy from the basis of their outdated ideology—the sort of ideology that now exists in very very few countries that are succeeding. We just do not see that ideology in northern European and Scandinavian countries at the moment and in other countries that are growing. Actually this legislation is just so much worse than that of the Australians and National members want to try to close the wage gap between the two countries. We know that they cannot do that. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I will take a quick call on Part 1 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) but before I do so I acknowledge the retraction of a little faux pas that Mr Mallard made in respect of my name. I can assure the Committee that I have been called a heck of a lot worse than that but I can also assure the Committee that it is not wooden. I will just pick up on a point and tweak the paraphrasing that Mr Mallard made in respect of my comment about good employers not using the 90-day probationary provision. What I said was that some good employers will use it; some good employers will see the need not to use it. Those who do use it might use it sometimes but they will not use it all the time. It is a thing called choice. 
What we heard from submitters— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Whose choice? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: That is a very good question and it is the sort of question that submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee were asked by members on the other side in respect of the choice that employees have if they are offered an employment agreement with a 90-day probationary period in it and they do not feel comfortable about that. The answer was of course that they have a choice: either to accept the offer on those terms or not to accept the offer. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Here we go—we hear the wailing and the gnashing of teeth. How terrible it would be that people would possibly back themselves to make their own minds up about the terms and conditions of employment including a 90-day probationary period! 
I will contrast that with Labour’s position on Mr Henare’s member’s bill in respect of a secret ballot for strikes. What Carol Beaumont confirmed was the Service and Food Workers Union position in respect of what union members can do if they do not like the rules that say there must be an open ballot process. What were we told? We were told that members are free to leave the union—if they do not like it they can just go. People who listen to this debate will acknowledge the terrible inconsistency about saying that. 
Sue Moroney 
: They still have a job. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: No it is protection but it is protection as long as someone wants to go with the flow and does not possibly have an independent thought about what is going on in the union. If someone does not like it there is the door. We have an inconsistency between choice for employers and employees in respect of the employment relations agreement but no choice for union members if they want to have a secret ballot—“we couldn’t possibly give them that because we don’t trust them.” I think there is a serious inconsistency in Labour’s position on that. 
I will touch for the first time on the issue of access to workplaces by unions because I think we will hear quite a bit about this in the Committee stage. The submissions went something like this: there is no problem so why are we putting in this solution? Actually that was not entirely what we heard. We heard that there were problems. Again there were problems at the margins but as Carol Beaumont tells us the Labour Party believes that as long as there are problems with employers they are to be locked down but if there are problems with a few errant unions and employees there is no need to do that. I think that is another inconsistency. We heard from fast-food outlets in Auckland that unions that had no members in certain workplaces were demanding rights of access at the most inconvenient times. We heard that they were creating high levels of disruption to the business and intimidating and bullying workers some of whom were just 16 and 17 years old into joining unions and that that required a remedy. 
I accept that in the vast majority of places where unions are involved where employees are members of those unions and those relationships are strong access is not a problem. But certain courtesies should be put in place. Even when I had those good relationships particularly with the New Zealand Nurses Organisation there were times when I was quite irked about the fact that I did not know that the union delegates were on the worksite or that they had actually stopped operations during their presence. I would have appreciated the courtesy of knowing they were coming; it does not take much effort to provide that information. 
As the Service and Food Workers Union pointed out it has 21000 contacts involving its union delegates going into workplaces every year and it just does not make sense to put in place an overly burdensome process for arranging access. And this bill does not do that. The bill is not prescriptive in respect of the manner in which access agreements can be reached. They can be ex ante arrangements; they can be arrangements in writing in advance that say that when certain conditions are met union access is granted and the unions are free to come and go. But employers can also have a right to expect that they have sovereignty over the premises that they own or lease. This is an important point. They should have the right to deny access to people who have no business coming in when there are no union employees in the workplace. 
We had an interesting discussion on this point and I think we want to flesh it out further. There are clearly two differing points of view around this question of sovereignty and rights of access. The employers tell us that the workplace is their place and they should have a right to come and go. The unions—and particularly some of the members of the Service and Food Workers Union who came into the select committee in Auckland—had a different perspective on the workplace. They saw it as their place: that they were part of a broader family and that the union delegates—who were not employees but were nevertheless connected to them through the union—should have similar rights to come and go freely. I do not think those two points of view are actually irreconcilable. I think that when we have good workplace relations between the employer and the employee we can have a different point of view about that common ground but still not impede access. I think this amendment will provide employers with an opportunity to better control some quite dysfunctional things that were being described to us in the select committee and for that reason it is a good amendment. 
I can speak for all employers I am sure who have good relationships with the Service and Food Workers Union and say it simply will not be the case—the union can rest assured on this—that when arrangements are put in place it will need to write 21000 letters wait 2 days and get 21000 replies. Those relationships are stronger than that. The bill will achieve better arrangements that will not impede access but that will provide the sorts of controls that are necessary. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on Part 1 of the Employment Relations Bill (No 2). This is the substantive part of the bill. As the previous speaker Michael Woodhouse said there will be a lot of discussion. But the key thing I want to talk about in my first contribution is the access provision in clause 5. Michael Woodhouse has put forward the National point of view and I want to put forward the Labour Party point of view and also the view that we heard from all of the union submitters and all of the union members who came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. They came in large numbers and expressed real concern about the unnecessary restrictions that are being put on access. 
What is interesting about this whole thing is that it is really a solution looking for a problem. If we go right back to the regulatory impact statement that goes with the bill we know that the Department of Labour advised that “There does not appear to be widespread evidence of union representatives exercising their current rights to enter workplaces in an inappropriate way resulting in disruption for business operations …” and so on. It went on to say: “The Department has no evidence to suggest that unions are not in general meeting this requirement” under the existing Employment Relations Act. 
The existing Act contrary to some beliefs around this Chamber already has a number of restrictions relating to access. There are quite specific requirements on union organisers and representatives entering workplaces and a number of conditions have to be fulfilled. It is not carte blanche. They cannot just walk into the workplace without having regard to any conditions like health and safety or security without telling the employer on the premises and so on. The conditions in the Employment Relations Act actually come from case law that was developed over many years. In fact under the Employment Contracts Act there were incredible problems and incredible difficulties with access provisions which I think is why the unions are fearful that this restriction will lead back to those problems and indeed back to the courts. This will be a bonanza for lawyers. 
The only reason I can see for this provision to be in this bill is that it was a National Party manifesto pledge. It was one line in its manifesto. Like many of National’s promises before the last election it obviously was not well-thought-out; it was just one of those ideological things plucked from thin air and there it was in the manifesto. I accept that given that National had said it would do it it had to do it. I accept that even though it has decided to do some things that it did not say it would do which are in this bill. As I said the bill will be discussed quite vigorously I imagine throughout the morning as we go through it. As I say other than that I cannot understand why we are even having this debate about access. I cannot understand it because there is not a problem. But this provision will create a whole lot of problems and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard about them. I do not accept the example that Michael Woodhouse gave about unions—that McDonald’s I think was complaining about unions being unreasonable. Under the existing law employers have the ability to do something about that. They could have stopped that behaviour. I do not condone it. But I do not see anything in this bill that will stop that sort of behaviour. If errant union officials are rushing into workplaces and disrupting things they will do that anyway—they will do it anyway. The employers will have to prosecute them. They will have to go through the court. There will be a court decision about what this provision really means. There will be litigation all the time. It will be an absolute nightmare. 
One of the other things I am really puzzled about is that the initial Cabinet paper on access that Cabinet signed off stated that this provision would not apply if a union organiser was seeking to access the workplace to look after the health and safety of his or her members. That was in a Cabinet paper dated 11 August 2010. It was advice that was supported by the Department of Labour. Apparently it was drafted but it never made it into the bill. If the Minister in the chair the Hon Maurice Williamson is able to tell me I would like to know what happened to that provision about health and safety. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the Committee stage of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and to speak on Part 1 in particular which is definitely the substantive part of the Bill. Part 2 deals just with consequential matters. 
I pick up on a comment made by the previous speaker Darien Fenton who said this bill was the result of a one-liner in a manifesto was not well-thought-through and was ideological. I absolutely refute that. In particular on the extension of the 90-day trial to all businesses virtually every other country in the OECD has a trial. It is actually longer than 90 days in many countries so our 90 days is extremely moderate. The bill is certainly well-thought-through and it will be good—good for workers good for employers and good for our economy ultimately. 
I will focus on the extension of the 90-day trial to all businesses. As members will be aware in 2008 our policy really pertained just to businesses of fewer than 20 people. This bill proposes that that policy be extended to all businesses no matter what their size. This bill will give businesses confidence to expand to diversify and—importantly—to employ workers who do not have a work record. Those people might be migrants youths students or women returning to the workforce. 
I think it is important to note that one cannot just pluck jobs out of thin air. Businesses have to want to offer jobs to workers. The only way that will happen is by giving businesses confidence that they can increase their business and employ more people. 
This Government is absolutely focused on creating jobs and growing the economy. We have a number of measures on that which include tax reform trade—and I congratulate our Prime Minister on the free-trade agreement talks that have started at APEC—and research and development. Another way we are doing it is by boosting infrastructure. 
This legislation perfectly dovetails into our Government’s plan for growing the economy raising living standards and moving forward as a country. It will do that by giving businesses confidence. That is really quite a simple comment. It will give businesses confidence so that they can employ more people expand and have greater productivity so we as a country can more forward in the background of the economic recession that we have been facing. 
Jobs are not plucked out of thin air—they are not plucked out of thin air. The surveys we have done to date show that 80 percent of employees were still in employment once their trial finished. They were not fired let go or dismissed at day 89. This is not a fire-at-will bill as the Opposition likes to call it. That is absolutely the truth. 
The policy is very moderate. Heavens above! As I have mentioned before many countries have trial periods that are much longer than 90 days; they are up to 1 year in some countries. Until we had the 90-day trial Denmark was the only other country in the whole of the OECD that did not have a trial period. We were clearly out of step with the rest of the world. We are not marching alone on this; we are with many other countries. The sky has not fallen in those other countries. This policy will work for business employees and the country as a whole. 
The policy has been positively received. I quote just one employer who talked about this bill. He said: “I felt that under the last Labour Government the odds were well and truly stacked against small businesses. The cost of employing someone was 6 times more when they were voted out than it had been 3 years earlier … We have used the 90 day rule but the person would have been sacked anyway—for stealing! It would just have taken a little longer and caused more stress to other employees and the business.” 
A very interesting survey called  
What Next? National Conversation about Work 
 was done by the Human Rights Commission. A whole lot of myths were absolutely thrown out the window. One of the myths was that employers are bastards. They are not. The survey showed that employers treated their employees like family. Let us face it: we have to have a good working relationship for a business to go forward to grow and to be productive. It was very much a family affair for many of those businesses. There were many other positive comments. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I will speak about the combined effects of the provisions in Part 1 but before I do that I note that we are talking about people. When we talk about employment relations legislation we are talking about people. An employment agreement is not like any other contract. It is not about buying and selling a product; we are talking about people. When we talk about the 90-day trial and making it easier—so-called—to employ people we are also saying we will make it very easy to sack people. I think that is important. 
Caritas the Catholic social justice organisation noted in its submission: “Catholic social teaching does not recognise employment contracts as being equivalent to other kinds of business contract such as for the purchase of goods or services. We recognise that these working relationships take place in a wider environment of respect for human rights.” I think that is a very powerful statement. 
The principal Act is called the Employment Relations Act. It is about relationships. This amendment bill changes the balance and takes away rights from people in the workplace—I want that to be put on record. 
I will now talk about the combined effect. A couple of members opposite have talked about our good old values but I say that one of the strongest New Zealand values is a commitment to fairness. We like to think we are a country that believes in giving people a fair go and having fairness for all people. Much of our legislation has been ground-breaking in giving rights to people and making sure they have an opportunity to be engaged and to participate. 
The Council of Trade Unions commissioned some research on the 90-day trial legislation. The survey asked a straight question: “Do you think that all employees should have the right to appeal if they think they have been unfairly dismissed even if their dismissal was during the first 90 days of their employment?”. That is a very straight question. I will put on record the response to that question. The response was that 80 percent of respondents said “Yes”—they thought that employees should have the right to appeal if they think they have been unfairly dismissed including in the first 90 days—18 percent said “No” and 2 percent were unsure. Fairness is one of the key values and New Zealanders believe that it is fair to have the right to challenge an unfair dismissal even in the first 90 days. 
The effect of the provisions in Part 1 will impact on those people who are already the most vulnerable in our society and in the labour market. If we get down to tintacks it will be those who have less bargaining power. The Employment Relations Act outlines a number of key objects and one of them specifically acknowledges that there is an inherent inequality of power in employment relations. That is a fundamental object in our employment relations legislation. 
This amendment bill flies in the face of a fundamental object of the principal Act. It shows a real difference between members on each side of the Chamber. Labour members know that inherent inequality is a reality of the labour market. Members opposite think the labour market is a level playing field—that everybody has the same bargaining power. I say that those members should tell new migrant workers that they have the same bargaining power as others. They should say that to young people going into their first job. They should say that to a mother who is going back to work having been out of the paid workforce for a while. Those members should tell those people they have the same bargaining power as say an information technology specialist or somebody of that nature who has had an unbroken work record over many years. There are differences in bargaining power. Those who will be most affected by the changes in the bill are those who are already most vulnerable. 
It is very interesting that members across the Chamber seem to think that a “take it or leave it” employment offer is fair. Lots of other people do not think in that way. The people in Mana for example probably do not think a “take it or leave it” employment offer is fair. If people do not have a job and they may be getting a benefit or they may not depending on their circumstances they are— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call the Hon Tau Henare. 
Hon Members 
: Oh no! 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Sell-out! 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 That is what you get from that side Mr Chair. I remember that the worst employer in my day was the hotel workers union. 
David Bennett 
: That’s right. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is right. I wonder who the secretary of the hotel workers union was. I refer to none other than Mark Gosche. Every time I was called out to a job to assist one of the clerical workers in trouble it was always down the road at the—sorry Mr Chair—Northern Amalgamated Workers Union as it was called in those days. Who was the worst employer? It was always the union. On a Tuesday I would get another call from some poor clerical worker who was under the cosh from the employer. Guess who the employer was? It was Ray Bianchi and his mates. They were all the old-style unionists. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Not the ones like the member? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Sorry? 
Sue Moroney 
: The worst union organiser in the history of the universe. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh big yawn! Anybody would think that with this bill the Government had gone back to 1951 and it was about to smash the unions on the waterfront. This is nothing of the sort. All this does is to tinker with legislation to make it more palatable to both sides more palatable to a person an immigrant who is looking for a job and who wants to show his wares who wants to say to the employer: “Look at me. I can do this job and if you give me a chance I’ll show you.” That is all it says. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the member is bringing you into the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Members on occasions do take the word “you” a bit literally. I did not take it that the member was referring to me; it was a rhetorical question: “give me the job and I’ll show you”. It was not referring to the Chair. The word “you” is not proscribed. It is usable but it is in its context and I did not take offence. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Thank you Mr Chair. The exact point that I am trying to make is about somebody who is looking for a job and who really wants a job in whatever profession or whatever job. It is about putting a hand up and saying: “I can do this job and I want to be able to show the employer what I can do.” 
Darien Fenton 
: Like Pansy? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Now we hear about Pansy. This has nothing to do with Pansy. The 90-day legislation has nothing to do with Pansy because she has been a Minister for 2 years for goodness’ sake. If it were about the 90-day legislation it would have happened a year and a half ago for goodness’ sake. Talk about timing! They are out of time. [ 
Interruption 
] Who told me to sit down? There is only one person who can tell me to sit down and she is at home. 
I also want to talk about union access. You see we have had 9 years of no manners and no courtesies and we are trying to say that if unions want to go into our workplace into our sovereign territory—as my colleague Mr Woodhouse described it—it would be good manners it would be a courtesy to call or write and say “I’ll be there at 11 o’clock on Tuesday. How about it?”. It is manners it is courtesy and that is what this Government is all about too. If that is exactly what happens now why is there the big hullaballoo? If it is what happens now are we not just codifying what is happening now? So why the big hullaballoo? Why the big question mark from Labour members? Or is it that they are still fighting the battles that have been fought won and lost back in the 1950s 1960s and even in the 1970s? 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 As I follow the speech made by Tau Henare I acknowledge the young people who are in the gallery today. They were taught at school to treat people with dignity and respect yet they hear that sort of barrage from the Government side of the Chamber. For Tau Henare to be talking about manners is a teensy bit funny I have to say. 
I will get back to the bill. The Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) as we have said before and will say again is unnecessary and unfair. As I predicted Jackie Blue—whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for as a person; I think she is a fair-minded person—has missed the plot on this bill. What did Jackie Blue say in this Chamber? She said 75 percent of people are keeping their jobs under this legislation. Seventy-five percent of people are keeping their jobs but 25 percent of people are losing their jobs in their first 90 days of employment. That is outrageous. 
As I look at the young people sitting up in the gallery I wonder how they would feel if out of every 100 of them 25 were sacked in their first 90 days of employment for not necessarily any reason at all. What does that say to young people entering the workplace? What does that say to young people who are taught to have good self-esteem and who are taught to have respect? They go to work and for whatever reason—they put too much sauce on the hamburger or they have an earring that the boss does not like—suddenly they are down the road with no explanation whatsoever. That is appalling. 
Let us talk for a moment about the consultation on this bill. The Department of Labour commissioned a report to measure the impact of the 90-day trial period. To reflect the real consequences over 3500 employers were spoken to. That is OK. Labour members would say that speaking to over 3500 employers is a really fair and reasonable level of consultation—over 3500 employers. Thirteen employees—13 employees—were consulted on the impact. I ask members where the fairness is in that. 
Darien Fenton 
: No balance. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: There is absolutely no balance. I go back to what I said before: this bill is unfair and unbalanced as is the Government—in particular Tau Henare. 
Let us talk about access to the workplace. I tell members that as a union official the only time I had problems with access to the workplace was in the 1990s. I was threatened. I think that everyone here will accept that I am a pretty reasonable person. I know that my colleagues often say I would be one of the most reasonable people in our caucus. Am I right? 
Hon Member 
: Soft. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: They call me a bit too soft. 
Sue Moroney 
: Too soft. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Sue Moroney says I am too soft. The only time I had difficulty with access I had to call the police because an employer threatened me. We are wearing white ribbons in support of anti-violence. That was what happened when access to the worksite was restricted because a bully-boy boss would not let me on to the worksite. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Where was that? What job was that? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am not going to name the place. I am not going to do that because I do not languish in the past. Unlike that member I do not languish in the past. 
We know that when the Employment Relations Act was enacted under the previous Labour Government the number of disputes went right down. What are we seeing under this Government? We are seeing the number of strikes go up because this Government does not work on relationships. It does not recognise the importance of relationships between unions and employers. How many times have union officials gone into the workplace and the employer has said it knew the official was coming today but it actually has a big order on? The employer asks whether it is OK to put off the meeting and for the official to come back tomorrow. What does the official say? He or she says: “Of course.” That is reasonable. Officials are from the union. They are there to help. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I will speak a little about the proposed provisions for restricting union access because I think my colleague Darien Fenton made some very good contributions on that point. The proposal in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) to make access to workplaces conditional on the consent of the employer is very problematic. It is an ideological and deliberate attack on the democratic right of wage earners and salary earners to join unions and resolve issues that arise in the workplace. It is therefore ironic to look at the explanatory note of the bill. It states: “This change is intended to increase levels of choice and fairness for employers …”. Well of course that change comes at a cost and the cost is to employees. They are the ones who lose out in terms of their freedom of choice and their access to fairness in the workplace. 
I hope the Minister in the chair the Hon Georgina te Heuheu might take a call on this; it would be good to hear from a representative of the Government why this change is thought to be necessary. I know that the Minister will want to tell the Committee why this aspect of Government policy has been put in place because the regulatory impact statement as well as Kate Wilkinson’s own policy paper dated 15 May last year says: “There does not appear to be widespread evidence of union representatives exercising their current rights to enter workplaces in an inappropriate way resulting in disruption for business operations or adversely impacting on the employment relationship between employer and union members.” That was the point just made by Lynne Pillay. There is no evidence of any need for this change. There is no evidence of abuse; there are not even anecdotal stories being told about unions abusing their current right of access to workplaces. So why is this change being mooted? I hope we can hear from the Minister because if we do not then we have to conclude that it is an ideological change an ideological attack on the unions. 
National might think that will play well electorally but we will see because New Zealanders are becoming sick of these attacks on ordinary wage earners and salary earners. We have seen those attacks already in a number of pieces of legislation and we cannot expect to see the erosion of these sorts of terms and conditions time and time again with no evidence of the need for it. We hear pious speeches in this House all the time about how we should only ever legislate if there is a clear need. That is why we brought in the regulatory impact statement process. Members opposite say we should always be very clear about why we are legislating but it is not clear why this provision is needed. There is no evidence anywhere of abuse. Even Business New Zealand said that this measure was not a high priority for it. It does not receive many complaints from employers about union access. 
The Prime Minister tried to sell this policy to the National Party conference as one of the steps to a “more productive economy and increased employment.” Yet even he in October told the Council of Trade Unions that this issue was not a “driving priority”. So why on earth is Parliament here in urgency ramming through a piece of legislation to restrict the right of the representatives of wage earners and salary earners—ordinary Kiwis—to ensure that workers’ terms and conditions are being met by their employers via meaningful inspection in the workplace? Why restrict workers’ rights to be visited and comforted by their union officials without their being impeded by employers? Why is this being done when it is very clear from the evidence that there is no need for the change? 
The access provisions in the current legislation were very carefully thought through. They are there because it is necessary to ensure that union officials can check whether health and safety employment standards and what have you are being honoured in the workplace. Of course an employer will run into difficulties if he or she is not honouring those standards. Those employers will take advantage of the provisions that Parliament will be enacting in urgency today because only the dodgy employers will want to keep out the representatives of unions. That is plain because there is no evidence of abuse of these provisions at the moment. The access provisions at the moment enable wage earners and salary earners to choose to be represented by knowledgable people in grievance situations. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) amends the principal Act the Employment Relations Act. I think that with all of the issues facing New Zealand at the moment if we were to amend the Employment Relations Act we might do something about creating more jobs. We might do something about closing the income gap with Australia. Part 1 does none of those things and in fact it goes in the opposite direction. I will explain why. Despite what the Government is trying to portray this amendment bill does not create one job—it does not create one job. In fact it makes decent working people more reluctant to actually seek to further themselves and progress into another job. It will cause people who have families dependent on them who have mortgages to pay who have food bills to pay and who have school fees to pay to stay stuck where they are— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: No! 
SUE MORONEY 
: —because that is the only way they can have a guarantee of any job security and Tau Henare knows that. He knows and he wants—and John Key wants—New Zealand working people to stay stuck where they are. He knows that that will be the only guarantee for all New Zealanders no matter what sized workplace they work in—that will be the only guarantee of their knowing they can put food on the table next week. The minute they take the opportunity to actually improve themselves to take that step up to take the risk of another job to perhaps change careers or to even just go for progression within their own career they put themselves at risk of the National Government’s fire-at-will bill. That is what Part 1 does: it seeks to take that job insecurity that is in small workplaces and mete it out to every single New Zealander. 
I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when this legislation was put up in the last term of the previous Labour Government. It was a member’s bill from Wayne Mapp so we have already visited this legislation in the previous Parliament. The previous Parliament said: “No way! That is not the New Zealand we want to create.” We heard that something in the order of the massive figure of 200000 New Zealanders every year change jobs—or used to. We can double it: 400000—have I got it hugely under? Every year 400000 New Zealanders used to change their jobs and change locations. Maybe it was to get a higher wage; for whatever reason we had that type of labour market. 
I predict that that will come to a screaming halt. In fact we know that it has come to a screaming halt already but it will get worse because who would do that when they have their family dependent on the income they bring in? Who would put themselves at risk? Certainly not the people that we need to come from overseas to be nurses in New Zealand for example and doctors teachers and people whom we need in order to make sure we have the sort of services in this country that New Zealanders rely upon. Are those people going to take that risk knowing that they could face for no reason at all being told within the first 90 days that they are just not suitable? 
It may be that someone just used too much sauce. When we had decent law in this country and fair legislation under a Labour Government if I were to use too much sauce the employer would be required to tell me that I had used too much sauce. The employer would have a conversation with me about the hollandaise or the aioli or whatever type of sauce it may be. The employer would actually have a conversation with me whereby I would come to realise that perhaps I had used too much sauce or perhaps I could say to the employer that the reason I put on the amount of sauce was that it was not covering the fish properly. We could have a normal conversation and sort it out in the workplace. I would not have to lose my income as one chef did because he put on too much sauce. There was no conversation no discussion at the workplace but he lost a job. I am really sad that Michael Woodhouse cannot understand the impact on working people of not having a job. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 Mr Chair morena. Te pai hoki e tu atu penei tonu e kite atu te ngarara e mau atu mo nga tangata e whai atu i te mahi. 
[ 
Good morning Mr Chair. It is really good to stand so as to see the monster that people seeking employment have to pursue 
.] 
The Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) is one of the most important and relevant issues at this moment. We have seen the Warner Bros debacle and we have seen other debacles and the unions are getting the blame for them. I was really pained to hear the speech from the chair of the Maori Affairs Committee which I sit on. I think he does a wonderful job and I can assure members that if this bill had been referred to the select committee we would have done something about it. But somebody has not done anything about this bill and it is shameful. People will be rolling their eyes in Blackball today people will be struggling in Te Atatu and people will be wondering and pondering in Wairoa. Let us talk about the workforce. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Where? Blackball? Does anybody live there any more? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That Maori member opposite should understand better. And I mihi to the Maori Minister in the chair the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. 
Let me point to some real facts. The 90-day bill was supposedly a test to work things out. It jumped from being a test to the whole group of employers being allowed to set sail on workers. This is one of the worst bills that this debating chamber has ever seen. It is an extension. All we have seen from this Government are extensions that hurt families and ruin and wreck their lives: the extension of GST the extensions provided in this bill and the extension of payments to big companies who put their money at risk and the Government finds $1.75 billion for them. Helping workers is not in its psyche. Mr Tau Henare especially should know better. He has been a union organiser and he knows where the people are at. 
I will give people some clear facts about what this 90-day legislation will do. It is unfair it is unbalanced and it is uncoordinated and it is unclear why the Government is doing it—supposedly. But those who know about the labour market know that this is one of the biggest jack-ups in this country in relation to the workplace. It is unfair and it is low-down dirty. I will tell members something from a Maori perspective: nearly 42 percent of Maori women who are between the ages of 15 and 23 have nothing. They are not in work not on benefits and not in study. When we add together the capping of study in universities the changes to make sure that benefit tests are totally unfair and the introduction of this major monster to the workplace I do not know how those people opposite can come to work and say to their colleagues in the Chamber “Good morning”. Shame on them! This bill is an outright disgrace. 
The Maori unemployment rate is now tracking at 17 percent. It is 1 percent behind the rate it was at when National last left Government when we ran it out of town and it left a shambolic mess. This bill is adding to it. What do members opposite have to say about that? The number is three times the mainstream average. What do they have to say about that? People seem to hide away from it as if it does not happen. I say the National members should tell that to the 190 people who have had only 9 days’ work this season at the freezing works in Wairoa. They should tell it to those people who were put out on the streets for 9 weeks. They were just trying to prove the basic issues of the right to collectivise and to make sure that they maintained—not extended—the rights they that had. Those rights are fundamental; they are about fairness equity and all of that. 
The miserable member opposite Louise Upston stood up to call this debate to an end. Shame on her! I see the Minister shuddering in the chair but she knows that it is downright truthful to say that Maori women are really struggling. I have been to food banks and it reminded me of the 1980s. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What have you got to go to food banks for? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: People need food banks I say to Mr Henare because this sort of legislation sends them there. It stops them getting into work and the displacement factor that is behind a whole lot of other legislation that his Government has pushed through in this term is helping that. This bill is about the rich getting richer it is about the poor getting poorer and it is about trying to pull the rug out from under the unions which is the one platform that many workers have to get by. What is so wrong with unions? 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have had a good thorough look through the bill and it seems to me that almost everything of substance is in the first part. There is not much anywhere else. So having said that I am prepared to allow this debate to go on a little longer. But I say to the Committee that on the other parts members can expect pretty short shrift from the Chair and a closer look at things. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I appreciate that National members do not like having to debate employment legislation because they know that what they are doing is absolutely unfair and absolutely not required. The changes that they are making in Part 1 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) are ideological and there is no other basis for them. 
I start by talking about the provision that removes reinstatement as the primary remedy for personal grievance claims. I will talk about the 90-day issue a bit later on but this bill extends that provision to other people. We have been talking a lot about the first 90 days of employment but what happens when someone gets into the period of employment when they are past the first 90 days something happens and a personal grievance claim is taken? If the employee is deemed to have been unfairly treated—for example if they were dismissed unfairly and the Employment Relations Authority ruled in their favour—it would seem only fair that they could be reinstated in the job they should never have lost in the first place if that was what they wished. This legislation removes that ability. This bill states that when someone gets past that first 90 days all that an employer needs to do is get rid of someone and it does not matter if it is unfair because now the employer will not have to take the employee back even if there is a ruling that the person should never have been dismissed from his or her place of employment. 
In a way this bill almost extends the 90 days in terms of removing that security for employees. It says to those employers out there who want to get rid of someone very easily that they can do it because they will not have to take the person back even if they were wrong in removing the person. I cannot imagine why National thinks that is fair. We know that employment law is all about balance. We have to balance the rights and responsibilities of the employee versus the rights and responsibilities of the employer. National thinks that employees should have to bear all the risk in an employment relationship and that they should have no security in that relationship whereas Labour believes we have to strike a balance in the middle that is fair to employers and employees. Neither side will get everything that it wants. That is part of being in the relationship but Part 1 drastically skews the rights towards the employer against the employee. 
The contribution from Tau Henare just showed how incredibly out of touch this Government is with the reality for workers. He asked why if Labour said unions were now really good in terms of access in the workplace we were fighting the change. We are doing so because that is not the case in every circumstance. This is about a worker’s right to support when something goes wrong in the workplace. It is about a worker’s right to call the union when something happens: when the worker is given an unfair employment choice or is worried about health and safety. National says that workers should not have access to their union without the approval of the person who may well be the problem. It is in those circumstances that the protection of the law is incredibly important and that is what is being removed in Part 1 of this bill. 
We know right now that unions are voluntary organisations and they do not want to get offside with bosses. They do not want to have a bad relationship with employers. They work with employers for their employees and their members and they do so responsibly. But where there is a situation where workers need to have that support National now says they have to get permission to have that support. A lot of people remember when workers had to go and stand off site on the footpath to meet with their union—the people who represented them—whereas for example a big company could bring in hordes of lawyers and no one would say it would need anyone’s permission to have the kind of support it wanted when it came to employment law. A worker who just wants the union organiser to come in give some advice and maybe solve a problem now has to get permission to do that. That is a very very dangerous move in terms of the rights of those workers and their ability to get the help they need in the workplace. It is unfair. It is not needed. At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee no one could come up with a single instance of where access was a problem. The officials told us that there was no problem. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Yes they could. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is not true I say to Mr Woodhouse. When we dug down into it there was no problem. When unions have had to come on site without telling the employer there was a very good reason for it—there was a very good reason for it. 
David Bennett 
: Be truthful. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am being truthful I say to Mr Bennett. That member should be very very careful because his conduct as the chairman of that select committee was appalling on this legislation—absolutely appalling. Let us talk about the young woman who wrote to us. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I come back to the combined effect of the provisions in Part 1 which is where all the substantive changes are. I believe that the consequences of this legislation—the changes that are being made to the Employment Relations Act—will mean that we will have multiple labour markets in which rights will be dependent on certain things. Highly skilled workers probably will not have the 90-day provision imposed. One will not tell a heart surgeon moving into one’s area that they will have to have a 90-day trial period. It just will not happen to those people. But for the many low-skilled or so-called unskilled people in the labour market it will be a “take it or leave it” scenario. It will be automatic. It will be in employment agreements. That will just be the reality and that will be the difference between those two labour markets. 
There will be a difference between unionised workplaces and non-unionised workplaces. As we heard clearly through the submission process the reality is that these 90-day provisions will not generally apply in unionised workplaces. The reality is that some of the employers who submitted on this bill are probably not that happy about it but it will not apply in those certain circumstances. We will see very different labour markets between those people who have work experience and those who do not have experience or recent experience. 
People coming back into work or who frequently move in and out of work—perhaps women who have primary childcare responsibilities and who come in and out of the workplace—will potentially have 90 days of no rights on multiple occasions in their working lives. Other people may have that only a few times or once even. There will be big differences between the experiences of men and women due to the provisions of this legislation. For example the Women’s Studies Association went into some detail about why it believes that the provisions of this bill will disproportionally affect women. It noted that women are more likely to have broken employment patterns and to change jobs more often. The association also noted that it is nonsense to argue that a young female worker desperate for a job has equal bargaining power with an employer in any business. It talked about the fact that preventing women workers access to their union by restricting the access of unions to worksites will restrict the right of women union members to secure advice and support. Many women are more likely to be working in the types of industries that are not yet unionised so this will undermine their ability to improve their wages and conditions of employment if the access provisions are abused. The association also went on to talk about the fact that women will probably be less likely to bargain with their employers over the 90-day trial period in circumstances where there is a choice about whether there is a 90-day so-called trial period. Other submitters have also noted that the effects of this legislation will disproportionately affect some workers rather than others. 
The Human Rights Commission took on the issue of what it called “constrained consent”. On the other side of the House members seem to think that a “take it or leave it” job offer is a choice. Well the reality is that that is nonsense and the Human Rights Commission said that the idea that the proposed legislation rests on contract and agreement and cannot be imposed on employees who do not agree to a trial period is “unrealistic particularly at a time of high unemployment and job scarcity”. The commission also went on to talk about the impact on women and on migrant workers. It looked at the Department of Labour evaluation of the 90-day period and said that even though most employers knew a trial period must be mutually agreed they generally did not seek employees’ acceptance of a trial period. Rather it was stated in the employment agreement along with other terms and conditions. Thus in practice the job offer was conditional on the employee accepting the trial period. 
The Human Rights Commission also noted the impact on employees of losing their job without reason and without recourse during that first 90 days. It could be for completely unfair reasons as that will be allowable. Who will ever know? The reality is that those people will then experience prejudice in seeking subsequent work. The Human Rights Commission made that point very strongly. I think that we will have multiple labour markets and that is of great concern to me. I think that fairness says there should be basic human rights that apply to all people in the labour market. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I want to talk about the costs of recruitment in the context of the 90-day probation period. At the select committee we heard a lot of Draconian stories of employers in sweat mines dragging along these poor people for 89 days and on the 90th day flicking them out the door because that is what employers do. The reality is somewhat different. Even if one accepts that employers are financially motivated— 
Lynne Pillay 
: Twenty-five percent of them do that. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Here we go! There is a “glass three-quarters empty” approach to the world. Lynne Pillay is essentially saying never mind that the other 75 percent who were given a go who might have marginalised or new immigrants got a permanent job out of it. Never mind the fact that the 25 percent who were let go might have gone of their own volition. The Department of Labour did not say in its report that they were sacked. All it said was that they were no longer employed at the end of 90 days. So it did not take into account that a lot of those short-term workers were people who decided that they did not want to work where they were and left of their own free will. No no according to Lynne Pillay 25 percent of them were sacked. 
I want to come back to the issue of money. The Labour Opposition talks about money-grubbing employers and if that is the case if employers are motivated by that single thing the dollar then they will weigh up very carefully the costs of hiring and firing. At the select committee we heard that even for basic jobs in retail the costs of hiring somebody can run into thousands and thousands of dollars. There is the cost of advertising the cost of screening the cost of the appointment and the cost of legal advice. There is the cost of getting an employment agreement in place. There is the cost of uniforms training health and safety training and induction and there is the loss of productivity while someone is buddied with the new employee. During that 90-day period a substantial investment in the employee has been made. Yet we are being asked to accept that these callous employers will on day 89 or day 90 say: “Tau you’re out the door—down the road. There is no excuse and it doesn’t matter that we’ve invested not only several thousand dollars but several tens of thousands of dollars.” 
Darien Fenton 
: No one said that. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: That is exactly what is being implied. The member opposite said that no one said that but actually they did. They came to the select committee in Auckland and said that callous employers will use employees and abuse them and then dump them. 
Darien Fenton 
: Who said it? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Members of the Service and Food Workers Union who lined up one at a time with the reverend on the end—I cannot remember what his name was—actually went through that process. We heard that it would be terrible. Before that particular submission we heard from McDonald’s Restaurants of New Zealand. McDonald’s said— 
Sue Moroney 
: Scrupulous record! 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: If the member uses her ears and not her mouth she might learn something. She was not at the select committee hearing. We heard that those terrible employers actually have— 
Sue Moroney 
: Not from that member I won’t. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Maybe she will learn something maybe she will not but if she is quiet just for once she might learn something. McDonald’s has a performance measure for its managers—it is probably related to bonuses—on the retention rate of their employees at 3 months and they are not the only organisation that has that. It is considered a failure if an employee whom they have screened and employed is not working at the end of the 3-month period. So much for callous employers using abusing and turfing out their staff! They are simply not doing that. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does every employer have that? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: No but here we go again—here is the inconsistency. Because every employer does not have it then we must wrap them all up in bureaucratic processes but we do not worry so much about the occasional errant employees. According to Labour we have rules for employers but not for the poor old employees. It is completely inconsistent because it is the employer who is investing sometimes not just thousands but several tens of thousands of dollars in an employee. Nobody in their right mind even if they are a bad employer motivated by money will then flick off that employee. It simply does not occur. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The assumption behind Michael Woodhouse’s speech on Part 1 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) is that the overwhelming majority of employers are good employers. They have the interests of employees at heart they will spend a lot money hiring and training them they will be very reluctant to let them go and all the rest of it. It is true that good employers think in those terms and they also think in terms of having good relations with the workforce and with the collective organisations of the workforce—that is the unions. But there are also a lot of employers who do not want anyone to be pushing for better conditions to be a member of a union or for a union to be active on the job. They think that they can make more money if that is the case. Sometimes that is not a rational calculation and sometimes it is just that they want to be the big boss but that does exist. 
The very fact that we have such a low rate of unionisation in New Zealand particularly in the private sector—and it is much lower than it was during the period of national awards before we had the Employment Contracts Act—is in part testimony to the fact that a lot of employers would rather not have the union on the job. Of course we have Peter Jackson and Richard Taylor who are prime examples of this. They are doing everything possible to keep an organised union force off their production of  
The Hobbit 
 and the other productions they have and they have been reasonably successful to date in doing that. That attitude is not unusual amongst employers. If that was not the case then I ask why we have this provision on union access to workplaces. We have the situation where union access has worked pretty well so far. The unions have walked on and off jobs all over the place. They talk to their members without any great problems. Of course any good union official is very sensitive to the fact that he or she should not disrupt the work process more than is necessary. There is often somewhat of a disruption of the work process by the very fact that union officials have to talk to workers who are on the job for 8 hours a day or whatever it is but that is minimised. 
Now we are putting in procedures that will seriously disadvantage unions in getting that access in that they can be delayed for up to a couple of days. The procedure that many union officials work on is to go to perhaps eight worksites a day and have a bit of flexibility as to when they arrive at the next worksite because they do not know exactly what the issues will be at the worksite they visited at say 10 o’clock. It might take them half an hour or 2 hours to work through the problems at that particular worksite. They have to have that flexibility and they operate in a situation of reasonableness and through notification of the employer in terms of access to worksites. But all of that will be thrown up in the air by putting all the power back on to employers and by allowing them to delay union officials for a couple of days. That provision will disadvantage the unions. 
Other provisions like the removal of reinstatement as a primary remedy in personal grievances will push things back against the unions too. A lot of employers want to get rid of particularly the more stroppy active union officials so what will they do? They will say that they will sack that union official. It will perhaps cost them a bit of money at the Employment Court but with reinstatement not being a primary remedy any more they will have got rid of that union official. They would value that result more than the $5000 or $10000 they might have to pay in compensation. That is biasing everything against the unions too. 
With regard to the 90-day provision I think Michael Woodhouse said that job applicants would have to agree to the 90-day provision in the employment agreement. But unemployed workers—and the unemployment rate is running at about 7 percent—can find it hard to get a job and they will not say: “I will take this job that you have kindly offered me but you need to cut out the clause that says there is a 90-day trial period.” If they do that an employer will thank them very much and say that he or she has not quite decided who to hire and will come back to the worker on that one but the employer will never come back. The 90-day trial is not really a voluntary arrangement and if that worker shows a bit of a disposition towards the union and perhaps even joins the union come the 75th day 85th day or 89th day the employer will just get rid of that worker. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 Although I am critical of the bill I will raise something that I believe was overlooked at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am particularly pleased to see that the Attorney-General is the Minister in the chair because he is a details person—like me—and I am sure that once this matter is pointed out he will agree. If the Minister and the Committee could look at new section 20A which is to be inserted in the Employment Relations Act by clause 6 they will see the words “the employer or the representative of the employer must advise … the union of the employer’s … decision as soon as is reasonably practicable but no later than …” and the following words were changed at the select committee from “2 working days” to “the working day”. The section now refers to “the working day”. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Clause what? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: New section 20A(2)(b) in clause 6. The Minister will see that the words “the working day” are underlined. Then section 20A(2)(c) refers to “within 2 working days”. The phrase has not been changed there to “the working day”. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Is this the calibre of the union movement? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: If the member would just be quiet for a minute I will point out to the Minister in the chair that under section 20A(3) the provision requiring 2 working days has been amended to “no later than the working day”. I feel very confident in saying in light of section 20A(2)(b) and (3) which refer to the day after that either there is an error or it just has not been amended. I can see that the Minister has already picked up on that. He is nodding wisely. If we can have that fixed that would be good. I thank the Minister for that. 
While I am on this clause I also request that very serious consideration be given to the other very very good amendments relating to union access that have been put forward by Trevor Mallard. They particularly refer to some reasons where access would not be able to be declined or where prior consent does not have to be gained. One amendment would add the words “unless the access is required for urgent health and safety matters”. That is really important if otherwise a whole day is spent waiting. If it is an urgent health and safety matter such as an unsafe machine and the union is called in it is very important for consideration to be given in those circumstances. 
Another amendment would add the words “unless the access is required for matters relating to harassment or discrimination of any employee”. If we look at the worst-case scenario where perhaps a woman worker is being sexually harassed she will want to call the union organiser in to discuss that matter. It is absolutely untenable we suggest that that worker will have to wait for the next day. If it is about harm to employees or where the health and safety of employees is paramount we say that it is very important that in those instances prior consent for access is not required. 
Another amendment would add the words “unless the access is required for matters relating to redundancies or potential dismissals or where the union representative is seeking to represent a worker in an employment dispute.” I can put my hand on my heart and say in many cases if the union comes in the matter can be resolved without that worker losing his or her job and without the situation escalating rather than bubbling bubbling bubbling over 24 hours into a seriously dysfunctional one. 
So I request that the Minister although he has accepted one amendment look really carefully at these amendments. I think they are very very good amendments. Certainly we would rather the bill did not come into effect at all. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the Committee stage of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). Albeit I am addressing myself to clauses in Part 1 I will go back to some basic points on industrial relations. 
At the end of 2008 this country voted for a change of Government. People voted for a change of Government on the basis that some of the best things that the previous Labour Government did in this country in our 9 years in office would be retained by the incoming National Government according to the party’s promises on the hustings. In this legislation and in every move on industrial law that National has made since it came into office we have a concerted attack a concerted chipping away at the rights of the worker. Even more than that it has been undermining the way of organising and running a society. 
I will take a moment to move back from some of the specifics of Part 1 to talk about some of the principles behind an approach to industrial relations. The previous Labour Government was intent on developing promoting and sustaining a tripartite approach to industrial relations—and not just industrial relations but promoting and underpinning an inclusive approach to all of the significant social questions and economic questions before the country. We engaged with Business New Zealand we engaged with small businesses and in fact we set up the Small Business Advisory Group. We engaged with the Council of Trade Unions and those unions that are not affiliated with the Council of Trade Unions but predominantly with the Council of Trade Unions as the peak body representing the largest number of workers in this country. We began to build and develop a very stable and very sound structure and basis for an inclusive society. 
That is the kind of industrial relations that I aspire to and that I practised in my time as an industrial relations practitioner both as a union official and as an employer representative—an employment relations manager. 
That kind of approach to industrial relations is the only kind of approach that will provide stability and stability is important for workers. Stability is important because workers need the security of a job. They need to know that their job is secure and they need to know that the conditions they are working under on which they budget from week to week will remain the same or improve. The conditions should not be diminished or cut away so that suddenly people find themselves with less money every fortnight to pay the mortgage than they had before rather than more money as we would all like the situation to be. Stability is important for employers. Employers need to know they have a stable regime and a stable regulatory structure around them in order to plan their operations. 
This debate is not about being anti-employer; I think Mr Woodhouse was keen to paint Labour that way earlier in the debate. It is certainly about being pro-worker. But more than anything it is about wanting in New Zealand an industrial relations framework that provides the greatest stability for the greatest number and for the greatest good. This legislation does not do that. This legislation diminishes chips away and erodes workers’ conditions and workers’ rights in a way that we have not seen since the 1990s. We hoped we had put the years of the 1990s behind us. It is due to the short-sightedness malevolence or perhaps ignorance of the Minister of Labour that there is no understanding of the impact of this steady erosion of workers’ rights. Perhaps it is simply an ideological difference that is to be pursued at all costs which prevents this Minister from seeing the big picture around industrial relations. 
This kind of legislative change is not needed in order for industrial relations to proceed smoothly cooperatively and in a negotiated way to the benefit of all players. I would like the National Party to identify where the drivers for these moves are coming from. Where are these drivers coming from? Business New Zealand has said that it does not need a number of measures in this legislation; it is OK without them. Business New Zealand has said that it is OK without the requirement of medical notes or some kind of note from mother for absences. It is OK with that. It has good systems going and it does not need this kind of intervention. Business New Zealand has said that the extension of the 90-day trial period to all workplaces in New Zealand is not necessary in its industries because it has a reasonably good arrangement with its unions. It does not have a problem with giving unions access to workers because it has a good cooperative relationship. It is not always smooth but it has a fundamentally respectful relationship with the unions that represent its workers. It has no problem with giving unions that access. 
So where have these drivers come from? This is an ideological bombardment from the National Party which is reverting to type. But I suggest that even some of its most strident supporters do not require some of this legislation. I ask National to look again at what it is doing with this erosion of workers’ rights. It is destabilising industrial relations. It will only cause a swing back when Labour comes back into Government. When we do that— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That ain’t going to happen in a hurry. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: —next year I say to Mr Henare—the employers will not be grateful to National for having this flip-flop situation which was characteristic of the 1970s the 1980s and the 1990s. We were growing out of that kind of childishness and I wish National would grow out of it also. 
Our vision on this side of the Chamber is for a much more stable a much more cooperative and a much more respectful balance in industrial relations than this legislation provides. This legislation provokes unrest it provokes industrial action it provokes stoppages it provokes downtime it provokes a loss of income and it provokes a diminishing of margins for employers. The National Government has only itself to blame if it thinks that some of the people it takes to be National supporters will thank the Government for this. 
This is no way to run a country. This is no way to run the most important powerhouse of this country. In this legislation the Government is simply saying that cooperative grown-up respectful relationships between employers and unions and between industry and peak bodies like the Council of Trade Unions are not required are not necessary and are out of date. National will rue that day. 
This bill will provoke unrest. It has already been seen to provoke unrest and that is no way to run a country. If this Government had half a plan about the economic future of this country this legislation would not be before us now because it simply takes us backwards. It does not advance anybody. It certainly does not advance workers. It diminishes workers’ rights and improves nobody. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I would like to address the issue that was raised by the member Lynne Pillay in her last call in respect of clause 6 which inserts new section 20A of the Employment Relations Bill (No 2). Before I go to the details of this I say there is a bit of a preamble to it. The bill as it was introduced prescribed what could have been a maximum time frame of up to 4 working days for a union to be given a reason for access to be denied. In the consideration of the bill I believe it was the member Carol Beaumont who raised a concern about that being unduly prolonged. I supported that call. The officials to their credit realised that the initial policy intent was for that not to be the case but somewhere in the translation from policy to the bill the duration was doubled. They were very happy to recommend amendments that reduced the time frame for the whole thing to be wrapped up to within 2 working days. 
If we then step through the legislation as it stands bearing in mind that the goal is for any decision and the reasons to be communicated within 2 working days or deemed acceptance in that time we see that the obligation is on the employer to provide a response the working day after. If I as a union representative asked for access in writing on the Monday the obligation is on the employer to have responded by the end of the working day following—that is the end of Tuesday. If the employer does not do that then by the Wednesday access is deemed to have been granted. In terms of clause 6 it is necessary to keep section 20A(2)(c) referring to within 2 working days. In that scenario the Wednesday is within 2 working days and works mathematically. If permission is specifically denied the working day following then the obligation falls on the employer under 20A(3) “as soon as is reasonably practicable but no later than the working date after the date of the decision” to provide a reason why. That would also have been the Wednesday. 
So in that scenario everything is wrapped up on the Wednesday but the clause that the member thought may have been out of whack with the rest of the legislation is quite consistent with the intention that the select committee wanted to recommend back to the House. I suggest that no change to the bill is necessary. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I want to add one important point to my very good colleague Maryan Street’s contribution to the Employment Relations Bill (No 2) which I thought was very powerful. I hope that the National Party was listening. The other fundamental thing about Part 1 of this bill that has not been referred to this morning is that we have talked about fairness but with the 90-day trial period we are denying access to justice. With this bill we are saying that people will lose their economic livelihoods without being told a reason why or being able to challenge that reason. That is a pretty fundamental thing in New Zealand. It is a fundamental legal understanding in New Zealand that if one is treated unfairly or something happens to one in other walks of life one has the right to challenge it and access justice. I think that is one of the very strong oppositions that we have. 
I want to give an example that came out this week. I know there has been a bit of discussion about the sauce-and-aioli guy but an example came out earlier this week of a farm worker. He took on a job milking cows moved to a farm cottage and took his wife and two children with him. He signed an employment agreement that had a 90-day trial provision in it. He thought at the time that there was not much to worry about. He noticed it and he signed the agreement but he thought it would not apply to him. He took his children and his wife to live on this farm. The children settled in at the local school. They really loved it and thought it was fantastic. They were having a wonderful new life on the farm. 
A couple of months into his employment he had a disagreement with his employer the farmer. It was over the way the employer the farmer was talking to one of the farmhands who was a migrant worker. He was very nasty to this guy so the worker decided to stick up for this guy which is what we expect people to do. If people are being bullied it is a natural instinct to stick up for a workmate a friend or a neighbour and that is what he did. He asked the employer: “Please do not talk to this guy like that.” The next morning the farmer came round the milking shed and said: “I’m sorry but I’ll have to let you go.” The worker asked for a reason and the employer said he did not have to tell him because he is employed under the 90-day trial period. 
The worker had done nothing wrong except stick up for his workmate—he had done nothing wrong. There was nothing he could do about it because he had signed the employment contract. Let us be clear about this: if employers get the paperwork right there will be people who get fired like this. It did not apply to the sauce-and-aioli guy because the employer got the paperwork wrong but employers will get it right and employees will be fired. I have heard from many many workers in that situation. 
This poor guy had to pack up his family leave his farm cottage where he was living and tell his children that they would no longer be going to the local school and that they were leaving. He felt a real sense of shame for leaving a community where he was just starting to build relations in. He had to try and explain to his children why they had to leave. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Very disruptive for them. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It disrupted their lives their education and this guy’s economic livelihood. The upshot of the story is that he has gone to Australia. I know that members opposite will say that there are longer trial periods in Australia but fundamentally for him it was an issue of fairness of the impact on his children of the impact on his livelihood and of the impact on his career as a sharemilker in the future. There was an overwhelming sense of frustration and anger that we live in a country now where workplaces of fewer than 20 workers can be treated like that and we will be living in a country where every worker in the whole country can be treated in the same way. Yes apparently it will not happen; we know that. But the fact is that there are employers out there—and we heard it in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—who want this extension not only in all workplaces but also for it to be the default provision. They want more; they always want more. 
Sue Moroney 
: I think Kate Wilkinson does too. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I think Kate Wilkinson does too. In fact I heard from another group of workers where four of them were working for the same firm in Napier who have been fired under the 90-day trial provisions. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 In this debate in the Committee stage of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) I want to pick up a point about the 90-day trial period and the very significant point made by my colleague Darien Fenton in relaying that example. The comment was made about Australia. Earlier Dr Jackie Blue asserted of course that the 90-day provision is very reasonable that everywhere around the world there are these no-rights provisions and in fact the provision here is even quite moderate in being only 90 days. I have to say there were a number of submitters who quite clearly tried to get us to recognise that we need to compare apples with apples. Caritas which I mentioned earlier in another regard said: “Look we are not specialists in employment law but we thought given that the Government had asserted so strongly that the justification for the 90-day provision was that it applied everywhere else that we should check it out.” It made contact with the equivalent of Caritas in Australia and it was particularly interested in looking at the situation of small employers. It checked with the Australian Catholic Church’s Office for Employment Relations and it was told that matters of natural justice and procedural fairness during probationary periods in Australia are covered by Australia’s fair work and adverse action provisions. A complaint under the adverse action provisions can be taken by any worker—including job applicants so the provisions are quite broad—who feels that he or she has been unfairly treated. Then a range of actions flow from that. Caritas was then referred to the Australian Government website to check that out a little more. 
Once Caritas followed that through it looked at the advice provided to employers and employees about the legal obligations around the termination of employment. It found that there is a provision applying to small businesses the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code which provides a whole lot of things and would stop the absolutely patently unfair examples like the one that my colleague Darien Fenton just gave—a real life story involving somebody sacked not for their own action but for sticking up for somebody else. I reckon most New Zealanders would find that absolutely disgraceful but they need to know that that is entirely possible under this legislation. 
I will also talk a little bit about union access to workplaces. Some cute statements have been made across the Chamber about our position on union access to workplaces. The difference that this law will put in place is that it will give an employer the right to say no to access. We were given example after example in the select committee of how the current access provisions which do not give the employer the right to just say yes or no but have a number of reasonableness provisions are working effectively where there are relationships. People described for us the fact that the union official will generally make contact with the manager to discuss what a reasonable time for access might be and whether access should be provided in particular places or to some groups of workers at some times and others at other times. That is genuine and that is what happens at the moment. I know that from my own experience and from the experience of other officials. There is not a problem. That was made absolutely clear by officials and it was made clear by Business New Zealand. 
This new access provision is purely an ideological thing but the worry is its effect. It may not be widely used but it will be used by employers who do not want to see workers accessing information workers accessing expert advice and workers wanting to organise themselves to get a better deal. This is the last thing we should be doing if we are serious about closing the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand. The real way to close the wage gap is obviously to lift wages in this country. How do we go about that? We do not go about it individual by individual by individual. That is not the way to lift wages. The way to lift wages is to lift the wages of groups of workers through collective employment agreements. How do we do that? We do that by workers joining together in unions by organising and then by seeking to negotiate a collective employment agreement. If bad employers have the right to stop unions accessing workplaces that will not happen. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 At this stage I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the set of amendments in my name that the Committee will work through because we have not had very much reaction from the Government in respect of them. I turn in particular to those to do with union access and the suggestions that have been made there. One of them makes it clear that access cannot be denied if it is required for the conducting of a secret ballot. We have had some legislation that is working its way through the House in the name of Tau Henare—unnecessary legislation it is fair to say—which has a possibility of being passed that requires a secret ballot. The member knows that for the secret ballots that he is now requiring to be held—which are mainly held anyway—there is a need for union access in order to conduct those ballots. What we want to be careful of are employers who unreasonably deny access in order to avoid the ballot in order to avoid a strike. I think what would probably happen in most workplaces would be that employees would walk off the job and have their ballot off the job if that occurred. I think what we need to make clear in the legislation is that people should act reasonably and work their way forward. 
There is another amendment that goes to the question that was raised by my colleague Lynne Pillay. It is our suggestion that the reason for denying access must be given on the same day as access is denied. I do not think that is an unreasonable approach. If someone is saying “No you can’t come in.” then asking why at the same time is not unreasonable. Most employers are bright enough: if it is a genuine reason and if they genuinely hold a particular view as to why now is inappropriate for unions to come in or even later in the day then I think it behoves them to indicate the reason for that to the union officials concerned. 
There are a series of other amendments here. One of them is around communication during collective bargaining. The suggestion here is that we effectively take out clause 9. One of the problems with the approach that this Government has taken under the very poor drafting leadership of the Attorney-General is the massive use of parts. In this case there is one substantive part in what is effectively a consequential part or a very small part. What would previously happen is that individual issues would be identified and one could vote against clauses. A bill as short as this would have under quality drafting with someone with some integrity leading the drafting process been drafted such that it was taken clause by clause because although it is a bill of massive importance it is not a bill of massive size or massive numbers of clauses so it should have been taken clause by clause. 
That would have been an opportunity for members to vote No just on clause 9. So the objective here is to take that clause out of the bill and in that way maintain the status quo around collective bargaining. The change proposed in the bill appears to be driven by a misunderstanding of the current legal positions. Again with the quality of legal drafting that we have from the Attorney-General with his very poor leadership I am not surprised that there is a misunderstanding in this area. 
Some other amendments go to the non-denial of access on harassment or discrimination matters and there could be a matter where a union official needs to get into a workplace immediately because there is a current case of discrimination or harassment. Just looking around I see a couple of members opposite who have done constituency work in their time. Most people who have done constituency work know that every now and again one gets a case where one has some absolutely outrageous harassment of individuals. To be fair it is generally in the case of small employers and I want to say that it is too often the case that new New Zealanders are involved either as the people being harassed or the people who are doing the harassing. 
But some things that occur within workplaces are just absolutely unacceptable in our society. Some of these reach court but a lot do not because quite often in sexual harassment cases the woman—and it is just about always a woman—who is harassed takes a decision that she does not want to put herself through what is effectively a second trial. The matters often do not go to the police. But the immediate solution the way of protecting the woman concerned is very often through the intervention of a union official who comes in and supports and helps to isolate and get some barriers up and makes it clear to the employer that harassment cannot continue. I ask why a woman who is being harassed often sexually harassed by an employer should have to wait until the day after tomorrow. If the employer does not agree it could be 2 days before he gives a reason for not agreeing for someone to come in. 
In modern society that situation is unacceptable. However it is consistent with the lack of rights of and respect for individuals that come from this Government. I think it is fair to say that Jim Bolger was not the best Minister of Labour but he believed in the dignity of work and the rights of workers and in human rights generally. Now there is really no one in the Government who protects human rights. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act more or less might as well be gone given the approach that is taken. There is not a Minister who is prepared to within Cabinet or within Parliament stand up for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and for the rights of individual Kiwis. We have come to this and it is so sad: the Attorney-General is the Minister in the chair as we legislate away the rights of someone who is being sexually abused and sexually harassed to call in a union official. The Attorney-General of New Zealand who is meant to stand up for those rights is sitting here absolutely numb in his mouth. It is an improvement on his general condition but he is sitting there. 
I say to the ACT Party that it is about time it took a call on this matter too. That party has generally stood up for individual rights in New Zealand—the individual right to make a phone call and ask someone to visit. What do we have here? We have the ACT Party sitting. There is not a mumble not a murmur not a word from the ACT Party about the individual rights of a worker to call on their representative. We do not agree on lots of things to do with industrial legislation but I thought one of the things ACT would have the backbone to stand up for was the right of an individual to make a phone call and to have a meeting. What do we have? Not a word from ACT. It is sitting there a supplicant to the National Party. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 20A(1) “unless the access is required for urgent health and safety matters”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 20A(1) “unless the access is required for matters relating to harassment or discrimination of any employee”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 20A(1) “unless the access is required for matters relating to redundancies or potential dismissals or where the union representative is seeking to represent a worker in an employment dispute”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 20A(1) “unless the access is required for the conducting of a secret ballot”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 20A(3) “ as soon as is reasonably practicable but no later than the working day after the date of the decision” and substitute “on the same day as the decision is given”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 12: 
12AEffect of trial provision under section 67A 
Section 67B(5)(a) is repealed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 20A(2)(a) “unreasonably”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 12: 
12BEffect of trial provision under 67A 
Section 67B(5)(b) is repealed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 12: 
12CEffect of trial provision under 67A 
Section 67B(5) is repealed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 12: 
12DWhen employment agreement may contain provision for trial period for 90 days or less 
Section 67A is amended by adding the following subsection— 
“(6)A trial provision may not be included in any advertisement for a job as a pre-requisite for employment in that job.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 12: 
12EWhen employment agreement may contain provision for trial period for 90 days or less 
Section 67A(2)(c) is amended by adding “except where the employer has not acted in good faith”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 12: 
12FEffect of trial provision under section 67A 
Section 67B(2) is repealed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 12: 
12GEffect of trial provision under section 67A 
Section 67B(5) is repealed and the following subsection substituted: 
“(5)If the reason for dismissal provided by the employer is alleged to be frivolous untrue or unfair the employee retains the right to take a personal grievance or legal proceedings in relation to that dismissal.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to add to section 125 the following new subsection: 
“(3)If this section applies and the employee concerned is also a union delegate health and safety representative or member of a party actively involved in bargaining the Authority must whether or not it provides for any of the other remedies provided for in section 123 provide wherever practicable for reinstatement as described in section 123(a).” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Kate Wilkinson to clause 9A be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “63(2)(b)” and substitute “63A(2)(b)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Consequential amendments and transitional provision 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on this part includes schedule 2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think members will agree that Part 2 is not quite as substantive as Part 1 which we have just debated. I ask my colleagues especially those who are more involved in the law—in particular industrial law— to have a good look at Part 2. I specifically ask them to look at schedule 2 “Consequential amendments to other enactments”. 
The question I ask members opposite and through the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Finlayson to the officials is whether we can be absolutely sure that the right reference is cited in section 83(2)(a) in schedule 2. There is a reference there to section 223D of the Employment Relations Act. I just inform the Minister that there is no section 223D in the Employment Relations Act. I am using the statute from the lobby; the 1 April 2009 edition. It may be that changes have been made since that time. But I note there is a section 224 in that Act and that the reference to a demand notice appears to be correct. There is always a question in these things about whether one is working from the correct copy of the legislation. In the case of the next reference it appears that section 83(2)(b) refers accurately to section 224. But in the case of section 83(2)(a) the reference there is not accurate. 
It might be that the reference should be to section 223(1)(c). That is a provision that ties the Employment Relations Act to the Holidays Act and deals with the powers of labour inspectors in that particular area. It is not even section 223(1)(d) because that relates to the Minimum Wage Act but it is a matter that is meant to relate to holiday pay. That of course must refer to the Holidays Act and the proper references within this area. I say to the Hon John Carter my old friend and colleague who is now in the chair that occasionally there is a lot of politics in these things and occasionally there appears to be a minor error in the drafting. But when we have a mis-reference when relating something to an Act it could well end up being an inaccurate reference. 
The Minister of course has a group of officials who are working with him and for him and if the Minister did indicate that the lobby copy of the legislation is out of date and I am wrong I would be happy to concede on this point. But if the lobby copy is accurate it may be that the Minister would want to scribble an amendment in order to change the reference to the Act to read “section 223(1)(c)” which I think is the accurate reference. I am getting a bit of a nod. I want to plead guilty because for at least half an hour I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee during its deliberations on the bill and I missed this wrong reference on the way through. It does not happen very often and I will apologise to the Committee for making an error if it is— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I could have saved you further embarrassment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I thank the member. If he wants to take a call to clarify this matter I am happy to come back after that. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 In respect of the speech made by the previous speaker Mr Mallard I draw his attention to clause 36 in Part 1 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) which inserts new sections 223A to 223G. So in fact he is quite right: there is no section 223D in the Employment Relations Act as it currently is in the lobby because those new sections are being inserted by Part 1 of this bill. Therefore it is necessary to refer back to that section in schedule 2 and therefore there is no need for any change. I look forward to the call and the apology that he has offered. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I want to follow on with clause 40 “Transitional provision” rather than clause 39 “Consequential amendments to other enactments”. The transitional provision clause is the reference to the individual employment agreement and the requirement under new section 10 that the employer must retain a copy of the individual employment agreement or individual terms and conditions of employment. Clause 40 clarifies the fact that that provision applies whether “individual terms and conditions of employment were provided to or agreed with the employee before or after the commencement of this Act.” 
The transitional provision and the reference to the individual employment agreement is very important because in this area also there will be the question of whether a 90-day no-rights provision will apply. It will include the “take it or leave it” employment agreements that we have talked about previously. With regard to the individual employment agreement that is being referred to here whether it be agreed before or after the commencement of this Act whether it has any reference and whether it was a genuine negotiation is of course irrelevant because “take it or leave it” provisions appear to be acceptable to this Government. 
We have heard members opposite arguing that that is a matter of choice. Those of us who know what people feel like when they are out of work and struggling to make ends meet know that “take it or leave it” employment offers particularly in periods of high unemployment are not at all a matter of choice. I think that we will find plenty of people in the Mana electorate in that particular situation: they do not have a job they would like a job and if they are offered a job with an individual employment agreement with a 90-day trial provision there will be no negotiation or choice associated with the matter. 
I think a number of other transitional arrangements really should be included in this part. We will be going from a situation where the 90-day no-rights provision applies to workplaces of fewer than 20 employees to a situation where they apply to all workplaces. The majority of New Zealand employees work in large workplaces; although the majority of workplaces are small workplaces the majority of employees are employed in large workplaces. These changes bring those workplaces into the scope of the legislation. 
I wonder whether some transitional arrangements are required around for example the ability of Work and Income to deal with these changes because the provision does not require an employer to provide any reason for a dismissal. Not only does the worker not have the right of redress but the worker does not actually have to be given a reason why they have been dismissed. Under our benefit system people can be stood down from their right to access a benefit if they have lost a job because it is their own fault. In a situation where they have no idea why they have lost their job Work and Income have to intervene. 
We sought advice from officials on this matter and we were provided with advice. In summary the advice is that if the employer does not respond to a request from Work and Income to give a reason then it will take whatever reason the employee gives them. But if when Work and Income contacts the employer they assert a reason even if they have not told the employee why they have been dismissed—they could make it up on the spot—that reason will be accepted by Work and Income and there is no right to challenge it. Potentially the provision could deny somebody access to a benefit. 
We are applying this provision to all workplaces so the extent to which Work and Income will be required to make those sorts of judgments and to deal with those very complicated situations will increase. I wonder whether there is a need to look at or change the transitional provisions. 
I wonder also whether any thought has been given to the change in culture in our workplaces. It is quite hard to have transitional arrangements about change in culture but the fact of the matter is that at the moment most employees are working in workplaces where they can challenge unjustified dismissal. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I will continue if I may on the theme of the transitional provision in Part 2 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). My colleague Carol Beaumont made some very good points about the questions that are still there about the 90-day provision but I will be a little more positive for a moment about the reference in the transitional provision. 
Clause 40 “Transitional provision” refers back to new section 64 “Employer must retain copy of individual employment agreement or individual terms and conditions of employment”. That is one provision in this bill that Labour supports but we did not get to talk about it because we did not have enough time in the debate on Part 1. We support that provision. We support workers having the right to their individual employment agreements in writing; they are supposed to have those anyway. We think that is an improvement on the current situation. 
There is another reason why we think it is an improvement although I do not think it will help the hapless souls who are employed under the 90-day trial period provision—all of those in every workplace in New Zealand who change jobs in the future. When we go back to the Department of Labour research on the existing arrangements in workplaces of 20 or fewer employees it is very interesting to look at what was happening with individual employment agreements. One in four of the workers end up with no job. The 90-day trial period was supposed to create jobs for all of those people in particular the so-called vulnerable workers—migrant workers Maori workers and so on—but there was no evidence to show that it contributed to increasing their employment in any way shape or form. 
Not only that but when we looked at the other parts of the evidence in that survey we saw that some of the employers did not even put the conditions in writing. There is a pretty widespread practice out there of having individual agreements that are not in writing even though it is a current requirement of the law. It is a current requirement of the law. Even when employers put the agreement in writing of course the conditions were non-negotiable. It is one thing to have a written individual employment agreement and we support that; it is another thing to have a non-negotiable individual employment agreement. 
That is the problem all the way through this bill. The whole 90-day trial provision is not voluntary and it will not be subject to good faith. Good faith is meaningless in this situation. We have heard and relayed some of the stories about the impact of that provision. 
The same report said that employers generally did not seek employees’ acceptance of a trial period in an individual agreement; rather it was stated in the employment agreement with other terms and conditions. For most workers applying for a job the job is conditional on their accepting a trial period. So although we support this transitional provision and its reference back to new section 64 the Prime Minister’s statement and other Ministers who said that the 90-day trial period could be entered into only by agreement between the employer and the new worker at the beginning of the employment relationship have been shown by their own department’s research to be completely untrue and to be utter rubbish. 
I noticed also during the consideration by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that it made a change to new section 64 which the transitional provision refers to by inserting subsection 2A to make it clear that the employee may have access to a copy of the employment agreement retained by the employer. That is a good idea. I think that is a very good idea. Of course employees should have access to their individual employment agreement. But you see the reality is that in many workplaces they do not. That provision is good and will improve the situation. 
However many many employers who will take advantage of and exploit the 90-day trial provision will ignore it anyway. It is meaningless for them. We have heard from many workers that they are told that employers are using the 90-day trial period so they do not have to give them an agreement; they do not even have to agree to it. We can write these things down and they are improvements but I have to say that I have no confidence that they will make a huge difference. 
Just picking up the point of my colleague Carol Beaumont about transitional provisions and what could be considered I wonder how on earth we are going to get an education programme going and what resources the Minister and others are planning to put into this. This is a huge change. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to comment particularly in relation to the transitional provisions of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) on comments made by both Carol Beaumont and Darien Fenton. We are looking at individual employment agreements and how that provision will work. Although they must be in writing we know that the Employers and Manufacturers Association will be busy pumping out those individual employment agreements to employers as we saw in the 1990s. When redundancy had to be referred to those agreements said quite clearly that no redundancy compensation would be paid. 
We know that in terms of these individual agreements it will be very much as my colleagues have said a “take it or leave it” situation. That is what National members refer to as choice in this situation. National members say that of course there is a choice. We say that workers will have no choice as to whether they accept this Draconian provision that means they can get sacked within the first 90 days whether or not they are given a reason and whether or not there is a good reason. When we say that employees have no choice the Government’s response is to say that of course they have a choice: they can either take the job or leave the job. We say that that is not a real choice. 
Carol Beaumont touched on again a possibly unintended consequence but one that from a transitional point of view will create a real problem in the future. 
That would be along the lines of an employee getting a pumped out “take it or leave it” employment agreement handed to them courtesy of the Employers and Manufacturers Association for which the employer pays a fee. Employees know that they have no choice but to take the agreement and they sign up. Things might go really well. They will work and try to do the best possible job they can. Then they make the fatal mistake of putting too much sauce on the fish or whatever. They are called in and told that in the agreement that they have a copy of they will see quite clearly that they can be sacked for any reason and the reason they are being sacked is that—well they will not be told why; they are just let go. What a funny term “let go” is. It sounds as if one is being really kind and nice as if it is a nice thing to do. 
The poor employee is let go. John Key has talked about job creation so they are sure there will be a lot of jobs they can find out there. People search and search but of course there is nothing because this Government has not created any jobs. As previous speakers have said most workers are staying in their jobs because they are too fearful to leave and because if they go to a new job they will have these Draconian conditions imposed on them particularly after this bill goes through. 
Eventually people will have to make ends meet so they will have to do something they did not want to do which is go to Work and Income. Their case manager will ask why they are no longer employed. They will say they do not know but that their employer has let them go. The case manager will ask whether it was their fault and they will say that they do not know whether it was their fault because the employer did not tell them anything. They will be told that they have to wait. Those poor people will be waiting to see whether they are eligible for a benefit—a very small benefit but something to put a bit of food on the table while they are searching for those non-existent jobs. 
I ask the Government to consider where the human rights are in that situation. We could have a situation in which a Work and Income case manager asks an employer whether the termination of a job was the employee’s fault. The employer will say to Work and Income that it was the employee’s fault and they will feel quite confident in telling Work and Income about the reasons because they have nothing to lose. We will have the ludicrous situation in which that poor person will for reasons completely unknown lose his or her job and will then be told by Work and Income— 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I see that Lynne Pillay wished to continue her speech; I apologise to her. But I will continue in the same vein. 
It seems that it is a very good thing to have a written employment agreement constructed and kept by the employer as a reference point. On one hand it means there is something to refer back to to see whether the employer is matching the requirements in that agreement. On the other hand—as the previous speaker pointed out—employers’ organisations will construct a standard agreement that contains the 90-day provision without any reason being required for dismissing a person within the first 90 days. That agreement will be sent out to every employer and it will almost be a black mark against them if they do not use it. Employers are very organised in that respect in making sure that all other employers keep in line. Supposedly there is a choice in terms of whether people go into the 90-day arrangement; in fact people will not be able to get a job anywhere else because all contracts will have that 90-day provision in them. People will have the choice between having a job and not having a job. 
I agree with Lynne Pillay that there will be euphemisms such as letting people go instead of sacking them. They are all excuses. Another one that came up was that a person could be overqualified. Employers might say that a person is a very nice worker but is overqualified and that they will let that person go and get somebody else. Those are not real reasons and reasons will not be required under the 90-day legislation but we can see how things will operate. 
The changes are all completely unnecessary because particularly in the labour market we have now where there is a high level of unemployment any reasonable employers will not be looking to recruit people for 90 days. They will be recruiting to get the best person on a permanent basis providing the training from day one and spending their money on that training. Having that 90-day provision has nothing to do with the quality of the employees being hired and has everything to do with being anti-union as in the examples given before: sacking people if they show any sign of standing up for their rights linking up with the union or whatever. That will be the primary reason why people are sent down the road. 
Workers who are pro-union and who will be sent down the road are generally the better workers. I have found that the more one stands up for other people’s rights the more confidence one has in one’s own rights and skills. Those people tend to be the better workers; they will be the ones who are sacked. 
In my experience it has been the most unionised workplaces that have put out the better product. I used to work at New Zealand Motor Corporation in Petone producing Honda cars. We had a strong union there and the quality of the Honda cars was great. My partner worked out at what was then Todd Motors which then changed to Mitsubishi Motors New Zealand where the union was much weaker. Quite a lot of people got annoyed with the conditions there and there was a bit of sabotaging of cars actually. The quality of the cars coming out was lower because the union was less strong. 
It is actually in the employer’s interest to have a strong union in the workplace but a lot of employers do not operate in that way; they just want to run the business their way. Trevor Mallard gave some examples of that particularly of employers who have a small business where the boss is more concerned with keeping control over everything than in having a collective workforce that works well together. 
To summarise the existence of this written agreement has its positive sides. But in the hands of the employers’ federation it will probably lead to a universalisation of this offensive 90-day provision. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on Part 2 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) which contains the transitional provisions of such an innocuous-sounding bill. 
This bill is of course the fire-at-will bill. That is how it is known in the streets factories and workplaces of New Zealand and quite rightly so. It is the legislation that generalises the so-called pilot which allows workers to be sacked without cause or explanation in their first 90 days of employment and extends that provision to every single workplace in New Zealand. 
The Labour Opposition along with our colleagues in the Greens and others is of course fighting this bill every step of the way. It is appropriate in the debate on the transitional provisions to ask what kinds of workplaces and what kind of country this bill is a transition to. I will ask some specific questions about that issue. Is the legislation a transition to an ethically based system of industrial and employment relations? What would an ethically based system look like? Arguably an ethically based system would respect the rights of all members of a company whether they were directors management or employees. 
This bill quite simply does the opposite. This bill commoditises human beings: it treats human beings as commodities as a factor of production alongside timber bolts and oil. People are not commodities and they should not be treated like commodities. The idea that a New Zealander can be sacked without so much as the dignity of an explanation as to why when it will affect their entire future is not an ethical basis for law. It will affect not only their current earnings and mortgage but also their opportunity to get another job in another place because they will have to explain why they lost their previous one. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just wondering about the relevance to the part under debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am listening and it is just inside the scope but I ask the member to bring it in please. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Let us now consider the economics of this transitional provision. When this legislation comes in will it be a transition to a more productive workplace? It will certainly be a less ethical workplace. Here history provides a guide. During the 1990s there was an Act called the Employment Contracts Act. It was at the request of certain employer groups designed to make labour markets more flexible. What could be wrong with that? Flexible meant easier to hire and to fire and lower wage and labour costs. 
The economics of the Employment Contracts Act have been well documented. When the economy transitioned to that industrial law environment labour productivity went down. Why did it go down? Because the cost of labour fell relative to the cost of capital: more workers and fewer tools equal less output per worker per hour. That is a key reason why in the 2000s the New Zealand economy has been much less productive than for example our Australian colleagues’ economy. 
Mr English has in question time been debating with me Mr Anderton Mr Parker and others whether we are catching up with Australia. I will provide some data care of the Hon Jim Anderton which is a combination of OECD Australian Bureau of Statistics and Statistics New Zealand numbers. It measures real GDP per capita at purchasing power parity and it shows that in 1984 the gap between Australian and New Zealand workers was 13 percent. In 1990 it was 21 percent. In 1999 when Labour took office it had grown to 34.2 percent which is extraordinary. By 2005 under the previous Labour-led Government it had dropped to 29.8 percent. It held steady at 29.8 percent to 2006 but here is the kicker: by 2009 it had increased to 36.1 percent and in 2010 the gap between New Zealand and Australian incomes had risen to 37.4 percent. I ask how long it will be before it hits 40 percent. Nobody can argue that we are catching up with Australia. We are going in the opposite direction. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I caution the member that he is getting outside the scope of the debate which is on either the consequential amendment or the transitional arrangements. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. I appreciate your guidance on that. 
I have been trying to ask in this debate on Part 2 of the innocuous-sounding Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) the fire-at-will bill what transition this bill implies for New Zealanders; for New Zealand workers who will be treated as commodities; and for the New Zealand economy which will have its labour productivity reduced as the incentive to use financial and technological capital goes down because commoditised workers will be cheapened. That is a nonsense economic strategy. We will never compete with the good old People’s Republic of China on wage rates. They pay 50c or $1 an hour; we pay a minimum wage of $13 an hour or thereabouts and of course we want to see that rise. We want to be a high-value high-income economy where people choose to migrate to live to give of their best brains and smarts and to build a brighter future. We do not want a transition to a sweatshop or a banana republic. That is what this transition—[ 
Interruption 
]. The junior Government whip soon to be the former member for Rangitata might sneer but everybody knows that this is a slippery slippery slope. 
Is it a transition to a productive industrial relations environment? That is the next question. I would have thought that even members opposite would acknowledge that New Zealand is in fact very fortunate to have a union movement that is responsible is far-sighted looks at the bigger picture and looks for the win-win situations. Gone are the days—although he had some redeeming virtues—of Jim Knox and the head-butting style of engagement. The New Zealand union movement wants to be social partners for a better future. This Government is taking that opportunity and rubbing unions’ noses in the dirt and telling them to swallow this. It is saying: “We won. You lost. Your workers get it in the neck with the 90-day fire-at-will bill—no ifs no buts no explanation. Down the road bucko.” 
I just lament the stupidity of this move. I lament the lack of humanity of the move. I lament the lack of the most basic understanding of economics that is embedded in this move. I lament frankly the short-sighted greed of employers who have lobbied for it and I lament the lack of spine of a Government that refused to stand up to those employers or perhaps believed it was the right thing to do. 
Debate on transitional provisions is the time when we ask ourselves what future we are transitioning to. What kind of future do we want for New Zealand? People all around the Chamber and those at home should be asking themselves because we are at a critical time in the economic and political cycle what sort of future we want to transition to. Will it be an ecologically responsible ethically based technologically advanced high-value economy with people choosing to migrate to New Zealand not away from it? Will it be a New Zealand where workers are paid good wages and salaries because we are innovative and smart and make great products that people want to pay a premium for with a reputation as a premium brand that leads the world in our chosen market niches? Is it that kind of future—which is clean green clever and wealthy—or is it the opposite? Is it a slippery slope to a banana republic where workers are paid pitifully by employers who cannot see beyond the end of their noses? 
Here is the tragedy in this transition. I think most employers are actually better than that. I think most employers would regard this as kind of a sideshow and quite unnecessary. That is the tragedy of it. The Government has kowtowed to a few ideologues to pass a law that is bad for workers bad for the country and even—in the end actually—bad for employers. 
Labour laments this bill. Of all the legislation that has been considered by this Parliament so far in this term this bill ranks right up there as one of the dumbest things—except the lunacy of the tax cuts but I will leave that aside—that this dumb Government has done since New Zealanders were dumb enough to elect it. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 69 Noes 59. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
New Part 3 Protections for employees covered by 90-day provisions 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 This is the beginning of a series of attempts on the part of the Opposition to ameliorate the approach that has been taken by the Government in these matters. In this particular part of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) we are looking at protections for employees who are covered by the 90-day provisions. We made some attempts to do that as we went through Part 1. We put forward some amendments to make some progress in that area. Unfortunately they were not accepted by the Government so we felt that we had no option but to put forward a new part that brought together some of those amendments—and hardened them up to be fair—and some other amendments. I do not want in any way to pretend to the Committee that we would be prepared to support the bill even if these amendments were supported but they are designed to ameliorate some of the harshest parts of this legislation. 
Again I say some of the issues were pretty well traversed in the second reading debate where we featured some of our very real concerns. One of them concerns information about a decision. I appeal again to the ACT Party. We are attempting here to get changes that all reasonable New Zealanders would agree with. The ACT Party is now allegedly a party of transparency. It used to be a party that was very much for transparency but then the perk-buster was caught using perks. But even then if we look at the views of Sir Roger Douglas and Heather Roy and even of John Boscawen—I am not sure about the new member—we can see that they have commented long and hard in this House about the importance of transparency. I say to the new member that the idea of employees being provided with access to information about a decision to dismiss them is something that I cannot see any reasonable person objecting to. 
This amendment indicates that any employer who proposes to dismiss an employee under the 90-day trial provisions must in good faith provide access to information about the decision to the affected employee before a final decision is reached. That does not say an employer cannot reach that decision. It does not say he or she has to have good faith. It does not say he or she has to act reasonably in making the decision. But it does say information has to be provided. That gives the employee the opportunity to comment. 
Sometimes people get stuff absolutely wrong. It might be that too much sauce has gone on at the request of a customer. If someone is being fired for putting too much sauce on a hamburger— 
Carol Beaumont 
: Some people like a lot of sauce. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Some people are saucy and they need to keep their sauce levels up. I do not need a lot of extra sauce. In fact I do not like tomato sauce much at all but I like a reasonable amount of aioli or similar sauces. Quite often when I go to a decent hamburger joint I make requests as to the sauce proportions. I ask why a worker should be fired for doing what a customer asks him or her to do and the employer does not have to indicate the reasons for the firing to the worker. I can understand why an employer might have a general policy on the proportion of sauce. That might save on the use of sauce. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have to make a ruling. I apologise to the member in whose name the amendment to add a new Part 3 is but I have now had time to fully consider the import of the amendment and also to take some advice. An amendment such as the amendment the member has tabled should be associated with Part 1. Therefore it is out of order as is his amendment to add a new Part 4. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member has made one of two points that I would have made. I would like to have an assurance from you that as part of the process you did not refer to the Minister in the chair the Hon John Carter on this matter. I saw you talking to the Minister in the chair and the Minister in the chair is confirming from behind you that he did look at it and you were talking about it. This is quite a hard position for me to be in but you know and I know that it is inappropriate for the Chair to discuss a matter to do with relevance with the Minister in the chair. I saw you discussing it with the Minister and—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member is raising a point of order and it will be heard in silence. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —I do of course seek your assurance that that was not the case. 
But as this appears to be a new ruling—and I have been looking at Speakers’ rulings in preparation for the possibility of this happening—I would like an indication from you maybe by a nod or a wink that this is a new ruling and is not one based on a precedent currently within the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Let me respond to the points. I can understand the member’s frustration given that we have started the debate on new Part 3. Yes dialogue has been going on around here. The member will have also noticed that a quite senior Clerk came in with some advice for us. I ignored all comments from any other section. I did confer with the Clerk at the Table and then we sought advice by telephone and got a more comprehensive explanation because this was new territory for me. I have not had to rule on anything as precise as this. I guess there are some points around whether it is in contradiction or whatever but the advice I have had with which I concur is that these elements that relate to Part 1 should have been dealt with at that time. I give the member an assurance that I am not influenced—and I am a little bit hurt that he had to ask the question—by the Minister in the chair; I might need counselling! But in that regard no I sought advice from the highest authority available to me and therefore I make the ruling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Of course I take your word that you did not listen to what John Carter said. I move  
That the Chairperson report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling on the admissibility of a proposed amendment. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Mr Speaker the Committee of the whole House has moved to recall you for a determination on a ruling I made in relation to two amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new parts. Can I say I chose not to give the matter the appropriate amount of attention at the time and for that I take some responsibility. The Committee at the time was debating Part 2 and I was trying to determine that it be a narrow debate on two clauses and that affected my attention to relevance. It did distract me somewhat. We then commenced debating the new Part 3 and I gave the matter some further consideration. In that regard I can understand that the member in whose name the amendments are is a bit perplexed as to why the debate began then at the end of his first call I subsequently ruled it out of order. The issue in relation to the amendments is whether in my rationale they are contradicted by something that is in Part 1 or whether they should be associated with it. I did seek some advice and ruled subsequently after the debate had begun that they were out of order because the pertinence of what the amendments contained should be attached to Part 1 and should have been debated at the time of that debate. It is on that basis that I gave my ruling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think there are two parts to it and I thank Eric Roy for his summary. Other than the conclusions I do not think there is any difference on the facts. 
The first question is the Committee having commenced debate on a particular part and a full speech on it having been accepted whether it is within the realm of the Chair of the Committee at that stage to effectively rule himself out and say that other members do not have an opportunity to debate what had started. But that is probably the lesser of the two parts although an appeal is going on on the other. 
The substantive question is whether an additional part of a bill can be moved that puts conditions on what has been agreed to previously by the Committee. There is no doubt that after quite a lot of debate and suggested changes Part 1 was passed and I think we agree that Part 2 was a fairly minor consequential transitional-type arrangement. Mr Speaker both of us have been in the House during a period when there has been increasing use of a part by part approach but I think it is fair to say not quite to the extreme we have in terms of this bill where major legislation in two major areas—to do with 90-day trial periods and to do with union access—is wrapped up in one part. I think it is fair to say that in the time of Geoffrey Palmer as Attorney-General there would have been quite a few more parts and even subsequently in the time of the Bolger administration we would have seen at least two parts each one dealing with one of the substantive issues. 
But the issue goes to whether a Committee is restricted from putting some conditions—to protect workers in this particular case—on a part that has already been agreed to saying essentially that Part 1 can work but as it does work it should be limited. That is the central question. I have been looking and I see that you are looking at the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. I cannot see something that indicates that it cannot happen. My view is that it would be a very large restriction on the right of an Opposition party to move amendments that are not unreasonable. There are only two and they both certainly go to issues that are pertinent and provide some protections that are pertinent. My appeal to you Mr Speaker is that it would be an unreasonable restriction on the rights of the House if Opposition members could not move amendments in this form and were restricted to moving amendments that restrict the approach within one part of the bill. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I shall respond to those comments by making these two points. One is that obviously I took advice on this issue as well. I was told that the amendment interferes with the fundamental direction of the legislation particularly in relation to Part 1 and previous Acts. As a consequence the amendment proposed actually would amend Part 1 if it were passed and of course previous Acts as well. So that is an important point. The second point is that in all the time I have been in the House if there is to be an additional amendment it is done during the debate on the part rather than as an addition to it later on. I suggest that if we were to allow this to happen we would be opening up a whole new way in which we deal with legislation. We could pass one part or two parts or 10 parts then somebody could come up with a new idea and add it in as an addendum. Quite honestly I think we would be unwise to go down that path. If members have a view they should express it at the time that the part is being deliberated on. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I shall speak very briefly; there is only one point I have. It was implicit in what the Hon John Carter said that these new parts would negate parts that have already been passed. That is certainly not the case. They are designed to restrict and to provide conditions on but not to negate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members. It is an interesting issue that has arisen and I myself will seek some further advice on the particular matters because I do not want to make any errors. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I actually wonder given the time whether we should seek leave for you to make a considered ruling and without interrupting urgency come back at 2 o’clock to give it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is not necessary. I can quickly consider the information put before me by members. Obviously the Chairperson is the sole judge of admissibility of an amendment. That is what Speakers’ ruling 78/1 makes very clear. In respect of a new part it must be considered in the context of the structure of the bill—that is as it is drafted and before the House. Part 1 deals with amendments to the principal Act the Employment Relations Act. It deals with matters contained in the proposed new Part 3. It is argued that the proposed new part should have been proposed as amendments to Part 1. As I understand it that is what the Chair of the Committee has ruled. I am somewhat persuaded by the argument put forward by the Hon John Carter that if we are to depart from that accepted understanding the risk is that members can continually relitigate issues by introducing what are essentially new parts as the Committee considers the debate part by part. There are a couple of problems with that because even if one argues that one is only constraining the measures contained in Part 1 that is still altering them as the Committee of the whole House has made its decisions on them. I rule in favour of the Chair’s decision that the proposed amendments are out of order. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Questions to Ministers 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order under Speakers’ rulings 143 144 and 145. The question lodged by the Hon Annette King was set down to the Prime Minister asking him a specific question about a quote from one of his Ministers in respect of a particular portfolio and seeking to explore with the Prime Minister whether the approach the Government was taking in one portfolio was true for the whole of the Government and whether this was a Government-wide policy. As the acting Leader of the Opposition she will want to ask the Prime Minister that question. The Government has chosen rather than have the Prime Minister answer the question to set it down to the Minister of Labour whose portfolio was given as a particular example for the quote for a whole-of-Government question. In doing so the Government’s transfer renders the question almost to the point of being meaningless because we already know that the Government has asserted that that is its approach in that particular portfolio. There is no point asking a Minister something about a portfolio that has already been stated. 
I draw your attention particularly to Speakers’ ruling 144/2 because the Opposition would assert that that is an abuse of the transfer of the question. Often there are very good reasons for Ministers to transfer a question to another Minister but this is clearly a question about a whole-of-Government responsibility for which only the Prime Minister can have knowledge as is set out in Speakers’ rulings 144/4 and 144/5 and which is within the purview of the Prime Minister. I ask you to consider that and if necessary I will seek leave for the question to be transferred back to the Prime Minister so that the question about whole of Government can be answered which the quote and the meaning of the text of the question clearly set out to do. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Well the Leader of the House might well—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I am hearing the member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Two or three times in the time that we have been in the House Speakers have taken it on themselves to insist that particular transfers not occur and Speakers’ ruling 144/2 has been referred to. Normally this is a matter that is dealt with earlier by your office and I understand there has been some discussion about it. But if one looks at the question one can see that it is impossible to find in it any ministerial responsibility for the Minister of Labour. Her case is the exception. Does it apply only to the labour portfolio? We know it applies to the labour portfolio; the question is about every other portfolio not about the labour portfolio. My request to you Mr Speaker is that you consider that and whether this Minister is capable of answering a question on behalf of the Minister of Transport the Minister of Broadcasting the Minister for Economic Development— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point sufficiently. I hear what members are saying. Certainly Speakers’ ruling 144/2 enables the Speaker to refuse the transfer of a question where there is basically no responsibility for the subject matter of the question. This particular question quotes as I understand it the Hon Tony Ryall when he was answering on behalf of the Minister of Labour. The question does not ask whether that statement applies to all other portfolios; it asks whether it applies only to the labour portfolio. The Hon Trevor Mallard’s last point of order is not actually correct because the question does not ask that; it asks whether it applies only to the labour portfolio. I expect Ministers to have some idea whether a particular statement applies only to their portfolio. They probably could not answer for all portfolios but the question did not ask that. Again it is a matter of the detail of questions and I have to rule as I see the questions actually asked. It may be that members wish to put down a question that does address particularly the point that the member was getting to in his point of order. The matter of who is responsible or who will answer the question is primarily a matter for the Government unless under Speakers’ ruling 144/2 there is absolutely no responsibility whatsoever. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you therefore ruling that if a question were to the Minister of Labour and asked whether x applied only to the labour portfolio or whether it applied to the broadcasting portfolio when it was already accepted that it applied to the labour one that would be an appropriate question to put down to the Minister of Labour? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The problem with the member’s question is that it does not ask that. The member’s question asks whether it applies only to the labour portfolio. I would expect Ministers under the collective responsibility of Cabinet to have some idea whether statements they are making apply only to their portfolio. Certainly they may not be able to answer across all portfolios but the question does not ask that. If members want to pursue that type of point of order a little more care needs to go into the wording of the question. I am aware that there was some exchange over the wording of this question and the reason why there was some exchange over this was that there was concern that the quote was taken out of context. That is an issue that has arisen before today and it is a serious issue. Members have the chance to get the wording consistent with the Standing Orders so that the quote was not taken out of context. This was the wording that I understand the member putting the question agreed to but unfortunately it does not ask about all portfolios; it just asks whether that statement applies only to the labour portfolio. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance and I think it will be your considered guidance on questions for written answer. This is an interesting point of order. These are in the name of Hilary Calvert—question Nos 35368 and 35366 to the Attorney-General and the questions ask whether it is the Government’s intention about something and the answer from the Attorney-General is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to take up the time of the House on questions for written answer. Members know that they are perfectly at liberty to write to the Speaker when they are concerned about questions for written answer. I give prompt attention to such communications from members and it is well known that I often write to Ministers explaining to them their responsibilities to answer those questions in accordance with the Standing Orders. There is a proper process for dealing with those matters and I do not believe it is appropriate to take up the time of the House on that. It would be more appropriate for the member to write to me on that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry to take your time on this. This is a very serious matter to the Opposition because the member who put the question down was very specific about putting it down to the Prime Minister. The quote as you rightly say was the subject of some discussion. It was the Minister Mr Ryall answering on behalf of the Minister of Labour; he referred to the labour portfolio and then the quote goes on. That quote was lifted out a reference was made to the labour portfolio in order to ensure that it was not taken out of context and then the Prime Minister was to be asked whether this applied just in this particular portfolio for which the Prime Minister has responsibility. I think the alternative example you have given us makes sense if this question had been set down to the Minister of Labour but we never set that down to the Minister of Labour; we set it down to the Prime Minister and one of the portfolios that the Prime Minister allocates is the labour portfolio which is why the question is worded in that way. I suspect if we worded it in the way you suggested Mr Speaker that would be right if it were set down to this Minister but I suspect if we had used the wording you suggest and continued to set it down to the Prime Minister the Government would have moved to transfer it in any case. So it is a very serious matter because it is a question that the deputy leader of the Labour Party wishes to put to the Prime Minister about the whole of Government in respect of the quote about the labour portfolio. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 This is a very interesting exchange but quite apart from the numerous Speakers’ rulings that relate to the ability of the Government to make a choice about who is best to answer a question there is also Speaker’s ruling 144/4 which states: “A member cannot insist on a particular Minister dealing with a question.” We could spend the rest of the afternoon going over this. You have ruled on it and I think appropriately. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will not hear further on this. I have heard quite sufficient on it. The Leader of the House makes the point that Speakers’ ruling 144/2 is not the only one on the matter. Speaker’s ruling 144/3 points out specifically—and this is a reasonably recent ruling by Speaker Hunt—that Speakers’ ruling 144/2 which the member specified in particular recognises a longstop protection against abuse in transferring a question where only one Minister could be expected to have personal knowledge of the subject. In this case the Minister whom the Government has set down to answer the question should have knowledge of the issue. It may not be the preferred answerer on behalf of the Opposition but it is the Government’s responsibility to determine who will answer questions and as the Leader of the House has pointed out even more recently Speaker Wilson has made it clear under Speaker’s ruling 144/4 that a member cannot insist on a particular Minister dealing with a question. Several recent rulings have made that clear. It is my judgment as Speaker that this is not an abuse. Because of the wording of the question it is reasonable to expect the Minister to have some knowledge of this issue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not question my ruling. I will listen to him. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not questioning your ruling for this case but I want you to consider the facts of this matter—that is a question to the Prime Minister was lodged and accepted by your office. The Prime Minister insisted on the word “labour” going in there and that was accepted by your office. It was the insertion of that word “labour” in there that meant that the Prime Minister could then give it to this Minister. Your office accepted it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. He should be careful about alleging facts that he does not have knowledge of. The Speaker was not prepared to accept the question in its original form because the Speaker considered the quote was out of context. The Speaker was not prepared to accept it and that is why it was changed. It was not because of anything to do with the Prime Minister. The member should be careful what he alleges. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have great respect for the work that you have done with question time but we do take this matter very seriously. The Opposition will be exercising its right under Speakers’ ruling 145/3 and the member will not be asking the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly acceptable. 
Question withdrawn. 
Economy—Sustainable Growth 
2. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How is the Government ensuring the economy recovers in a sustainable way that delivers more jobs and builds faster growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 We have put in place a comprehensive economic plan designed to guide the economy through a period of recession. Since 2009 we have now had five consecutive quarters of growth. We have focused on building faster and sustainable economic growth over the medium and long term—growth based on savings investment and exports rather than the unsustainable growth based on borrowing consumption and Government spending that were the features of previous years. 
Amy Adams 
: What are the main policy drivers of the Government’s economic plan? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yesterday I mentioned three of them in the House: strengthening the tax system investing in productive infrastructure and supporting business innovation and trade. There are three others that we are focusing on: lifting productivity and improving public services removing red tape and improving regulation and improving education and lifting skills. All of these things are helping to tilt the economy towards saving exports and productive investment and better equipping New Zealand business to make investment decisions and New Zealanders to take the jobs that will be provided in a growing economy. 
Amy Adams 
: Within this programme what steps has the Government taken to lift the performance of the public sector? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The public sector has needed a lot of effort to lift its performance after a number of years where it grew fast both in terms of funding and numbers. We have reviewed the performance of all major Government departments and agencies. We have capped the bureaucracy and we have moved nearly $4 billion of spending from back-office into front-line public services such as health education and law and order. I might say that the leadership of the Public Service is now looking ahead to how it will manage through very limited new funding and there will be significant change in the public sector over the next few years. 
Amy Adams 
: What steps has the Government taken to remove red tape as well as to improve education and lift skills? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have moved to simplify the Resource Management Act. We have simplified regulation in respect of water infrastructure and urban design. We are also progressing reforms in aquaculture the construction industry the food industry and the financial sector. In respect of education and skills we have introduced national standards in literacy and numeracy the Youth Guarantee and Trades in Schools and we have significantly improved the quality and relevance of tertiary qualifications—an area where the previous Government wasted hundreds of millions of dollars. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to correct what I said earlier when I indicated that the Prime Minister’s office had intervened. It intervened at 10.50; according to the Clerk’s Office your intervention was at 11.30. Both of you intervened. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not see how that is a point of order but I can assure the honourable member that when I saw the question if the quote had been included in the question correctly it would have been a much fuller quote than that and I am concerned about quotes taken out of context. Question No. 3 the Hon David Cunliffe. [ 
Interruption 
] No no. Let us just move on to question No. 3. It is time to settle down. 
GST—Papers Released by Savings Working Group 
3. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he seen the papers released by the Savings Working Group relating to GST; if so does he have any intention of increasing GST further? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I have seen the papers; and no. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How can New Zealanders trust his word when before the Tax Working Group report he had promised not to raise GST only to change his mind as soon as he got the report? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is misrepresenting that as we have discussed in this House many times. If the member really believed that the increase in GST was a bad idea he would be campaigning in Mana to cut GST and take back the income tax cuts. Neither the member nor his party have done that. Instead they are— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for Labour Party policy. Firstly a large chunk of his answer cannot be to accuse a member of misrepresenting something; secondly he cannot go on to tell the member what his party’s policy should be. Ministers are responsible in question time for the policies of the executive of the day not yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being considered and there will not be interjection on it. I have to confess to the honourable member that I was distracted at the time and did not hear the detail of the question asked. If there is concern about it I will let the member repeat his question and I will listen to it very carefully. If the question contains any political overtone the member can expect the kind of answer he received. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How can New Zealanders trust his word when before the Tax Working Group report he was promising not to raise GST only to change his mind as soon as he got the report? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think the House needs further answer. I blame myself for allowing that situation to develop but the Opposition should not have been surprised that a question that asked how the public could trust someone’s word got an answer that whacks the questioner around the ears a bit because it was a highly political question. I gave the member the chance to repeat his question and having listened to it very carefully I am not surprised by the answer. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is the Minister committed to no further increases to GST and is that commitment stronger than his promise in December 2008 not to raise GST which was subsequently broken? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Again the member continues to misrepresent the issue around GST; in respect of GST the Government is committed to not increasing it and the member—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the member has not campaigned on it in Mana; instead his leader has been following the Prime Minister around to try to get in his photos. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you will have noted this was the second reply to a supplementary question in which the Minister began his answer by accusing the questioner of misrepresentation. I would ask the Minister to clarify whether it was— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member will resume his seat. The member knows he cannot do that. If the member does not want the kind of answer he got he must be mindful about taking supposed quotations out of context. Ministers are perfectly at liberty to challenge the way—if the member had stopped his question halfway through it would have been a much more precise question but he included in it an issue that I think he should have known having heard plenty of answers on the issue the Minister would challenge the context of that part of the question. And the Minister did. I cannot as Speaker stop that. The solution lies in the member’s own hands. Keep the question brief without the political content and the member I can assure him will get answers. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What other papers has he seen from the Savings Working Group? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Savings Working Group is following the same practice as the Tax Working Group did—that is it is publishing its working papers as it goes. In fact there has not been a more transparent policy-making process carried out by a Government. To date the group has received and published a range of submissions and has published about a dozen background papers. I have to say I am impressed with the depth and breadth of its coverage of the complex issue of how to increase New Zealand’s savings and the considerable benefits that would arise from an increase in national savings. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Rephrasing the previous supplementary question did the Minister or his Government promise in December 2008 not to raise GST? Mr Speaker you will observe that I cannot make— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As has been discussed in the House before when the Prime Minister was asked whether he would raise GST in order to close the deficit he answered no and that is exactly what has happened. We have increased GST in the context of a tax package that has seen significant across-the-board income tax cuts $25 more per week for a family after the increase in GST and $15 more per week for individuals. The member has had the opportunity to raise this issue in the Mana by-election and has— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question asked was a fair question and the Minister answered it very well. It did not need that last bit. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Again—very straight and simple—is there currently a fiscal deficit; if so of what magnitude in the last financial year and has it increased or decreased as a result of Budget 2010? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The deficit in the last financial year would not have been impacted at all by Budget 2010. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although admittedly there were several sub-questions they were absolutely factual and straight. By your ruling the Minister at best has the option to choose one of the two questions and answer it but he actually answered none of them. For the sake of completeness the first one was— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will resume his seat. I will invite the member to repeat his question because it did not contain any political statements. I will invite him to repeat his question but he will not make that kind of comment. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Was there a fiscal deficit in the last financial year and of what magnitude; and would that deficit be increased or decreased as a result of Budget 2010? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There was a fiscal deficit in the 2009-10 year. I cannot give the member the exact figure. It has increased in this Budget because of falling revenue while the Government is maintaining and increasing expenditure on public services. We have a plan to reduce that deficit from next year through to 2016. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Having established that there was a fiscal deficit in the last financial year—although the Minister does not know the magnitude of it—which he has just admitted to the House is growing why should the public not therefore conclude that the Government broke its promise not to raise GST when there was a deficit? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is a somewhat confusing question but the answer is pretty straightforward. [ 
Interruption 
] The Government has put together a tax package designed to help rebalance this economy away from excessive consumption and housing speculation funded by debt. That tax package has included an increase in GST— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question quite clearly did not ask the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I have listened to the Minister very carefully; I believe he is actually trying to give the House an answer. The member asked a serious question; I think his colleagues should show the courtesy of listening to the Minister’s answer. The Minister I believe was giving a pretty good answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The GST increase is part of a package of tax reform that is pushing New Zealanders in the direction they are already going and that is to reduce excessive consumption and housing speculation funded by excessive debt. We have put up taxes on property and on consumption and reduced the tax on savings investment work and companies so that we can encourage investment savings and new jobs and exports. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I listened carefully to the Minister’s reply as I know you will have done. The question did not ask why the Government increased the deficit in the last Budget; the question asked why the public should conclude other than that the Government broke its promise when first as the Minister has told the House the Prime Minister said they would not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: —raise GST to fund the deficit and he has then told us that there was one and the Government has increased it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not know what to say to the honourable member. I am a bit long-sighted and I have trouble reading but I can see the honourable member pretty well and I am sure he could see that I was on my feet. He should have stopped. 
I would like him to reflect on his question. It was asking an opinion about something for which there is no precise answer. He should think about the question he put to the Minister which asked why the public should believe something. There is no precise answer to that question. The Minister did his best to give a serious answer around the issue of the deficit. That is not a bad attempt to at least address a question to which there is no precise answer. Members need to think a little more about the questions they ask. For some questions there is no precise answer and the best the Speaker can do therefore is make sure the Minister addresses it. I believe that the Minister did address it. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In fact I am speaking to the previous point of order. Although I totally accept your guidance Mr Speaker that questions should be straightforward and I think you would accept that I have done my best to do that the question was in fact axiomatic—if we replay a couple of supplementary questions—and therefore a matter of logic not a matter of opinion as you have suggested I say respectfully. The Minister said that the Government did not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: —break its promise not to raise GST because it was not on account of a deficit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not going to listen to more argument on this matter. Where a member asks how the public is going to believe something there is no precise answer to that question. The member should just think about that. I have dealt with the issue. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Why did the Government establish the Savings Working Group? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think it has been understood for some time that New Zealand saves insufficiently to fund our national investment needs. We have had balance of payment deficits each year since 1973 and that has resulted in high external liabilities—that is debt to the rest of the world—rising to almost 90 percent of GDP. A number of the solutions tried so far have had some impact over the years but not sufficient impact to resolve the issue. 
Television New Zealand Amendment Bill—Maori Representation in Broadcasting 
4. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: How will the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill provide appropriate assurance to ensure the participation of Maori and the presence of a significant Maori voice in its programmes and programme planning? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 The Television New Zealand Amendment Bill replaces the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter with a new set of statutory functions which state amongst other things that TVNZ must provide high-quality content that reflects Maori perspectives. I also note that out of the total public broadcasting budget of $231 million $81 million is reserved specifically for Maori broadcasting ensuring the participation of Maori and the presence of a significant Maori voice in programmes and programme planning in State-funded broadcasting. 
Rahui Katene 
: How does the Government plan to give effect to binding decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council in relation to the broadcasting of Maori language and content on mainstream television in prime time; and what feedback has he received from Maori about the risk of diluting the Maori content in TVNZ transmissions by his proposal to remove the charter and replace it with a very broad statement of function? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Answering the second part of the question first I have had one letter which was sent to the Minister of Maori Affairs and subsequently forwarded to my office. In regard to the first part the Government gives effect to those decisions through New Zealand on Air and Te Mangai Paho. Te Mangai Paho directly funds the Maori Television Service and also makes available contestable funding to other broadcasters including TVNZ. TVNZ will continue to be eligible to apply for this funding. One of New Zealand On Air’s statutory requirements is to promote Maori language and culture. 
Rahui Katene 
: In what ways will the Government measure the success of TVNZ as a public broadcaster in terms other than ratings and revenue and how will it measure non-commercial success? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: TVNZ is required to produce a statement of intent each year which outlines its plans for the forthcoming year. It then reports against these aims in its annual report. Shareholding Ministers also write to TVNZ at the start of each financial year outlining specific expectations of the company. Those expectations are discussed periodically throughout the year with TVNZ. 
Brendon Burns 
: Why did the Minister tell last Friday’s Screen Production and Development Association conference that his Television New Zealand Amendment Bill “leaves TVNZ free to determine its own priorities.” when in fact the bill tells TVNZ that its only task is to maximise revenues with no specific requirement for any New Zealand content be it for Maori audiences or anyone else? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: That is not correct. The charter has been replaced with a set of statutory functions which are laid out in the bill. 
Education National Standards—Report from Education Review Office 
5. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for the Education Review Office 
: What recent reports has she received from the Education Review Office regarding the implementation of national standards in schools? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister responsible for the Education Review Office) 
: 
 I am very pleased to say that the Education Review Office has just released a report that shows that 93 percent of schools are well prepared or have preparation under way to work with national standards. That number is up from 80 percent at the end of term 2. Schools that are considered to be well prepared make up 34 percent and 59 percent of schools have preparation under way. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How has this changed from the last Education Review Office report in August 2010? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This is the first year of a 3-year implementation programme. Schools have done a fantastic job this year. The number of schools that are well prepared has risen from 19 percent to 34 percent. The number of schools that are considered to be not yet prepared for national standards has dropped from 20 percent to 7 percent. That is really encouraging progress. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What common themes were noted by the Education Review Office in the well-prepared schools? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The Education Review Office noted that there were some common themes amongst those schools that are well prepared and these include strong professional leadership robust and purposeful self-review plans a school culture encouraging teachers to discuss student achievement data and good systems and processes. Children and their parents are already seeing the benefits of national standards and plain-language reporting. I acknowledge the professionalism and the dedication of principals and teachers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How can she be proud of a report that shows that 66 percent of schools are still not well prepared to implement the standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This is the first year of a 3-year implementation. As I have said schools have done a fantastic job. The fact that we are now looking at the majority of schools heading into the second year well prepared to work with national standards is something to be very pleased about. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In the report that she now has what proportion of schools have not yet considered how to moderate teacher judgments? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I do not have the report in front of me so I cannot give the exact number. As part of the 3-year implementation programme the moderation is actually a focus for the second year. The Education Review Office will be probing to ensure that the evidence that the schools are using to base that moderation on is valid. From memory about one-third of schools are well prepared with their moderation processes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How can she tell parents that the reports they are getting at the end of the year are national standards when two-thirds of schools are not well prepared to implement them and two-thirds of schools are not moderating? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Actually I am not giving those reports to parents; schools are. I know that many schools are saying to parents that this year is their first year as part of a 3-year implementation. I know they are talking this through in some detail with parents. I have to say that parents are absolutely loving it. 
Women’s Affairs Acting Minister—Priorities 
6. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: What are her priorities in the women’s affairs portfolio? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Acting Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 The priorities of the Government are set out in the Ministry of Women’s Affairs statement of intent 2010-13. Obviously they are my priorities as well. The three key priorities are first women participating in leadership; second reducing the impact of violence against women; and third all women being fully engaged in the economy. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does she stand by her statement of 14 August 2003 that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is a “historic sexist relic and should have been scrapped”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Ministers are not accountable as Minister for anything they might have said previously. That is a longstanding tradition. What I will do in fairness because I do not want to deprive the member of her supplementary question is to invite the member to reword the question. 
Sue Moroney 
: Thank you. Does she agree with National Party MP Georgina te Heuheu when she said on 14 August 2003 that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is a “historic sexist relic and should have been scrapped”? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: In all fairness Mr Speaker I do not remember saying that. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member was not being asked whether she Georgina te Heuheu could remember. She was being asked whether she as Minister agrees with what was being quoted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister I think is at liberty to question the alleged quote because with supplementary questions there is no validation process. Members are at liberty to ask about a supposed quotation but it is not unreasonable that a Minister might dispute it. This is not the last day of Parliament’s sitting; there are various opportunities to pursue things further. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would it assist the House if I tabled the document showing the quote that I just used? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking leave to table a document? 
Sue Moroney 
: Yes. I seek leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the document? 
Sue Moroney 
: The document is entitled “Sexist relic should be scrapped—” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not the document. I am asking what the document is. 
Sue Moroney 
: The document is an article from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 dated 14 August— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we are not going to table articles from the  
New Zealand Herald 
. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your ruling on the tabling of newspapers has been observed because your motivation for it was that they are freely available to members. In this case there are two points that might make you consider that differently. One is that the newspaper is from 2003 and even a disorganised member will have thrown out his or her newspapers from that year. The second is that the newspaper validates the quote my colleague is using in respect of the member who quite genuinely by the look of the Minister is perplexed about whether she said that. Tabling the article will be of assistance to this House in this particular case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a perfectly reasonable point of order. I accept that it is a reasonably old newspaper article but it does not assist this particular line of questioning because the Minister has had no opportunity to check whether what is alleged in that newspaper article is what the member might have said or anything like that. I believe the more reasonable approach is not to try to score points of order through tabling press statements. But there is another question time tomorrow and questions on the Order Paper can be validated. There are ways to pursue things that are much more reasonable and appropriate than trying to score points of order by way of tabling press articles. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does she think that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is a historic sexist relic and should be scrapped? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to be able to hear the Minister. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Wherever that quote comes from I say the ministry may have been a relic back then in 2003 when Labour was in Government but it is certainly not a relic now. It is an action-packed ministry. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Who will be the first Government member to leave the Chamber? Who will volunteer? It was obvious that I was on my feet while all that interjection was going on. Opinion questions are allowed. The question asked whether the Minister agreed with a statement. Under the circumstances I think I have been pretty fair in how I have handled this question but to answer the question like that is not reasonable. The question asked whether the Minister agreed with the statement. The Minister is perfectly at liberty to answer a little closer than that to the question that was asked. Under the circumstances because I think there was a lot of transgression there and the Government benches ignored the fact that I was on my feet I invite Sue Moroney to repeat her question. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does she— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With all due respect when the Minister answered that question she said that notwithstanding the statement and where it might have come from that could have been the case back then but is not now. That is not an unreasonable answer. It is actually an answer. There might have been some extraneous matter there that she will be pulled up on but essentially that question was answered. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I misheard I accept that I could be wrong. I accept that if that was the answer it was a fair answer. If the Minister is indicating to me that she gave that answer I accept that it is indeed an answer. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The extraneous matter that the Leader of the House referred to in his recounting to you of the Acting Minister’s answer was the insult to Labour which you ruled—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard and it is reasonable. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The quote has been contested and my colleague has modified the quote to make it more acceptable to the Minister. Rather than get up and giving us her opinion or saying yes she agreed or no she did not agree she used it as a launching pad to attack the Opposition. She did not make a defence or rejection of her comments—whatever it might be. I think that was the critical point that was not relayed to you by Mr Brownlee when he attempted to present the answer that Mrs te Heuheu had given. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s point of order and let me say that as Speaker I have not handled this well. Let me take the blame for that and let things lie there. I suspect the member has further supplementary questions should she wish to ask them and I will listen very carefully to questions and answers. I apologise to the House. I do not believe that I handled that situation as well as I should have and I apologise for that. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has she been told by the Prime Minister that she will retain the portfolio only until she succeeds in disbanding the ministry so that it will become the latest casualty in the Government’s Public Service cuts? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have a very unusual situation here. If I heard the question correctly the member asked whether the Minister agreed with the Prime Minister. 
Hon Members 
: “Has she been told …”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: “Has she been told by the Prime Minister …?”. There should not be outrageous allegations in a question; the Standing Orders are very clear on that. This is not very tidy. I ask the member to please rephrase the question without making an allegation in the question that has no substance to it. This is not just a matter of the Speakers’ rulings; this is a matter of the Standing Orders. If members are not clear on the Standing Orders they should refer to Standing Order 371 on page 113. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Obviously I would accept your ruling if this was an outrageous allegation. But this allegation—and I know that we have not tabled it but we have now had time to look at it—emanates from a point of view expressed by— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member is now debating the issue. I just ask the member to repeat the question in a less provocative way. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has she been advised that she will retain the portfolio only until she succeeds in disbanding the ministry so that it will become the latest casualty in the Government’s Public Service cuts? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: No. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Land Occupations 
7. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does he stand by his statements that Ngati Kahu protesters at Taipa Bay can “go to hell” and “I think they’re stupid” and can he assure New Zealanders that such protests are not a foretaste of things to come under his Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I did not make those comments as Attorney-General. They do not relate to my Attorney-General portfolio. They were made by me as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in the context of an issue related to Treaty settlements. As to the second part of the question I cannot see the connection between the bill and the protest. Just because a piece of land is in sight of the water that does not make it a part of the foreshore. The occupation of the land in question was an occupation of dry land. The bill relates to the area below mean high-water springs—that is the wet part of the beach not dry privately owned land. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have seen the Government shift questions around to the appropriate Minister. We submitted that question to the House. It was accepted for the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has refused to answer it saying that he never made those statements as Attorney-General and therefore he has not answered the question. The question was accepted as legitimate so it must have been authenticated. Indeed if the Attorney-General did not want to answer the question as Attorney-General he could have sent it to himself as Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I have heard the member at reasonable length on the issue. The Minister was purely pointing out that he made those statements as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He did not deny making the statements. But the substance of his answer was that the issue of the occupation this question seems to relate to is not a matter to do with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—they are not occupying the foreshore or seabed. I think the Minister’s answer was perfectly reasonable. The member asked whether he can assure New Zealanders that such protests are not a foretaste; the Attorney-General argued that this protest does not relate to that legislation in his view because it is not foreshore and seabed that they are occupying. That is what I heard him say. I cannot judge the quality of the Minister’s answer; I believe that he made a perfectly reasonable attempt to answer that question. I think it is unreasonable to expect me as Speaker to adjudicate on the quality of the answer. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The primary question asked whether he stood by his statements. The Attorney-General never addressed that. He said that he made those statements as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations so he has not addressed that question. I accept your point that you cannot force him to answer it but we lodged that question it was authenticated— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member is forgive me being a bit pernickety over it. The Minister has not denied making those statements; he was just helpful to the House in pointing out that he made them in his capacity as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I did not see any resiling from them whatsoever. I presume he still stands by them as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He was merely pointing out that he did not make them as the Attorney-General. It is perfectly reasonable to explain to the House the basis of the statements. He went on to answer the second part of the question in what I believe was a perfectly reasonable answer. I am afraid that I have judged that and there is nothing further I can do about that. The member has a further supplementary question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Will he assure all Kiwi mums and dads and their children that for as long as he is Attorney-General they will continue to enjoy their traditional access to New Zealand’s beaches and coast to swim surf picnic and fish as they have done in years past? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes and also to make sandcastles. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Will he then immediately resign if Maori groups on gaining customary title block Kiwis from their traditional use of the foreshore or seabed; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No; it will not be necessary because that sort of thing will not happen. In all the discussions I have had with iwi and hapu groups that has not been an issue notwithstanding the scaremongering of groups such as the Coastal Coalition.  
Treaty of Waitangi Settlements Muriwhenua—Taipa Point Land Occupation 
8. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Have recent events at Taipa had an impact on the progress of the Muriwhenua Treaty of Waitangi land claims settlements? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 No and I certainly hope that they will not have any impact. As the member knows the iwi of the Muriwhenua have been seeking settlements for some time. Huge issues need to be dealt with. An agreement in principle was signed at Ahipara on 15 January and great progress has been made towards a deed of settlement with those iwi. I certainly hope that the unfortunate events of recent days will not get in the way of just and durable settlements for those people up there. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Is there a precedent for local government and the Crown collaborating to effect the return of reserve lands to tangata whenua and is he willing to explore such an option as it pertains to the Taipa reserve lands? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There are precedents for that kind of innovation. There is no reason why people cannot approach the Crown on those issues but there are ways of doing things and ways of not doing things. Illegal occupation of that land is not an appropriate way of dealing with matters. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What does the Minister say to the far north community that has watched the abandonment of the local sailing club regatta and the cancellation of annual fishing competitions because of fear associated with this land occupation connected with obviously troubled Treaty negotiations? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: In answer to the last point I say that the negotiations are not troubled; very good progress has been made. I say to those people that they have every right to be upset and disappointed. The selfish actions of a few have harmed the legitimate activities of the entire community and those groups have every right to feel frustrated and disappointed. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: When he told the Taipa protesters who are nephews to Hone Harawira to go to hell what directions did he have in mind and whom did he think they might meet there? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well Trevor Mallard is not dead yet. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Based on that answer are we now to consider this Minister to be the “Black Prince” amongst Maori Treaty negotiations? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I certainly hope not. The phrase is a figurative phrase. It expressed my frustration that after all the good work that had been done by the negotiators of Ngai Takoto Ngati Kuri Te Rarawa and Te Aupouri we have had what Harold Macmillan would have called a little local difficulty which is getting in the way of deeds of settlement being signed so that just and durable settlements can finally be entered into—a hope of the late Mat Rata from over 20 years ago. 
Roading Auckland—Puhoi to Wellsford Route 
9. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has been made on the Puhoi to Wellsford road of national significance? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Today the New Zealand Transport Agency announced the next stage of route development for the road of national significance between Puhoi and Wellsford. The first stage will take traffic from the top of the new Northern Gateway Toll Road—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. The Speaker is terribly concerned that he cannot hear the answer and the Speaker is very interested in hearing the answer. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I appreciate that this matter may be of interest to the Speaker. The first stage will take traffic from the top of the new Northern Gateway Toll Road to Warkworth and will eventually stretch all the way to Wellsford. Very little design work had been done on this project prior to the start of last year so the progress so far has been commendable. 
David Bennett 
: What economic benefits will the road bring to Northland and Auckland? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Once finished the new road will improve economic growth in Northland Rodney and Auckland. By improving the movement of freight and people between our largest city and the districts to the north of it—the key growth areas in Rodney for example—economic linkages become more efficient reliable and secure. I know that not all members in the House agree with me but the residents of Northland have just as much right to benefit economically from improved transport linkages as central Aucklanders. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Has the Minister given serious consideration to the Operation Lifesaver proposal of the Campaign for Better Transport which offers two safety options for Dome Valley and Schedewys Hill that could be delivered in a faster time frame and at a much cheaper cost; if so what is his view on those proposals? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have two views. Firstly I have seen some of the numbers and the numbers I have seen so far seem incorrect and out of date. The second issue is that the volumes specification of the existing road is nowhere near the capacity required for that highway which carries something like 24000 people per day plus very very significant freight. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: On holidays. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No that is every day. I think you are being a bit condescending to the people of Northland and northern Auckland. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is outrageous on a pork-barrel project like this that you be accused of being condescending as the Minister of Transport has just done. He is an expert on that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take all this in the humour in which I think it is intended. 
David Bennett 
: What other progress has been made on roads of national significance in Auckland? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yesterday the New Zealand Transport Agency announced a short list of two consortia for the construction of the Waterview Connection which is a key part of the western ring route road of national significance. Both short-listed parties have plans to deliver a fully operational road on time which means that after decades of debate and congestion Aucklanders and the economy will finally feel the benefits of a motorway network that should have been completed decades ago. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does this project still have a benefit-cost ratio of less than one? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not sure which project the member refers to but I can— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am referring to the project in the primary question which is the Puhoi to Wellsford road of national significance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that. The question refers to the primary question. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No the Puhoi to Wellsford national road—or road of national significance— 
Hon Annette King 
: Yes the “National road”—that’s it. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: That road of national significance has a benefit-cost ratio of greater than one with wider economic benefits included. 
Income Gap Parity with Australia—Proposed Changes to Holidays Act 2003 
10. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Are the proposed changes to the Holidays Act 2003 being progressed under urgency this week part of the Government’s plans to close the wage gap with Australia and reduce the number of Kiwi workers moving to Australia? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Part of the Government’s plan to grow the economy is to reduce red tape and increase choices and opportunities. The Holidays Amendment Bill is part of that plan. 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked was on notice. It was a pretty straightforward question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was on notice. Although it was a question that sought an opinion it asked: “Are the proposed changes to the Holidays Act 2003 being progressed under urgency this week part of the Government’s plans to close the wage gap with Australia and reduce the number of Kiwi workers moving to Australia?”. I think I heard the Minister answer that they were part of the Government’s plans for economic growth but the question did not actually ask that. Maybe the Minister could give an answer with a greater relation to the primary question. I accept that there is no precise answer to it but I would ask the Minister to relate her answer a little more to the primary question. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Obviously part of our plan is to grow the economy so that we do not lose so many workers to Australia. We do have some workers coming back from Australia and we want to have economic conditions here that are conducive to that and a Government that actually likes workers. 
Darien Fenton 
: How is allowing the fourth week of annual leave to be traded for cash part of the Government’s plan given that it will see Australian workers enjoying more holidays than us and it still will not bring the earnings of Kiwi workers whose average wage is just 60 percent of the Australian average wage anywhere near the earnings of their Australian counterparts? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I think the member misunderstands the popular policy of workers having the ability to ask to transfer that fourth week for cash which even her own leader thinks is quite a good idea. But it is voluntary; the employee does not have to ask for it. It is part of the increased choices and opportunities for workers in New Zealand. 
Darien Fenton 
: Was the Prime Minister correct when he said: “We also have more public holidays than Australia.” or is it the truth that with a maximum of 11 public holidays legislated for and as few as nine public holidays in 2010 and 2011 New Zealand actually has fewer public holidays than every state in Australia and that her proposal to give employers the ability to decide when alternative days for public holidays must be taken by employees will only put Kiwi workers’ holiday entitlements even further behind Australia’s? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I always agree with the Prime Minister. 
Darien Fenton 
: Not good enough not good enough. All right. Well he is wrong. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should just ask her question. She asked whether the Minister agreed with the Prime Minister and the Minister said she did so the member will now ask the next supplementary question. 
Darien Fenton 
: If the Government is serious about wanting to stop Kiwi workers from moving to Australia for better wages and conditions will she consider compensating workers for the public holidays they will miss out on next year when Easter Monday and Anzac Day coincide as all Australian states have agreed to do; if not why not? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I understand that next year is particularly challenging in the sense that Easter Monday is also Anzac Day so two public holidays fall on 1 day. It is not part of our consideration to Mondayise Anzac Day because Anzac Day is a really special day in New Zealand’s history not just a public holiday and I think it should be revered. 
Darien Fenton 
: To the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear Darien Fenton please. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she agree with John Key’s statement: “Long hours at work both parents in employment childcare shortages growing interest rates and rising bills can create a far from ideal environment for good parenting and healthy family relationships.”; if so why is her Government advocating for longer hours at work by allowing the cashing in of annual leave by forcing both parents into work through its Future Focus reforms and by causing rising bills through its increase in GST? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The member is under a misapprehension. We are not advocating longer hours of work; in fact what we are doing is giving more choice to workers. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will requiring a medical certificate for 1 day’s illness under her Holidays Amendment Bill make any difference to the cost to New Zealand of ill health which is estimated by Treasury to be at least $5 billion a year with the biggest cost coming from those who drag themselves off to work in spite of sickness; and how will her changes improve productivity and help close the gap with Australia? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I understand that the Treasury report that the member is referring to does not actually investigate whether people take sickies so it does not have any implications for the proposed changes to the holidays legislation. The changes regarding proof of sickness are very minor and very sensible. Most employees will experience no change from the current regime. But unjustified sickies clearly reduce productivity and put pressure on the other members of staff who do turn up to work. 
Youth Opportunities Programme—Job Ops and Community Max 
11. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What progress has been made on the Government’s Youth Opportunities programme? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Government’s Youth Opportunities programme has been a huge success. Over 12500 young people have been on a Job Ops or Community Max placement thanks to the many businesses and community groups that have given those young people employment opportunities. 
Hekia Parata 
: How many young people who have been on Job Ops or Community Max have not gone on to a benefit? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: We are continuing to see positive results as those young people finish their placements. Of those who have completed their Job Ops placement 91 percent have not gone on to a benefit. For Community Max over 70 percent have not gone on to a benefit. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: How many young people have remained in employment for longer than the Government-subsidised 6 months through its Youth Opportunities package and is that sufficient for this policy to be labelled a key part of the Government’s package to tackle unemployment in the recession? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The figures I have relate to those who have not gone on to benefits and I have already given them: 91 percent of Job Ops placements have not gone on to a benefit and 70 percent of Community Max participants have not gone on to a benefit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask members to be a little more reasonable with the level of interjection; I am struggling to hear. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. It related to the number of young people who as part of the Job Ops package have remained in employment longer than the Government-subsidised 6 months. It was a very specific question and did not relate to benefit numbers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I presume from the Minister’s answer that she did not have that particular information on her and gave the best proxy she could to indicate the level of success. Presumably people who have stayed in employment have not gone on to the unemployment benefit. Given the circumstances of the primary question I think one could not necessarily expect the Minister to have that particular information. I think she gave the best proxy she could for it. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does the Minister accept the New Zealand Institute’s findings that the impact of the Youth Opportunities package has affected at most 12 percent of the young unemployed; if not what approximate percentage has it assisted? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well actually it has assisted 12500 young people and I would have thought that was a very very good result. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question related specifically to the percentage of young people who have been assisted by this package in relation to the total number of 64000 young unemployed. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The member actually asked did I agree with the institute—no. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think what the member has experienced with that exchange is that if there are two parts to a question the Minister is at liberty to answer one of them. If members want absolutely precise answers the question needs to be first very closely related to the primary question and then a very short question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That would have been fine if the Hon Judith Collins had given the answer to one of the parts of the question that she gave in replying to the point of order. She did not do that when she was answering the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member doing anything other than disputing my ruling? I do not think that is particularly helpful. I think the Minister’s answer to the question was reasonable. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What percentage of the total young unemployed has the Government’s Youth Opportunities package assisted? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well it is about 12500 people. As to those who are unemployed the member should consider that the figure according to the household labour force survey is significantly different from the number of people on the unemployment benefit because as that member should know the household labour force survey asks anybody and counts as unemployed anyone who says they are available for 1 hour’s work a week. That is hardly in most people’s calculations considered to be wanting a job. 
Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—Rejection of Proposal 
12. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Why did she decline the proposed Dan Rogers Marine Reserve in Akaroa Harbour on the grounds that it would adversely affect recreational fishing? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am required by law to uphold an objection if I consider that establishing a marine reserve would unduly interfere or adversely affect existing recreational purposes or is contrary to the public interest. I considered that it did and the decision was made public in August. Further to that I feel I should alert the member that I have been informed through the media that Brian and Kathleen Reid who disagree with this decision intend to challenge it through a judicial review. I therefore do not consider it prudent to comment any further on the matter. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 112(1)(b) whereby a judicial order prohibition on the Minister answering the question comes into effect “from the time when proceedings have been initiated by the filing of the appropriate document in the registry or office of the court.” not by virtue of seeing it in the media. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a valid point in terms of the prohibition of reference to matters awaiting judicial decision. The member is at liberty to ask his questions but the Minister may well invoke the issue of public interest in the way she answers them. I have not ruled out the member asking any further supplementary questions but I think we have to accept that the Minister may invoke the public interest issue in the way she answers them. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Why does she think a marine reserve would be bad for recreational fishing when according to the Department of Conservation fish size in the area are so depleted it is hard to catch a legally sized blue cod which is the fishers’ main target in the Akaroa area? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am aware of all of the advice and I refer the member to my previous answer. It would be irresponsible for me to comment publicly about an issue when I have been informed that it is intended—and indeed the proceedings may have been filed—to be heard in court. 
Gareth Hughes 
: In general what would the benefits be to recreational fishers in the remaining 88 percent of the Akaroa Harbour if the Dan Rogers Marine Reserve had proceeded? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: That is a bit of a hypothetical question and again it would be irresponsible of me to comment when it may prejudice or jeopardise judicial review proceedings. 
Gareth Hughes 
: What proportion of New Zealand’s waters are protected today given our commitment to have 10 percent of our waters in a marine protected area by 2010? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: It is 7.1 percent. 
Gareth Hughes 
: It was a specific question. The question was not in regard to the territorial sea which is what the Minister has answered it was in regard to New Zealand waters which are the exclusive economic zone and the territorial sea. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has a further supplementary question if he feels the answer was not adequate. The Minister gave an answer—there is no question about that. If it is not the answer the member was seeking he does have further supplementary questions. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Given that only 0.77 percent of our marine area is currently protected what are New Zealand’s chances of reaching the 10 percent target in the next 3 months given that her Government has a moratorium on marine reserves in the exclusive economic zone has instructed the Department of Conservation to not apply for the marine reserves and has declined the Akaroa marine reserve application? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The member is making some accusations and allegations that are just plainly incorrect. The Government is committed to progressing the amount of our marine environment that is protected. Currently there are two proposals to be considered by me and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. They feature significant areas on the West Coast and in the Subantarctic Islands. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Will her decision to uphold the absolute right of recreational fishers potentially create a precedent and a disincentive to any future marine reserve applications? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Marine reserve applications are and will be considered on a case by case basis. 
Gareth Hughes 
: If the local runanga in Akaroa had supported the marine reserve would she have approved it? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: That is a hypothetical question. The runanga as the member well knows did not support the proposal; the Reids did. I heard both parties and I came to a decision using the legislative process under the Act. 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt an amendment not proposed in the correct place. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there will need to be a ruling made here that does not see any gap in procedural matters in our Standing Orders in fact unduly impede the progress of the bill. The Committee has clearly made a determination by way of a majority on how it should proceed. If this motion is debated now and it is a long debate at that point a decision will be made by the Committee that it has already made. The absurdity here is that the Standing Orders and the procedures of the House make it clear that new parts that bring in matters that have previously been dealt with cannot stand but we can then have a debate about whether the House can instruct itself to either accept or not accept those parts. That seems to me to be a complete mockery of the way in which the procedure of the House should progress. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I can accept that the Leader of the House has identified a problem but the ability of the House to instruct the Committee is one that has been used on a number of occasions. It is a way of bringing things into scope that would otherwise be out of scope. The Speaker has ruled without undue protest from this side of the House that these amendments are out of scope for the Committee. The remedy that members have is a motion. The Leader of the House and the other National members have the ability to vote against the motion if they so wish and it is their right to do so but it is also the right of members to move such motions. It has happened at least two or three times in this Parliament while the House was considering a matter and before it was referred to the Committee. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Another opportunity for members is to seek leave of the Committee to see those parts brought into the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I think we are seeing a situation where the Committee has said no it does not accept those amendments as being within its scope and it is not going to have them progress because it has dealt with those matters before but now the House is being asked to debate whether it should give the Committee a further opportunity to do exactly the same thing. If the Standing Orders allow this sort of thing to happen then we have a perpetual loop if you like that could go on and on. I would assert that once this instruction has been given to the Committee there will be another one and another one. That does not make for good order in the House at all. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I have a very narrow point in respect of the Leader of the House’s contribution in which he said the Committee had already resolved that this matter was beyond the scope of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I say no that was not what happened; it was that the Speaker had determined that the Committee could not consider it which is a different matter from whether this motion should succeed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a serious issue; I fully accept that. Members are right to share their thoughts on it with the Speaker. I do not believe the Speaker has to automatically accept this motion because the Speaker must not allow the House to go down a path that is not consistent with the Standing Orders. The particular issue as I understand it is that the member is trying here to enable the House to instruct itself that the Committee go back and reconsider something that the Committee has already decided on. The Committee has dealt with Part 1 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I was recalled to the Chamber and I have already ruled as Speaker that the member’s amendments were properly dealt with as part of Part 1 and therefore could not be dealt with by way of separate parts. That is the issue. The Committee of the whole House has already moved past the time when those amendments could be made at the Committee stage. 
It would seem to me that if there is an issue here the more appropriate way would be to look at it by recommittal at the third reading for example; then the House could consider the matter in a more consistent way as part of the third reading. It does not seem to me to be appropriate given that the Committee of the whole House has passed this point of the bill to allow a debate on that matter because I would be allowing something that the Speaker has already ruled against. That does not seem to me to be appropriate. It is my ruling that the motion is out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Clearly it is in the nicest possible way challenging the ruling you have made. It is my understanding that in these matters the House is the master of its own destiny and that the House can and often does—just about always on the motion of a Minister—make decisions for the Committee to consider a matter that it could not otherwise consider. You have ruled—and I am not saying improperly—that the Chairperson was right when he ruled this out. I just put in brackets that there is a matter of timing that you have not dealt with in your ruling as to whether once a debate has started there can be a retrospective ruling out. I put that to one side. 
The point is that the House has always been the master of its own procedures. Ministers have always had the ability to move that matters that are well outside the purview of a Committee be considered. It happens on regular occasions and I think we will see it happening later in the day from a Minister. The fact that it is not currently within the scope of the bill as a result of reason a rather than reason b is not I think a valid reason for you to rule out a motion. In my opinion it is the role of the House. 
The Leader of the House has brought up the question of a perpetual loop. That cannot be right because once a matter has been dealt with by the House it cannot be dealt with again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we have got ourselves into a little difficulty here. The member should recollect that the Speaker was recalled to rule on this matter. My ruling did not relate to scope; it related to the fact that the Committee had dealt with Part 1 and the issues and amendments related to Part 1. The Committee had the power to consider the matter at the appropriate time. The advice I have received is that an instruction must be moved immediately after the order of the day is called. That is not exactly the right time but I do not want to be too pedantic. 
The Committee had already voted on Part 1. The member quite properly raised his concern about the Chairperson ruling his amendments out. The Speaker was recalled and dealt as Speaker not on the issue of scope but on the issue that the Committee had dealt with Part 1. I believe that that has dealt with that matter. 
In respect of the point which the member quite rightly raises that I did not deal with the fact that he had already made a contribution it is my view that the member is not harmed by that because at least the member has on the record the points he wanted to make. Even though as Speaker I supported the Chairperson when he ruled out the member’s amendments the member has not been totally disadvantaged because he managed to get his points across in that he got a speech in before the Chairperson ruled the matter out so I do not see that as being much of a disadvantage. Had the Chairperson ruled it out immediately the member would not have been able to make his points. So I do not see that as disadvantaging the member hugely. It is my view that this motion is not appropriate right now and I cannot accept the motion. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Schedule 1 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We had a member on her feet trying to take a call before the vote was put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I understand that the debate on Part 2 included clauses 39 and 40 and schedules 1 and 2. They are not separate debates. Therefore we will now have the vote on each provision. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think we have a bugger’s muddle here. We went on to a debate on Part 3. How could we possibly be in this situation? I think we might have to be in a recommittal phase fairly soon if we have not worked our way through this one properly. How could we possibly have started a debate on Part 3 without finishing? We cannot then go back. I accept we had closures. It might have been that you have missed the vote but if the votes have been missed and we are going to go back and reopen issues including schedule 2—and I accept that there has been some debate on schedule 2—and if votes were not taken in error then I think we are in a position where we have to recommit that question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank the member. I will just take some advice from the Clerk. I say to the member that my advice is that the Part 3 debate the member refers to was ruled out of order. There is no Part 3 in the bill. My advice from the Clerk is that we started having votes on Part 2. The vote on the substance of Part 2 has ended and we are now having the votes on the schedules attached to Part 2. Once that is completed we will then go on to the next part and the next question before the Committee will be clauses 1 to 3. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the problem that we have is that there has been a clear error here because a debate was accepted on new Part 3. That has been well-established here and in the House. It was wrongly accepted I think both sides now accept. But what happened was that some votes were not taken. New Part 3 was called by the Chair and you are absolutely right as to the sequence. But the question is whether a closure can apply over a period when another debate has been called. I do not want to be too critical of the Chair at the time and it was now quite a few hours ago but it is my very firm view that a closure does not apply if there has been an interruption and we have moved to a subsequent debate. 
Therefore although it is a relatively narrow debate and I discovered it was narrow because I started debating it myself earlier on quite incorrectly as Mr Woodhouse pointed out we have to find a way of sorting this out. But the closure cannot just apply 6 hours after it actually occurred. If the closure was to occur properly then the Speaker would have put us back into Committee notwithstanding the fact that we had reached 1 o’clock and we would have had the vote. If the closure applied then we just keep on having the votes and have our lunchtime at the end of those votes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have heard enough. I have had several pieces of advice. The member’s referring to Part 3 is irrelevant. Part 3 is ruled out of order. It is as though it never existed. It has gone. It is not a matter before this Committee. The second point is that my advice from the Clerk is that there was no closure motion. The closure motion does not apply. The issue the member is raising about a closure is a complete red herring. It is irrelevant. It is here to confuse and cause distraction. There is no closure; we are not dealing with that. 
Let us come back to the fact. The fact is that a vote was started. It was incomplete at the time the Committee rose for luncheon. There is no problem with that. Votes were before the Committee before it rose for lunch and now the Committee has resumed and we are completing the votes. We are completing the votes on the schedules. There is no debate on the schedules. They are included in the original motion. The confusion of members is entirely of their own making. Without further ado I am now going to put the vote on schedule 2 and once that is completed I will then call for clauses 1 to 3. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Thank you for the call on this particular matter and I must say that it is good to see the Minister in charge of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Kate Wilkinson in the Chamber. It is good to see her here preparing to defend for the first time in the Committee stage what is an outrageous piece of legislation that is being pushed through under urgency and that had a shortened select committee process which was very very badly run. 
There are two elements to this bill and together they make April Fool’s Day the implementation date for all but section 10 an appropriate date for the bill to be enacted. Legislation is coming into force on April Fool’s Day from a Government that has worked really hard to fool the public of New Zealand. This is the nasty vindictive part of National coming out. It is the part that hates wage and salary earners and hates people who earn low incomes and that is determined to drive their conditions down to stop their representatives from meeting them and to ensure they have no job security. This is the sort of legislation that National Party people go to their branch meetings for. This is the sort of horrible stuff that the people who really like ACT—the far right of National—are promoting. I say that it is the ugly side of National— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: It’s the only side. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I disagree with my colleague. She said it is the only side. I think that over the years there have been some more reasonable more centrist approaches to legislation. I know that Jim Bolger as Minister of Labour would never bring legislation into force on April Fool’s Day. We used to disagree with him quite a lot but I do not think he was seen as the devil incarnate in the way that this Minister is in the way that she acts. 
Clause 1 states that the title of the Act is the Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) and I wonder whether that is an appropriate title or whether there could be some other titles. It could be the “Stop the Sexually Harassed Worker Getting Her Representative into the Workplace Act” or the “Fire the Low-income Worker (Without Giving Reasons) Act”. Would they be more appropriate titles for the bill? This legislation is designed to drive down the working conditions of ordinary Kiwis. I am certain there is a better and more appropriate title for this legislation than the one that currently exists. 
Clause 2 provides a commencement date of 1 July 2011 for part of this bill and the rest will come into force on 1 April 2011. Clause 3 states the bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000. The one bit I cannot disagree with is clause 3. I do not disagree with the fact that the bill does amend the Employment Relations Act. I will not vote for it because I do not think the bill should be amended in this way but it is factually accurate and probably appropriate given the content of the bill. Although the content is inappropriate it does go to the Employment Relations Act 2000. 
Mr Chair I am sure that over a period of time we will have a number of amendments come to you on this particular issue and some of them will go I hope to the title. I am sure some of my colleagues have views on alternative commencement dates and they might currently be having amendments drafted in order to defer the implementation so that whether or not union officials should have access to workplaces when people are being sexually harassed is deferred until after the next general election in order to have an approach that is fair. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to see the Minister in the chair the Minister of Labour this afternoon and I am delighted—a little bit—to take a call on clauses 1 to 3 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). As my colleague Trevor Mallard has outlined there are only three little parts to this bill. I will concentrate on clause 3 “Principal Act amended”. I have to agree with Mr Mallard that that clause tells the truth. It is very sinister though. It has half a dozen words: “This Act amends the Employment Relations Act 2000.” They are words that I hoped as a member of Parliament I would never ever hear from a National Government because they are filled with foreboding—they amend the Employment Relations Act 2000. This amendment bill is beyond our worst nightmares. I want to take the opportunity to talk about what amending the principal Act will mean for people who are already operating under the Minister’s previous amendment to the Employment Relations Act 2000—that is those who are in workplaces with fewer than 20 staff. I want to talk about what it will mean for every worker in the country who will be affected by this bill. 
In talking about amending the Act I will put on record some stories that have come through and there are many. I will not talk about the sauce and aioli story; I will talk about the stationery store worker who was fired on the 85th day of her 90-day trial period. She only worked Saturdays. She was never told there was any dissatisfaction. 
There was the case of an experienced hairdresser who had never been dismissed before over many years of working for several employers. 
There was the case of a recent university graduate employed by an accounting firm. Near the end of his 90-day trial period the employer said that he had done well and would be offered a new agreement. But when he received a new agreement he saw that it was unlawful. It contained the 90-day trial period provision which he pointed out was unlawful and the boss told him not to come in on Monday. 
There was the case of the farm worker who during his first week on the farm picked up an infection related to his job. He was in hospital for a week then returned to the farm and was sacked under the 90-day trial period provision. Amending the principal Act will produce that consequence for thousands and thousands of workers—400000 workers who change their jobs every year will risk this sort of treatment. 
Another young woman told me that she started work in a heating firm and despite bringing in sales she was sacked after just 8 days with no reason given. She wrote to the company to ask for a reason but she has never received a reply because under this Act the company does not have to give an answer. 
One woman moved from the North Island to the South Island to be close to her elderly parents and took up a job with a local firm. She had positive feedback on her performance and even suggested some training on her own behalf in order to further improve. She was dismissed with no reason given. With an unsold home in the North Island she is now living in a caravan. Those cases are the consequences of clause 3 and the amendments in Part 1. 
One woman who had a hearing impairment was employed by a call centre. The employer knew about her impairment when he took the woman on. She required some special equipment but instead of providing it the employer changed his mind and simply fired her under the 90-day trial period provisions. He told her not to come in on Monday. 
A worker in a communications company turned up for work to find the office being renovated. Unable to find alternative facilities the company simply fired that worker. The company said that it did not have to give any reason and that it could fire her under the 90-day trial period provisions. 
Members will be familiar with the Act but we are now talking about what this amendment bill will mean. It will have consequences for thousands and thousands of workers. 
Another example was of an early childhood teacher with 11 years of teaching and nannying experience who took a job at an early childhood education centre over another offer. Six weeks into her new job she was told there was a complaint against her and she was fired the next day. No previous concerns had been raised about her performance and she was given no chance to read the complaint or respond to it. She was an early childhood education teacher. I thought we were short of them. Mind you there will be surplus will there not? There will be no positions. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: There will be no positions for them. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right because the Government is cutting back on early childhood education. Despite all of the investment we have put into that person and her training to make sure that she is able to provide a proper education to our children she has gone. She will find it really hard to get another job and she is devastated by that. The consequences of this amendment are severe. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the title and commencement date clauses of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I think the commencement date should be changed. Instead of being 1 April 2011 it should probably be 1 April 1911. I do not know whether we can have retrospective dates like that but it is appropriate to that period in our history when our employment legislation was very weak and employees were at a serious disadvantage. This bill would fit in that period more. 
In terms of the title rather than the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) it might be better to call it the “Employees’ Submission Amendment Bill” because that is what the bill is about the submission of employees in the workplace particularly to their employers. I think clause 3 “Principal Act amended” rather than amending the Employment Relations Act 2000 might be better to amend the Corrections Act. This bill is in some ways imprisoning workers or at least taking away the freedoms of workers in the workplace. It is relevant to the Corrections Act because under that Act I think there is now an allowance for home detention. This bill does not have home detention; it is sort of work detention. So that clause relates perhaps more to the Corrections Act than the Employment Relations Act which as has been pointed out was passed in 2000 to improve relations between employers and employees to create a fairer relationship and to allow for fair bargaining between the two parties. 
The Green Party was supportive both of Trevor Mallard’s amendments to Part 1 and of the prospective Parts 3 and 4. I think that if the Government was serious it would have accepted amendments that allowed for the union to be given access to workplaces as normal without all this hold-up where urgent matters are concerned. Certainly health and safety and sexual harassment are urgent matters and if someone is dismissed the union cannot wait for a few days before it comes in to defend them work out whether they should be in the job negotiate redundancy payments and all the rest of the issues. These are matters that require the urgent attention of union officials and I think it is a pity that those amendments to Part 1 were not passed. 
In the prospective amendments there is the secret ballot issue too. There is a funny contradiction in the legislation before the House at the present time. On the one hand there is this requirement in Tau Henare’s bill which the Green Party opposed to provide a secret ballot before any action is taken by unions but on the other hand in this different bill—the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)—the unions cannot even get access to hold their secret ballot or the employer can stop them and put barriers in their way. The two measures are in contradiction. 
The other amendment that was put forward by Trevor Mallard met with the approval of the Green Party too which was that the primary remedy of reinstatement should particularly apply to those who are involved in union bargaining and health and safety issues etc. Otherwise an employer could kick an on-the-job union representative down the road and that has happened many times in New Zealand’s employment history. I think there was opposition to that interpretation by the National Government. If the National Government does not think there will be a picking off of union officials etc. by disallowing reinstatement as the primary remedy then it should have supported that amendment. The other points raised in the debate have been very relevant too particularly the one relating to access to welfare benefits if someone is dismissed under the 90-day provision. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 Let us be very very clear. We are debating the differing philosophies of the National Party and the Labour Party. That is fundamentally what this debate is all about. Perhaps the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) should be called the “Tory View on Employment Relations Bill”. When I talk about the different philosophies I mean that the party opposite is for the few; this party represents the many. That party stands up for the enfranchised; this party stands for those who are disenfranchised and often have no voice. 
I want to say three words: equality respect and dignity. To talk about the word “equality” I say that I was at a conference yesterday that discussed equality in New Zealand and how important it was. Learned professors took this bill and said that it stripped away equality and that the gap of inequality grew. It is the greatest impediment to economic and social growth in this country. It is the right of every person to representation and that is what unions do. Unions stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. They are a voice when silence reigns. They provide a voice for those who have not a voice for themselves. Perhaps this bill should be called the “Stripping Away Equality in Employment Relations Bill”. 
The second word is “respect”. At the conference yesterday learned professors said that the one major variable to inequality is a lack of respect. After nearly every single crime that is committed certainly violent crime the perpetrator stands up and says: “He dissed me. There was no respect. I felt disenfranchised.” This bill does not allow workers to be treated with respect. So perhaps this bill should be called the “Stripping Away Respect in Employment Relations Bill”. That is what this bill does. 
The third word is “dignity”. People in this country must be treated with dignity. The fact that they can be let go without being given any reason at all having their dignity stripped away and not being told why is an absolute travesty. Perhaps this bill should be called the “Stripping Away Dignity in Employment Relations Bill”. 
This bill is a travesty because it creates inequality for all workers by not allowing them the right to representation when they are unable to represent themselves. Taking away the rights of workers’ representatives to go on site is a great travesty to many workers in this country. The Hon Trevor Mallard asked what sort of country we want to live in. What sort of country do we want to bring our children up in? This bill does not allow for a country built on equality which is something we very much pride ourselves on. This bill strips away the respect of workers and it strips away the dignity of workers. 
When I heard Keith Locke say that the commencement date should be taken back 100 years I thought to myself as a student of history that that was a very good point. This bill does not drive innovation and it does not drive the workforce. It is a backward-looking step. It takes employment relations back to the time when there were no rights. This bill strips away the rights of workers. Perhaps we should call it the “Stripping Away the Rights of Employees in Employment Relations Bill” or perhaps the “Stripping Away the Rights of New Zealanders (When Seeking a Job) Bill”. That is what this bill does. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I have a slightly different view from my colleagues Trevor Mallard and Darien Fenton which may be because I am a newer MP and just do not understand the issue. Clause 3 “Principal Act amended” of course amends the Employment Relations Act so I guess it is right. To me the changes in the bill are so fundamental in several respects that I think it undermines the Employment Relations Act. I do not think the bill amends the Act; “amend” sounds quite normal and quite moderate. The bill fundamentally undermines a number of the key objectives of the Employment Relations Act. That Act was designed to build productive employment relationships. The fundamental objective of the Employment Relations Act is to build productive employment relationships through the promotion of good faith in all aspects of the employment environment and the employment relationship. 
There are a number of elements in this amendment bill that fundamentally alter the balance of power in the employment relationship. As my colleague Stuart Nash said the bill does not deal with things like dignity and respect. When employers can dismiss employees for any reason they can come up with and employees have no right even to know why they were dismissed let alone challenge the dismissal if it is not fair—no right of redress—then I do not think that is about a relationship. That provision fundamentally alters the Employment Relations Act. 
The objects of the Act talk about good-faith behaviour as I have said but also explicitly acknowledge and address the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships. I think that point has been completely ignored by the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). Members opposite seem to think there is no inequality in the employment relationship. Many of the people who will immediately be hit by the 90-day trial period extension to all workplaces will be young people entering a job for the first time assuming of course they can get one which in the current environment is very difficult. But let us say they do get a job; they are then immediately placed in the situation of having no rights at work. 
No one can tell me that in a situation of high unemployment those employees who do not know their rights and are not union members will be able to get advice on whether they should accept this 90-day trial which has no rights. In fact it would seem that the intention of members opposite is that the normal course of events will be “take it or leave it” employment agreements whereby it will be perfectly legitimate to advertise a job as having a 90-day rights-free period and present the person with the option of either accepting the employment agreement which has no rights for the first 90 days of employment or not accepting it which means not having a job. That is not a free choice and it is not an equal power relationship. 
As I say I am a little concerned about the amendment to the principal Act. It worries me because I think it is more than a minor amendment to the Employment Relations Act; I think it is a fundamental undermining of it. I could understand it more if it were the Employment Contracts Act being amended. Then we might say that OK the principal Act the Employment Contracts Act—if it had not been repealed and that repeal was a very good thing I might add—is being amended by things like the change to the access provisions which would be not as bad as what was in the Employment Contracts Act. We could say that that was an amendment. But I tell members that the 90-day issue is way worse than what existed under the Employment Contracts Act under the previous National Government. Under that Act workers had rights to challenge unfair dismissals within the first 90 days of employment but under this amending legislation they will not. 
It worries me as Mr Nash said at the end of his contribution that we are not building the productive employment relationships that are envisaged by and are the fundamental objective of the Employment Relations Act. Productive employment relationships are what we need. We need those productive employment relationships to change the nature of work to lift workplace productivity and to achieve the economic growth that this country needs. That outcome will rest on a well-informed workforce a workforce treated with respect and a workforce that has a collective voice. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I have some suggestions for alternative titles for this awful legislation that we are debating here in urgency today. The first alternative title we could call it is the “Employment Relations (Broken Promise) Amendment Bill” because members may remember that back in the election campaign in order to make the 90-day trial period for small businesses appear not so Draconian much was made of the fact that it would apply only to businesses with fewer than 20 employees. Much was made of that. National MPs went to extraordinary lengths to make it clear that this would not apply across the entire workforce only to small businesses. So here we have another broken— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It’s the wrong bill. It’s a new year. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: There is Tau Henare. Mr Henare knows I like to say that he is the worst union organiser in the history of the universe. I actually think Mr Henare is a Trojan Horse designed to try to bring down the union movement from within. That is the only way that I can work out how he managed to get that job. But coming back to this bill it is a broken promise because the Government promised that it would not extend the 90-day trial period to businesses with more than 20 employees. Remember that Government members were at pains to say that it would not apply to teachers. It would not apply to teachers even if they were in a small school because they were employed by the ministry. Now it applies to everyone. It is another broken promise in what is proving to be a long list of broken promises from this National-led Government. 
Another alternative title could be the “Employment Relations (Legalised Discrimination) Amendment Bill” because that is essentially what this bill does. We already had trial periods under New Zealand employment law. It was nothing new to have a trial period. Labour is not opposed to trial periods at all. The only change National made when it came into Government was to the ability of an employee to challenge a dismissal if it was unfair. I want to know why National members think that it is unreasonable for employees to be told why they are being fired. Why is it unreasonable for employees to be told why they are being fired or why they are having their livelihood taken away from them? How can they improve themselves and how can we increase productivity through employees being able to improve their work if they are not told what is wrong with their performance? There is no requirement to tell them. They can just be told “Don’t come Monday.” and no reason given. 
This is where we come to the legalised discrimination. If for example a woman is employed and within the first 90 days she becomes pregnant and the boss does not want to have to deal with a woman who will go on maternity leave he or she could just say “Don’t come Monday.” That could happen even if all of her performance reviews up to that point had been exemplary and she had had wonderful feedback from the boss saying that the firm was so happy to have her was so lucky to have her and she was fantastic and then suddenly she announces she is pregnant and the next day she is fired. Under this legislation that the National Government has passed and is extending to the rest of the workforce she would have no ability to challenge that even though it is clear that she is being fired for being pregnant. As long as the boss says that her job is not working out or she does not fit in there or if the boss finds out that someone is gay or if they join a union and the boss does not want to have to deal with that or finds out that they are a member of the Labour Party and the boss does not agree with their political affiliations then that will be OK. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the title and commencement clauses of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and I refer back to the speech made by Mr Locke and in particular to the comment about the dark ages and the suggestion that the commencement date could be put back to 1911. That would be a very interesting development because it would give us the opportunity to put certain members of this Chamber under a 90-day probation period. I am sure we sure that members on this side would be quite keen to put Mr Mallard under a 90-day probation period. Although there is some merit in the backdating I do not think I could support it tempting though it might be. 
I am really concerned at the suggestion by members on the other side of the Chamber that this legislation could somehow undermine people’s human rights. The member who has just resumed her seat Ms Mackey mentioned that a person who became pregnant would somehow be fired under a 90-day trial period provision. I would be very happy for a member on the other side of the Chamber to take a call to challenge this but I am almost certain that the Employment Relations Act would absolutely rule that out as a possibility because the provisions of the legislation— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Didn’t the member listen to examples being cited? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: It was really hard to listen because it was about as underwhelming a speech as we could get. I am particularly interested in the issue of pregnancy. As far as I am aware firing a person for becoming pregnant would be absolutely forbidden under the provisions in this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] Here we go again! According to Labour members it does not matter what the law says; employers will act so badly that they will simply ignore it. 
Darien Fenton 
: And they are. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Then the employee is absolutely free to seek the remedies that are available. If an employee believes she has been wrongly dismissed because she became pregnant in the first 90 days of her employment she is absolutely justified in using the grievance processes available under the Act as it is now and that will not be changed. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: All powers are being stripped away. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Not all powers—that is the point I am trying to make. We can debate the merits of the powers as they have been diminished but does not help when members throw around Chicken Little examples of what might happen when this bill is passed. They absolutely will not be the case. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It’s happening. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: If it is happening then a personal grievance can be taken. This is the point. Members opposite are saying that the poor old employees are completely disempowered and absolutely cannot do anything certainly not without the unions. I absolutely reject the notion that this bill’s title needs to be changed to reflect those things. 
This bill contains very moderate and very reasonable changes that will add flexibility to our employment relations legislation and will not lead to the sky falling in as my friends on the side of the Chamber would have us believe. I simply reject those notions. Here is one suggestion for a new title: the “We Actually Trust Employees To Do and Think For Themselves and To Make Choices for Themselves Bill”. 
Lynne Pillay 
: That’s why you’re dumping them. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: There they go again! Those members are saying that the 90-day probation period is terrible that it will undermine workers’ rights and that it will give nobody the sorts of opportunities we believe are possible. 
Let us look at an example of that choice. An employee may be marginalised may be a new immigrant may be a new graduate or may be a youth. That employee is trying to get back into the workforce and the employer quite often—and we certainly saw this with small and medium sized businesses—is not sure about whether to give them a chance. This provision would certainly do that so I think there is every opportunity to put the word “fairness” in the title. But clearly this bill is the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and I think that title should stay. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 This is my first call on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I am grateful to take a call on the commencement and the title clauses of this bill in particular. I feel that in all of this debate we have left out one crucial point and perhaps the title of the bill should be changed to reflect the fact that in none of this debate have we ever discussed the perception that seems to exist amongst employers that employing people should be something to be feared. That is essentially what Government members have told us through all of this debate. They have said that some particular groups in our society are less likely to be given a chance by an employer because employers fear those groups. 
If that is the case I ask why in this debate and generally have we never ever addressed the question of why employers fear employing new staff regardless of the age of individuals regardless of their background and regardless of how long they have or have not been in the workforce. I think this bill should be renamed the “Missing the Point or Avoiding the Real Issue Bill” because nowhere have we discussed why that fear exists or the best solution for it. I believe that the Government is currently absolutely copping out by bowing to a perception that our employment laws are something to be feared. It is simply stripping those laws away for the first 90 days. That is its solution. It bows to the perception and strips away the laws rather than asking whether that fear is based on perception or reality. 
Why do I come back to this question and why do I therefore think this bill should be renamed the “Missing the Point or Dodging the Real Issue Bill”? I spent several years working in the UK in an organisation called the Better Regulation Executive and this issue was one we tackled. I would love to talk to the member Tau Henare about this but I see he is currently engaged on his cellphone in the Chamber. I believe that that may be against the Standing Orders. He is not engaged in the debate which is a disappointment. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My friend and colleague Tau Henare appears to be taking a phone call on his cellphone in the Chamber. That has been ruled out of order on a number of occasions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: If that member is on a call I ask him to go into the lobby. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I was loath to point that out because I would like Mr Henare to hear what I have to say on this issue. 
I spent some time working in the UK in the Cabinet Office there where we began looking at this very issue. We detected that there may have been a perception amongst employers that employment law was difficult to deal with and perhaps if that perception pervaded too deeply then it may have impacted on an employer’s desire to employ people. We spent some time looking at the issue and found that actually a lot was based on perception and misinformation. I would have liked to see the Government spend more time looking at that issue. 
Again I come back to the fact that I do not believe that the title truly and adequately reflects what the Government has done here. The way New Zealand is ranked within the OECD is probably the best indicator of whether this is simply a perception issue. New Zealand is currently ranked third in the world for ease of doing business. Amongst that mix is employment flexibility where we are ranked on whether there is flexibility in our employment market and we come out third in the world. I would like to point out that that is a slippage of one place since the Labour Government was in power when we were second in the world for ease of doing business. I am afraid that in producing this bill this Government has simply bowed to perception and has not scratched beneath the surface of why employers have this perception. If this perception holds true why has the Government gone for just the first 90 days? Why is this Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) not scrapping workers’ rights entirely? If that perception pervades generally then why has that principle not held true throughout our employment legislation? 
I think this bill should be renamed the “Employment Relations Cop-out Bill” because the Government has avoided the real issue here. Instead it has simply turned to a legislative solution for an issue for which it has not dug beneath the surface. That is incredibly disappointing because as a consequence it leaves workers unnecessarily without rights for the first 90 days of employment. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit “Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)” and substitute “Employment Relations (Trial Periods and Union Access) Amendment Bill”. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your assistance given that I believe we are probably looking at the same tabled document. The document I am looking at is entitled “Amendments to the Employment Relations Bill (No 2)”. We are currently debating and voting on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). Therefore I ask whether the document with suggested amendments is out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson I think you are aware that there is no requirement to put a title at the top of an amendment when an amendment is tabled. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is right. Although the heading may be incorrect the vote is not on the heading. The vote is on the proposed amendment to the clause and that is the question I have put. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit “Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)” and substitute “Employment Relations (Trial Periods Union Access and Consequential Amendments) Amendment Bill”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next six amendments to clause 1 “Title” in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard are substantially the same as amendments that have already been decided by the Committee. Therefore they are not in order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit “Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)” and substitute “Employment Relations (Personal Grievance Claim Changes) Amendment Bill”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 56 Noes 64. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit “Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)” and substitute “Employment Relations (Flexibility for Employers) Amendment Bill”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to adjust our vote not on the amendment we have just voted on but on the one before that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought to change the vote on that amendment. I ask what the member is changing his party’s vote to. He gave five votes in favour. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Obviously it should be five votes opposed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member has sought to change that vote. The corrected vote is Ayes 51 Noes 69. The amendment is not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I ask with your leave to withdraw one of the amendments in my name to clause 2. I am afraid that I forgot that only 30 days hath November and I have an amendment to change the commencement date to 31 November. It is the first amendment on one of the sheets. I apologise to the Committee because of course that amendment would have been facetious as the date does not exist. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “1 July 2011” and substitute “31 December 2011”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The remaining amendments to the commencement date in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard and Carol Beaumont are ruled out of order as they are inconsistent with the decision of the Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think that if you look carefully you will see there are two sets of dates for which there are amendments not just one. Although a decision has been made not to amend one of the dates there has not yet been a decision not to amend the other. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It does not matter that the member has asked for leave to withdraw one of the amendments. All the amendments are to commencement dates and I have ruled that they are out of order as the decision of the Committee has already been made on the commencement date. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not wish to get into an intense argument on this matter but the bill has two commencement dates. Part of it is brought into force on one date and part of it is brought into force on another date. I think that any reasonable person would think that one could amend either of them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that point. All of the amendments that have been lodged are to amend the commencement date in clause 2(1) which is 1 July 2011. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think you have lost one Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well I have them here. The member has signed them. Henceforth I am ruling them all out of order. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Report adopted. 
Holidays Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and its chair David Bennett for dealing with this bill so efficiently and effectively. The select committee reported back to the House on 2 November 2010 and recommended that the bill proceed with some amendments. I approve of the amendments proposed by the select committee. 
This bill follows the review of the Holidays Act by a ministerial advisory group of employer and union representatives that was set up last year. It forms part of our plank of employment law reforms that will improve our employment framework. The Holidays Act affects all employers and employees. It is a significant piece of legislation. However parts of the Holidays Act have been criticised as being unclear overly complex and lacking choice for both employers and employees. A lack of clarity in holiday provisions has a negative impact on employment relationships and productivity because employers and employees have to spend time and resources trying to establish their rights and obligations. 
This Government is focused on what works. Prescriptive laws cannot account for the variable hours and jobs we work or the multicultural workplaces in this country. There has to be flexibility and there has to be greater choice. That is what we intend to deliver. 
The changes contained in this bill have been widely debated. Allowing employees the option of trading their fourth week of leave for cash is an incredibly popular policy and it has widespread support. The bill delivers on a promise made prior to this Government’s election to office in 2008. I am confident that the changes will improve the overall operation and efficiency of the Holidays Act. It will improve the balance of fairness and provide greater choice to employees and employers. The changes will make it easier for employers and employees to understand and comply with holiday legislation. The main changes proposed addressed the application and calculation of payment for public holidays alternative holidays sick leave and bereavement leave and they give employees the ability to exchange up to 1 week’s annual holiday a year for pay should they wish to. 
The issue of relevant daily pay has proved to be the most difficult and frustrating part of the Holidays Act. The bill will address this issue and I know the select committee has worked hard to ensure that the new formula for average daily pay will improve the current situation. This change will make the Holidays Act easier to understand for those who work variable hours. When relevant daily pay is neither possible nor practical to calculate the employer may use average daily pay. This payment for leave is based on past identifiable earnings over the previous 52 weeks or whatever period the employee has been employed thereby addressing the issue of potential fluctuations in pay. Both employees and employers will have greater certainty as to what leave payments will be. 
The select committee has thoroughly reviewed all the issues that have been raised by submitters and has recommended some sensible amendments to the bill. The committee has recommended clarifying the definition of discretionary payments. I understand that some submitters were concerned that the proposed definition for discretionary payments would increase confusion and uncertainty. The committee has recommended clarifying that a discretionary payment does not include a payment where the amount to be paid is variable but the payment itself is provided for in the employment agreement. This recommendation ensures that a discretionary payment is a payment that an employer may choose to pay an employee but is not bound to pay under the employer’s employment agreement. This ensures that the definition will be applied correctly and that discretionary payments will be excluded from gross earnings. 
The committee has also recommended deleting the terms “informed” and “voluntary” from the bill. I understand that some submitters were concerned that the term “informed” could create unnecessary confusion and increase litigation. Specifying that a request to cash up annual holidays or an agreement to transfer a public holiday must be informed and voluntary may bring into question whether all other requests and agreements under the Holidays Act and other employment legislation have a lesser requirement. That is not the intention of the bill. Further the terms raise questions as to the extent of a party’s obligation to inform the other or ensure that the other is informed before a request is made or an agreement entered into. 
The change recognises that this may create a greater duty in relation to cashing up and transferring holidays than other terms and conditions of employment. It provides certainty and clarifies parties’ obligations in these circumstances. It remains clear that only an employee can initiate a discussion regarding cashing up annual holidays and the transfer of public holidays. It is the employees’ decision to make and this is a provision that they have welcomed. 
The committee has also recommended a small change relating to proof of sickness or injury. The change aligns the reference to “medical practitioner” in the Holidays Act 2003 with the definition of “medical practitioner” in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. Currently the Holidays Act refers to a medical practitioner within the meaning of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 but that 1995 Act has been replaced by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. 
These are all sensible changes and I thank the committee for the thorough consideration it has given to the bill. I would also like to thank the hundreds of submitters who took the time to make a submission on the Holidays Amendment Bill. 
The bill retains the overall integrity of the Holidays Act 2003 and maintains employees’ holiday and leave entitlements. The bill clarifies areas of uncertainty and addresses concerns about how certain aspects of the Holidays Act are causing unnecessary costs and confusion. It gives greater choice to employees who may want more flexibility over how they take their annual holidays and public holidays. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Labour Party will be opposing the Holidays Amendment Bill which is consistent with the swing to the right and the anti - wage earner and salary earner swings of the National Government. Although I will make some original comments later I would like to quote back to the Minister of Labour from her regulatory impact statement on this legislation. It starts by stating: “The analysis of the policy options under consideration is constrained by the limited availability of objective evidence of problems with the current holidays legislation”. Her department which has a lot of experience in this area could not find a problem yet we have this legislation. Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development which I know from experience have never been right at the front of the vanguard for wage earners and salary earners state that these changes “may not improve the functioning of the legislation.” They note: “The balance of costs and benefits of the package of proposed changes is not clear. At a minimum the amendments are likely to impose transitional costs on both employers and employees and the extent of other potential costs is unclear.” We have the agencies that are meant to be looking after the economy stating that this legislation is not a good thing and that it moves us backwards. 
The regulatory impact statement also hints at undue pressure being placed on employees. It states: “There is also a risk that this proposal could create new employment tensions between employers and employees.” I ask whether that is what we want as a Parliament. I ask whether that is what the Minister wants because her own agency in her own report and the report of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Economic Development states that this bill will be bad not good for the economy. 
On the question of sick leave the regulatory impact statement is very frank. It found no justification for changing it and states “The Minister of Labour determined [this] proposal”. Well if we are to work on an evidence base on legislation that people have worked through and know will work then we have to do better than saying that Minister Kate Wilkinson thought it was a good idea. Frankly Kate Wilkinson’s thinking something is a good idea against the evidence of Treasury the Ministry of Economic Development and the Department of Labour is an indication that it is poor. 
A number of other issues are also identified in the regulatory impact statement. I might say that it is pretty unusual to have a regulatory impact statement that ends up being the core of an Opposition speech on a bill but it does state that it will reduce opportunities for rest and recreation away from work. This bill according to Kate Wilkinson and the regulatory impact statement that she has published will reduce opportunities for rest and recreation away from work. The regulatory impact statement also states that the bill may increase working hours overall and decrease time for community and family activities. Again that comes as no great surprise. In the early childhood education area and parental leave area— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Anti-family party. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: National has been an anti-family party for a long period of time but it is good to see that Kate Wilkinson is coming clean and admitting it. She admits as part of the regulatory impact statement that she tabled with this legislation that there may be an increase in working hours overall and a decrease in time for community and family activities. 
She also said that it “may negatively impact” on health and safety including an increased risk of fatigue and stress-related illness which could increase sick leave. Both employer and employees have a responsibility to ensure staff are fit for work and not at risk from long-term fatigue. Again she admits that this is likely to cause long-term fatigue and health and safety issues for employees. 
This is not the Unite union’s approach on this legislation; it is the approach of the Minister of Labour in the statement that she tabled in the House. She states—and again this is no surprise—that it will disproportionately negatively impact on groups of workers who are already disadvantaged in the labour market—for example women the low paid youth Maori and Pacific peoples. Are they not the groups that National hates? National does not like women workers. It does not like low-paid workers. It does not like youth. It does not like Maori and Pacific peoples. The Minister of Labour tabled in this House a statement that these people will be disadvantaged by this legislation. Again it is not the Labour Party not Keith Locke not the Unite union and not the Council of Trade Unions but it is the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson. Minister Kate Wilkinson is the person who stated that these people are to be disadvantaged. 
The regulatory impact statement states that it may increase the gap in income between genders. Well again that is nothing that National cares about. Even Pansy Wong did not care about that before she added to the gender income gap over the last week or so. The regulatory impact statement states that over time entitlements will be reduced. Workers may feel pressure to cash up holidays to meet financial commitments if they do not receive pay increases. That again is something that Kate Wilkinson says will be a consequence of this legislation. I ask her how in all good conscience she can support all these negative consequences of the legislation which she admits and has pleaded guilty to. She said that this will be the effect yet still she is proceeding with it. 
She said that the net payment received may be less than expected if cashing up a week’s annual holiday moves an employee to a higher income tax bracket. It may reduce social assistance received—for example Working for Families payments. Did she tell the House in her second reading speech that this measure is likely to reduce Working for Families payments? Did she say as she introduced this bill that people’s benefits will be taken away or their tax brackets might go up as a result of this legislation? Did she say as she spoke—as opposed to what she wrote and tabled—that it would decrease motivation and productivity if workers do not have adequate breaks away from work? What she said in the document that she tabled was that that is the case and I ask why she is not prepared to stand up in the House and read out her own regulatory impact statement. 
It states that it may impact on workplaces’ budgeting financial management if they have not planned for the additional payment. It also states that it may increase disputes between employers and employees—for example around the payment received for cashed up holidays—where the grievance is genuine and if an employee believes their request has been unfairly declined. 
I reiterate that all of those statements are from the regulatory impact statement tabled in this House by the Minister of Labour. They are her statements on this legislation’s effect and I think it is absolutely shocking—absolutely shocking—that we have a Minister in the House who would bring legislation to this House that will so badly affect the way of life for ordinary Kiwis in the way that it happens here. 
I ask Chris Tremain who is so much for voluntary work for coaching and for people having time in their communities how he can support the legislation from the Minister of Labour when she says that it will reduce the time available for that. I ask how Chris Tremain can hold his head up at the Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union when coaches will be pushed into working longer as Kate Wilkinson’s legislation indicates. 
The last point I will make is that in real terms this legislation will reduce the wages and conditions of ordinary Kiwi workers. This legislation will open up the gap between workers in Australia and workers in New Zealand. It is designed to drive down conditions to make it cheaper for wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand and that is a clear breach of the undertakings given by this Prime Minister. This is bad legislation. The core of this legislation will be repealed. I accept that there are about three clauses in it that we do not object to; in fact a couple of them are quite good. But the core of this legislation which is the selling of annual holidays will be removed next year or earlier the following year by the new Labour-led Government. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 The Holidays Amendment Bill which we are discussing is aligned with the bill we have just passed through its Committee stage the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). Both bills went through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at the same time. I thank the Minister of Labour her staff and the officials for the way that they have worked to make this bill possible. Well done. We welcomed the contributions made by the committee members from both sides of the House who were diligent in their appreciation of the arguments for and against this bill. We welcomed also the many submitters who came along. Submissions were heard primarily in conjunction with the Employment Relations Amendment Bill No 2 but we had a large number of informed submissions and also a number of people were heard in person in regards to this bill. So I thank all of those people. 
The bill contains some main provisions which the Minister has gone through. She has given people a bit of a heads-up as to what is the heart of this bill. Labour Opposition members across the way are not discussing the bill at all. They are just trying to see it as part of a right-wing agenda rather than looking at how it is constructive and in the best interests of New Zealand workers because it gives them choice. The Labour Party will fight choice in the work environment to its dying day. 
The whole point of the Labour Party is to avoid choice in the workplace and to have control in the workplace through the union movement. Anything that looks like choice in the workplace is seen as abhorrent to the Labour Party. Its members will fight it; it is the reason that they are there. The Labour Party is there to control people to not give people the ability to think for themselves. It is there to dictate to people what should or should not happen and it does that under the guise of looking after the vulnerable looking after the young and looking after the elderly. The reality is that Labour is the party that takes advantage of vulnerable people because it uses fear and all those other emotional traits in an attempt to hijack the true intention of New Zealand workers. It is a shame when legislation like this comes before the House which is in the best interests of New Zealand workers and the Labour Party tries to hijack it with its fear tactics. 
The heart of the legislation is where it gives employees that choice on their fourth week of annual holidays which a lot of employees will want to take advantage of. It will be in the best interests of them and their families especially in these very tough times. Also there are clarifications on Christmas New Year and public holiday rules and a number of other things such as the calculation of average daily pay the transfer of public holidays the penalties for employers and the proof of sickness or injury. 
All those issues were considered by the select committee and its members came to conclusions that I think they are very comfortable with. The House may visit again the average daily pay calculation at some time in the future. Some submissions set up some possibilities in regards to what could happen in the area of daily pay calculations and that may well over time be considered in a different bill in order to take into account the difficulty of those calculations. 
Overall this legislation is in the best interest of workers. The Labour Party is against it because it is about choice. The National Party supports this bill and looks forward to its passage through the House. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am a bit unhappy about having to address another bill attacking workers’ rights the Holidays Amendment Bill on the same day. However that is the agenda of this Government. Labour understands that that is what the Government is doing. It has made its intentions very clear and I think this is just the beginning of what we will see from the Minister of Labour. She has not been able to deny a whole lot of things including undermining or changing the Minimum Wage Act so I think we can look forward to a whole lot more. 
To everybody listening out there I say that I hope they understand that today we debated the Employment Relations Amendment Bill which still has its third reading to go. It does away with workers’ rights in their first 90 days of employment and restricts access to advice from union representatives in the workplace. That was the first bill. In the second bill we are now debating the issues of the selling off of the fourth week of annual leave making it possible for employers to decide when alternative holidays may be taken and the possibility of employers making workers get a sick note after 1 day’s sickness. 
I will address the matter of choice which the previous speaker David Bennett went into. Let us be clear about the choice that is being offered with the fourth week of annual leave. I am absolutely totally opposed to the provision and I will get into that a little bit more. The only choice that is given to workers under the Holidays Amendment Bill is the choice to ask—to go down on their knees and ask—permission from their employer to cash up their annual leave. Who gets to decide if they get the cash? The employer does. That is not a choice. What is the choice? Where is the choice in that? The Minister said that everyone is incredibly happy about it. Well I must say that I think workers will take up this provision only because they have not had a pay rise. Once workers understand that the choice is all on the employers’ side and that they have been conned I do not think they will be as happy as that. 
The other choice in the bill is for the employers to decide when workers take their public holiday. A worker works on a public holiday when everybody else has the day off with their families and becomes entitled to an alternative day off. Under current law workers get to decide when they would like to take that alternative day. They get a period of time—I think it is a year—and then if they cannot reach agreement the employer decides. Under this bill the employer gets to decide almost immediately. The difficulty with that is that workers who have to work on Christmas Day for example will not really get any say or any choice about when they have the alternative day off. Many workers will be enjoying their Christmas Day the following Thursday or Friday when their husband or their partner is back at work and their kids have gone off on holiday to the beach somewhere. So there is no choice in that issue either. 
The last matter of choice I address is the choice that this bill gives employers to demand a sick note for illness on the first day of a worker’s absence due to sickness. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: That’s sharing and caring! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes. Really really good—the choice to drag a sick child out of bed and drag them off— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How much does it cost to go to the doctor? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well quite a lot. But to be fair the bill does provide that the employer— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh the employer pays. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —pays the reasonable cost. The bill does not include the cost of a worker having to find a babysitter to look after the other kids. It does not include the cost of driving to the doctor. It does not include the time that people will lose from their job while they are waiting at the doctor. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The doctors want this? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No the doctors do not want this. That choice has not been offered to the doctors. 
Going back to the select committee process I say that I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I recall that it was not a fair process. It is not a fair process that such a substantive issue that affects every worker in New Zealand is yet again rushed through under urgency. Submitters had 3 weeks to make submissions on this bill along with the bill alongside it the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. These are the biggest changes to the terms and conditions of workers—or the biggest attack on them actually—since the 1990s. It is a huge change that affects every single worker in the country: every single wage earner and salary earner from those who earn very little to those who earn a lot. One would have thought that people would be given a bit more time to make submissions. 
We did not have hundreds of submissions as the Minister said; we had thousands. There were thousands and thousands of submissions. The three key measures in the Holidays Amendment Bill that people objected to were the fourth week of annual leave being up for grabs employers being able to make a choice about when workers get to take their alternative public holiday and the sick leave provision. 
I will go back to the 2009 review of the Holidays Act which was where this all started. It was a tripartite process. The review was conducted by the Government with Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions involved. The Council of Trade Unions entered that review in good faith because one of the underpinning requirements of the review was that the Holidays Act could be changed but entitlements could not be reduced. That is why the Council of Trade Unions went into it. 
That sounds really hollow now because that is what this bill does. It reduces entitlements and it undermines the fourth week’s holiday. It means that once again New Zealand workers will be comparing their entitlements to what happens in Australia and saying that it looks pretty good over there. Although Australian workers have had 4 weeks’ annual leave since 1974 New Zealand workers have had it for only a couple of years. 
Our objection to the cashing up of the fourth week’s leave is that the whole thinking and reasoning behind adding a fourth week’s leave after 30 years of campaigning for it is that New Zealand workers should have a fundamental right to rest and leisure including reasonable limitation on working hours—and they do not have that very often. It also includes holidays but this provision undermines that. Actually it is a fundamental human right. Putting the fourth week’s leave up for sale is like saying that people can trade off the minimum wage or that they could have a few more hours for a bit less. These are minimum entitlements. They should not be tradeable. 
We are concerned that the option to sell the fourth week’s leave will be forced on the most vulnerable workers and it will become part of their employment agreement when they are in their 90-day trial. It will be put in with their pay. It will inevitably lead to the degrading of the fourth week’s leave. It will become optional. Over time it will be degraded. 
Then the question has to be asked that if workers are able to cash up 1 week’s leave why not 2 or 3? Why have holidays at all? Workers could just have the money. That would be really good! Then employers would never have to worry about having workers off on leave. 
The other thing that I object to about this provision is that it will replace wage increases. That is the truth. Workers will line up and request their employer to cash up their leave because they have not had a wage increase. What has been happening to wages— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Simon Bridges just said that that is right. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: He just agreed; that is right. Wages in New Zealand have hardly moved under this Government; in fact they have gone backwards in many cases. Minimum wage workers got only a miserly 25c an hour in the last minimum wage increase. Another one is coming soon and I hope that the Minister will be a little bit more generous this time round. Where workers do not get a pay increase the cash for that extra week’s leave will be looking pretty good. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s worth 2 percent. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. One of the things the Minister could have thought of was putting a provision in the bill so the ability to cash up the fourth week of leave cannot be substituted for a wage increase. That is what we did in the KiwiSaver legislation but I think the Government removed it. 
Finally I say just quickly that the medical certificate provision is the silliest provision. It caused outrage and anger. Not only are people still outraged and angry about it but also people cannot believe how silly it is or see what difference it will make. It will make a difference to workers who have to go off and find a doctor—the doctors are already fully committed and we do not have enough—but it will not change absenteeism. We have a big problem with workers who go to work when they are ill because they cannot afford to take the day off. This will bring fear to workers. They will be worried about taking that day off because of the real hassle— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What if it’s just a cold? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It could be just a cold but they will still have to go and get a doctor’s certificate. This provision has been ridiculed. I honestly thought that the Minister would have seen sense and withdrawn this provision. Who knows who made it up? It was never asked for in the review. Thank you. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be voting against the Holidays Amendment Bill. We put in a minority report alongside the Labour Party on this bill because it is a big step backwards for the people of New Zealand. The thing that seems to be lacking is any concern with people’s wellbeing. There is a whole trend in politics today of not only measuring everything by money and GDP but also looking at the quality of life that people have. One of the things that has been under the Green logo in the past has been the slogan “Quality of Life”. My Green colleague Kennedy Graham had a bill before Parliament that unfortunately did not get the Government’s support which was the Public Finance (Sustainable Development Indicators) Amendment Bill. One of the concepts behind that was taking into account the environmental and social factors the good things in life rather than just looking at everything in terms of the amount of goods produced and money made. There is a whole history of developing what are called genuine progress indicators or indexes of wellbeing and in Canada there is a law that has well-being as a guideline. 
All that leads to a concept under this bill of leisure. Leisure is important. As we move forward in this—[ 
Interruption 
] The continuing barrage on that side of the Chamber is not acceptable. This bill reduces our leisure time and the progress we have made to get 4 weeks’ leave and the progress that has been made in other countries that have 4 or 5 weeks’ leave such as France where they also have a 35-hour working week. In New Zealand people work on average more than 40 hours a week even though 170 years ago Samuel Parnell went on strike for the 8-hour day and the 40-hour week. In some ways we are moving backwards even though the productivity of our economy has gone ahead in leaps and bounds. The idea that to sell off one of our 4 weeks of holiday is a step forward is completely unacceptable. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: It’s called choice. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: It is not just a question of choice and it should not be a question of choice. People should be paid sufficiently so that they do not sell off the leisure time that the whole of society is moving towards. The question of the sick day is again not a question of choice; it is reducing choice. It is— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was a bit concerned at the interjection made by the member for Tauranga that workers will continue to fork out for beneficiaries. I am not too sure what he was insinuating. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure what the member is doing with that as a point of order because it is not one. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: The requirement for a medical certificate for 1 day off sick is completely unreasonable and impracticable. It is unreasonable because it just makes people sicker if they have to get out of bed and go to the doctor. It makes the people in the doctor’s surgery sicker because they might catch an infection. It encourages people to not even bother with the doctor to go to work when they are sick to become sicker and to infect their workmates. It is impractical too because in many cases it is just not possible to get an appointment with a doctor on that particular day as the Green Party discovered when it did a survey on this question. 
The other point in the bill about transferring holidays from the traditional ones such as Christmas Day to perhaps another day undermines an essential element of the leisure built into our statutory holidays system so that the whole family can be together on Christmas Day Boxing Day or at Easter. If we have all sorts of provisions to transfer holidays off those days we will not have that community or family feeling around agreed quiet days in the year. 
I was disappointed that in question time today Kate Wilkinson rejected the idea of Mondayising Anzac Day and Waitangi Day. We already Mondayise Christmas Day and Boxing Day and it is perfectly acceptable to do that. It does not mean that we do not celebrate Christmas on 25 December but if Christmas Day or Boxing Day falls on a weekend we have holidays on the following Monday or Tuesday. That is how it could be with Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. I think we should have a vision of a future where we are working less not more. Unfortunately this bill goes the other way around. 
It will not lead to advances in workers’ wages. For example if the workers at one factory producing some form of engineering product are convinced to sell off a week of their holiday and get a bit of a wage increase and if at another factory producing the same products the workers do not sell off their holiday I am pretty sure we will still find that the competition between workers for their labour and the employers in those two firms will be in terms of an hourly rate. The hourly rate will equalise between the two as time goes on but one set of workers would have sold off their annual holiday and the other set would not have. 
When all of this is tied in with the 90-day provision in the bill pressure will be exercised over a section of the workforce to have those workers sell off their holidays and to bring sick notes. All the disadvantages of the previous bill we discussed—the 90-day provision—will tend to apply to make workers accept a reduction of their annual holidays to shift their holidays off the existing statutory holidays and also to force them for unreasonable reasons to go to the doctor for 1 day’s absence. 
That is not where we should be going. We should be more like countries like France with 5 weeks’ holiday and 35-hour weeks. The French had big mobilisations to protect their pension system. We should be determined not only to protect what we have but also to advance it to improve leisure in this society to be able to share around work and to have flexible working hours which is another aspect of quality of life that was in the bill my colleague Sue Kedgley put before this Parliament. Unfortunately that bill was also knocked over by this present Government. 
Many submissions were made to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee particularly in relation to employers being able to require a sick note for 1 day’s absence when they can already do that under the law if there is a real reason like someone taking off 10 consecutive Mondays and having 3-day weekends. Submission after submission said how onerous and impractical the new provisions would be. Surely the Government should listen to what the people say on matters such as this. If we look at the clean green image of New Zealand we see that it is an image of a country that is desirable to come to not only in terms of its environment but also its relaxed friendly people and all that sort of thing. We are creating very much the opposite image internationally if we say we are going to in effect reduce the holidays people have and if we are much tighter in relation to their taking time off work when they are sick and all those sorts of things. It is the wrong image in comparison to the one that we want to portray to the world. Thank you. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. The ACT Party does not sit on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee so we did not sit through the submissions but we are absolutely delighted with the outcome of this bill and we will be supporting it wholeheartedly. This bill at a very high level is about choice. It is about reaching decisions by agreement—something that seems to have been completely lost on the other side of the House. It is about providing flexibility in the workforce. These are all things that will help with productivity and stimulate economic growth which is something this Government takes very seriously. 
It has been a great day in this House. Firstly we passed the 90-day trial bill. We are absolutely delighted that that legislation will now be extended to all workplaces. Again this will provide choice and flexibility in the workforce. 
Darien Fenton 
: Everyone has to say thank you to the ACT Party. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: Already as predicted the trade unionists on the other side of the House are becoming wound up and I am sure they will become more and more vocal as this speech goes on. 
Before we start looking at what exactly Labour dislikes about this bill I think we should look at what the bill does allow. Firstly there are three main areas where we will see change. The first change is that by agreement—and “by agreement” is a very important part of this provision—1 week of an employee’s minimum entitlement to annual holidays will be allowed to be traded for a cash payment to the employee. The second change we will see is employers and employees allowed to agree to the transfer of the observance of a public holiday to another working day. The third change is the provision for employers to request proof of sickness or injury within the first three consecutive calendar days of an employee taking sick leave without first having reasonable grounds to suspect that the sick leave is not genuine and in a moment I will come to why that is important. These three provisions along with the others in the bill that I have not mentioned but which were well outlined by the Minister of Labour will provide choice and flexibility in the workplace. I reiterate that these decisions will be reached by agreement between employee and employer. 
One of the reasons that I think members opposite object so violently not just to the 90-day trial bill but also to the provisions in this particular bill is that they do not have any trust. They do not think that things can happen without outside interference. They do not believe that an employee and an employer can sit down together and work out the provisions that are best for each individual and for mutual benefit. Labour thinks that there are no good employers. Labour members do not trust a single employer in this country. 
Carol Beaumont 
: That’s not true. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: There they go; they are getting wound up. Labour members do not think there are any employees who do not act and behave in an exemplary manner. They do not think there has ever been an employee who might swing the lead when it comes to sickness. They do not believe there are employees who might think that they feel like a day off so they take a mental health day when in fact there is nothing wrong with them. 
Simon Bridges 
: They know what that’s like. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: That is right. How often does that happen? Every single one of us in this House knows that these things happen. For too long the balance has not been right between the rights of the employee and the rights of the employer. 
Simon Bridges 
: Fairness went only one way with Labour. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: As Mr Bridges has just said fairness is a very important thing in the workplace. We hear about fairness on behalf of employees but we hear nothing from members opposite about fairness when it comes to employers. If we are going to have settled workplaces we need to have choice fairness and flexibility. 
The Green member who spoke before me Keith Locke talked about quality of life. He talked about quality of life as if only the 122 parliamentarians in this House can determine what that quality of life should be for people. I am not sure whether he thought for a moment that what I consider to be quality of life might not be the same as what he determines quality of life to be. It is individuals who determine what quality of life is for themselves for their family and for their particular situation. It is they who should be able to decide whether they want to take 3 weeks annual leave and cash in 1 week because they might need some extra cash—they might have something they want to buy—or whether they take the full 4 weeks of annual leave. The important thing is that it is done by agreement—by agreement between employee and employer. That is what will be in the law. It is not for parliamentarians to tell people what will give them quality of life. That is for people to determine for themselves. 
Some of the accusations that came from members on the other side of the House when we talked about cashing in the extra week of annual leave were absolutely ridiculous. One of those members should stand and answer this question for me: what about those people who do not take all of their annual leave but when they leave a job they have a huge amount of annual leave accumulated and they are paid off? Is that also selling out? If we take Labour’s argument to an extreme we would say that nobody can ever leave a job until all of their annual leave is worked out. What is the difference between cashing up 1 week’s annual leave every year from accumulating annual leave as some people do deliberately—that is a choice on their behalf—and having a large payout when they leave a job? Answer me that question. Those members are suddenly silent on the other side of the House; they cannot answer the question. The employer has to pay out that money and they quite rightly should be able to do so. 
We hear all this talk of quality of life which apparently we are much better at determining for individuals than they are themselves. We hear about the attacking of workers’ rights but never about the attacking of employers’ work. What this bill is about and what the 90-day trial bill before it was about is making choices possible for employees and for employers. It is about sitting down and working out in a workplace what is best for both parties and getting a win-win result. But the Opposition do not believe that that is possible. 
The difference between members on this side of the House and members on the other side of the House is that we trust people to be able to make rational decisions for employers and employees to get together and do that and members on that side of the House do not. That was very evident when Labour was in Government and employment bills like this one were before the House. We would see the union officials wandering around the lobbies. It was very clear then where the emphasis was coming from. It was very clear where the Labour Party funding was probably coming from. It was very clear that they were pulling the strings that the unions were leading the charge. But members on this side of the House are able to make reasoned decisions that will provide choice for people provide flexibility in the workforce allow fairness for both sides—employees and employers—and most important allow all parties in the workplace to reach decisions by agreement. That is the way life works outside the workplace and there is no reason why it should not work inside the workplace too. 
The ACT Party very proudly not only supported the 90-day trial bill before this but also supports this Holidays Amendment Bill. It will make life better and make choices better for workers and for employers. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 It is me again the nemesis of those members on the Opposition side of the House. Do members know why? It is because I worked in the same area as they did. I saw what sorts of dirty tricks they got up to when they were employed. I saw with my own eyes the carry-on in those days. I saw it; I am a witness to their dirty dealings. I will take just a couple of minutes of the House’s time on the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. First of all I thank my colleague Michael Woodhouse for allowing me to jump in front of him to speak. 
I want to talk about this thing called holiday and where the 4 weeks of holiday actually came from. Some members might think that it was a Labour idea. I thank my researcher for this information. Some of us would have thought that 4 weeks’ holiday was a Labour policy from way back. But lo and behold when we did our research and I have it on good authority from my researcher we found that Matt Robson brought it to the House. But it was opposed by the Labour Government. It was opposed by the Labour side. It came about only because Matt Robson forced them to do it. That is what happened. Is it not funny and interesting that we get this idea that the Labour Party is the flag bearer of workers’ rights—but it is only when it suits it? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What Raymond? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely! My name is Raymond not “mental”. Let us talk about what Labour members really want. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why did you have to get your researcher to research something that happened when you were in Parliament? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Actually it did not happen when I was in Parliament. There is another fallacy. I was not here when the fourth week of holidays came in; I was not here when that provision was brought in under the pressure of Matt Robson who was an Alliance member. It certainly was not supported by Labour. But I digress. All we can hear from that front bench of Labour—Darien Fenton Carol Beaumont all on the front bench; oh my God what a team— 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am enjoying the member’s speech but I do want to bring to his attention that my name is pronounced “Daarien”. It is not pronounced “Darien”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Please use the appropriate and correct title. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Thank you for that enlightenment. 
Hon Member 
: Get your hand out of your pocket. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Why? Is the member jealous? The holiday is a worker’s holiday. It belongs to him or her not to the Labour Party. That holiday belongs to the workers. It is the property of the workers. It is a property right. If it is the workers’ property it should be up to the workers whether they want to trade it in or not. It is a holiday. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Is this all holidays? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I ask the member not to be silly. What we get from those members is that they have not read the bill. It is not about trading in all holidays. It is about the ability to trade one holiday—one measly little week’s holiday. Labour members over there are trying to begrudge workers one small week that they own. It is their property. Those members are saying no they will not let workers trade it in because they do not think they should. Never mind what the poor person in Porirua thinks never mind what the poor person in Cannons Creek thinks—that is their holiday not the Labour Party’s holiday. Property rights are something that our party and the ACT Party have built their reputation on and we will not see— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Property rights haven’t come up that often when I’ve been doorknocking. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: So workers do not have property rights? According to Iain Lees-Galloway workers do not have any property rights. That is what he said and that is what he means. It is disgusting. If any party is the defender of workers’ rights it is the National Party not the Labour Party. I commend the bill to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I am almost at a loss for words—but before people get too excited I did say “almost”. I have heard so much absolute drivel in the last couple of contributions to this debate on the Holidays Amendment Bill. They have been factually incorrect and have absolutely attributed views to this side of the House that bear no resemblance to reality. I will start by saying that comments that Labour is anti-business are completely wrong. In fact sitting behind me is the Hon Lianne Dalziel who as a Minister did more for regulatory reform than any Minister for quite some time. If the Labour Party was anti-business I do not know why she would have bothered to do that. 
I stand to say that this Holidays Amendment Bill is another bill that is unjustified unnecessary unbalanced and unfair. Somebody from the other side of the House talked earlier about the fact that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Holidays Amendment Bill go together. On that point I quite agree they do because underlying them are the same sort of principles of being backward-looking taking away rights from people and removing the opportunity to move forward in our workplaces. Contrary to what Heather Roy said the quality of workplace relations and the building of workplace productivity is something that this side of the House cares about very much. Our view is that they should be built on workers’ rights high trust lifting wages rather than reducing them and improving conditions not reducing them. There should be a collective voice so that people can genuinely have a say and contribute at work. Some of the better employers in this country—not the mates of ACT—tell us that having a highly engaged workforce and having a vehicle where the workforce’s concerns and views can be put on the table and worked through jointly with the employer is how to lift workplace performance. I wanted to put those things on the table because I have heard a lot of rubbish from the other side of the House about Labour’s perspective that is just untrue. 
I will talk about what the Holidays Amendment Bill means for both the quality of working life and the quality of lifestyle. Basically this bill undermines the chances of having work-life balance and improving the quality of not only working life but also life outside of work. Before I get into that I reinforce the points made about the regulatory impact statement. I thought it was quite telling that Trevor Mallard’s whole speech was able to be built around all of the negative things that are in the regulatory impact statement. It is absolutely extraordinary that we are dealing with a bill that is flawed from one end to the other. Even the Department of Labour the Government agency dealing with this bill has put that clearly in the regulatory impact statement. It says: “The analysis of the policy options under consideration is constrained by the limited availability of objective evidence of problems with the current holidays legislation both on the type and extent of any problems. There is a lack of robust data available to quantify the potential impacts of the policy options considered.” I know that probably doesn’t matter to some members across the House because why should we let the facts stand in the way of making changes? But it is pretty important if the Government’s own department that deals with this legislation tells it things like that. I would have thought that generally it would be worth thinking about. 
There are three areas that I will particularly focus on. They are three areas that I think will have a negative impact on work-life balance for the New Zealand workforce and our families. The first of these areas is a backwards and cynical policy shift. It is a backward-looking and cynical shift because it is happening at a time when people are under a lot of financial pressure. Wages are barely moving; in fact in some cases household incomes are going down. Costs are rising and there is high unemployment yet we are saying that giving people the opportunity to sell their statutory minimum holidays in that environment is a free choice. Actually I think it is a misguided policy at a time when what we really need to see is wages shifting. We have a low-wage economy where we are 30 percent behind Australia and that gap is getting wider under this National Government. 
This is a proxy for shifting wages. Leave has absolute value for individuals and the community. It cannot just be compensated for by money. Why stop at one week? If the choice to sell holidays is such a good free choice and it should all be up to the individual why do we not say that all 4 weeks could be sold? That could be an individual choice as well. The reality is that leave has value. It has value for rest and recreation for the worker but it has wider community value too. It has value for families. In my previous role I did a lot of work on the issue of work-life balance. We had a lot of research done. We looked at various research from around the world and we looked at what mattered to people. There was a very interesting piece of research done in Australia by a woman called Barbara Pocock where she talked to a lot of teenagers. She was trying to find out what they valued and wanted more of. Do members know what it was? It was not money and it was the not the latest technological device; it was time with their parents. That was the thing those teenagers wanted more of—time with their parents. Like New Zealand workers the people in the study were working very long hours. In fact New Zealand has one of the longest working hours cultures in the OECD. The recession has probably impacted on that a bit with less overtime— 
Colin King 
: By how much? 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: By a lot and I can get the member those figures. 
I go back to my point about families. We in this Chamber all know people who on reaching retirement age and reflecting on their working lives do not say that they wished they could have worked more hours. A lot of those people will reflect on the fact that they wished they had spent more time with their families. Holidays have real implications for family time as well as for the rest and recreation of the worker concerned. This so-called option will inevitably be forced on to low-income workers and the most vulnerable workers. In some cases it will be used as a proxy or an alternative for a real wage increase. A way for workers to get a 2 percent wage increase will be to just sell a week’s holiday. 
I conclude my comments on the fourth week’s leave by saying that there has been a lot of rhetoric from the other side of the House about it being a choice that people do not have to do it and all of those things. Actually it is an example of the imbalance I mentioned at the start because ultimately it is up to the employer. The employer can have an absolute policy that says that no holidays will be sold in that workplace full stop. So much for the great choice with the two parties sitting down together to work it out but no it is the employer who can absolutely determine that matter. That is the point I want to make on holidays. 
I say that the second thing is the most mean-spirited and unnecessary part of the bill in my opinion. It is the changes to alternative holidays which are widely known as time in lieu. This is the time workers get when they work on a public holiday that would normally be a working day for them. The changes in this bill are so mean-spirited they defy logic. Now if agreement cannot be reached the worker can determine when they will have their time in lieu. After all they have worked on a day of great significance on Christmas Day maybe or Good Friday or one of the public holidays when lots of their family and friends have time off. Often employers need people to work on those days. Employees work on that day they are entitled to a day in lieu and currently if agreement cannot be reached they get to choose. The worker can choose another day that might have some value or significance for them. The balance in this regard is also changed. So I ask members: if agreement cannot be reached who will make decision about when the day in lieu will be? It is no surprise; it will be the employer. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received a very very good submission made by an individual. Dennis Hickey is his name and he is a bus driver for Howick and Eastern Buses in Auckland. He talked about this passionately. He absolutely understands that as a bus driver he needs to work on public holidays because people need to catch the bus. He absolutely accepts that that is part of his job and he does it in good spirit but Mr Hickey said that if he works Christmas Day why on earth if they cannot reach agreement should the employer be able to tell him that he might have a Wednesday off some time in March when his wife is at work and his children are at school? That is how mean-spirited this bill is. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I begin by acknowledging the thanks from my colleague the Hon Tau Henare for allowing him to precede me in the second reading debate. I now realise why he wanted to speak earlier than me. It was because he stole my speech. I put on record that that is absolutely the last time I will share any threads of an idea of what my speech will be about. It was theft! But the issue was so important that it is worth continuing to flesh it out. We have heard members opposite say that Labour is somehow the champion of the fourth week of holiday and that Labour has worked for 30 years for this workers’ right. 
I think that Labour’s record on this needs bearing out. When the Holidays Bill was first introduced in 2003 it aimed to provide for a minimum of 3 weeks’ paid annual leave not 4 weeks. The Holidays Bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and all the submissions were made on the likely outcome that the bill would have a 3-weeks’ annual leave provision. At the same time as my colleague Mr Henare mentioned the select committee was considering the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill a member’s bill from Matt Robson a member of the Alliance which party happened to be a confidence and supply partner of the previous Labour Government. 
The business community in particular when making its submissions did not even take seriously the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision because the Prime Minister of the day Prime Minister Clark had ruled it out. It was said the Government simply would not mandate 4 weeks’ paid annual leave. After the submissions had been heard and after the select committee went into deliberations suddenly the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision appeared. There was no opportunity for submissions to be reopened and reconsidered on this major change to the legislation the amendments to which we are now considering. The members opposite can moan about having only 3 weeks to consider these changes but at least this Government was up front about what these changes mean. One can only speculate why the Holidays Bill when introduced in 2003 made no mention of 4 weeks’ annual leave but suddenly that is what happened. Was this a change of heart? Why did it take so long to enact the legislation? I was not a member of the House then so I can only speculate as to why that was the case. 
I note that the Holidays Act came into effect the year before the 2005 election probably at the time Labour was preparing its election manifesto. But it did not introduce the fourth week of annual leave into the legislation then; it left it out there for 3 more years so that workers would not be eligible for it until 1 April 2007. Workers could then have a whole other year in which to accrue those entitlements. When did we get to those entitlements? It was in April 2008 which was another election year. So the electorate can be the judge of whether this was some principled change or a cynical election ploy. I think Mr Cunliffe gave us the insight into the answer to that question today in the Chamber before lunch when he said that the people of New Zealand elected a National Government because they were dumb. That is what he said so that is what Labour thinks of New Zealanders. They are dumb when they do not vote Labour too dumb to understand the cynical nature of the passage of the 4 weeks’ annual leave legislation and certainly too dumb to think for themselves and make a choice about whether to cash up that fourth week’s holiday. 
But in all of this someone forgot to give Phil Goff the union memo did they not? That memo obviously came from the Council of Trade Unions and stated: “Labour do not support this change.” Good old Phil trotted off and said that as long as it was given freely as long as there was agreement he did not have a problem with it. Then what happened? “Hang on Phil better check in with Helen first”—Kelly or Clark. It probably does not matter. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: He got a text from her. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Exactly! “Wrong answer Phil; jerk the lead; we’re not going to support this.” So much for thinking for oneself! I have more faith in New Zealand workers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not the  
Hobbit 
 workers. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well Helen Kelly still has to get over the fact that our Prime Minister will not go running to the Council of Trade Unions every time the Government wants to make a change. The council had 9 years of that under Labour but life has changed. I have more faith in New Zealand workers and more confidence in their ability to think for themselves and decide whether to take that fourth week’s holiday. I support this bill. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Seriously we are being lectured on abuse of process by National. We are here under urgency forcing this stuff through and we have disbanded entire democratically elected councils under urgency under National yet the previous speaker Michael Woodhouse has the audacity to stand up in this House and say that the previous Labour Government abused process. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No it wasn’t. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: What was that? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was an audition for a Minister’s job. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh it was an audition for a Minister’s job! Look how the member feigns that that is not what it was. He thinks that it is not that at all and asks how we could say that. Secretly he is really pleased that Trevor Mallard just said that. Secretly he is right chuffed. He will go back to his office with a big smile on his face and say that Trevor Mallard has endorsed him in the House. 
The speeches made by National and ACT Party members in this part of the debate have shown how out of touch they are with reality. They said that the Holidays Amendment Bill is about choice and about employees being able to cash in a week’s annual leave. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s right. I’m glad you agree. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The fact is that Mr Henare is the worst union organiser in the history of the universe ever. He was a Trojan Horse put into bring down the union movement but fortunately he failed. Mr Henare does not understand that when people are living on the breadline when they cannot pay their bills when they have not had a pay increase when the National Government promised before the election not to increase GST and then increased GST after the election when all their costs have gone up when their rent has gone up and when they have no money to feed and clothe their kids Mr Henare says that those people are in a position to choose to cash in a week’s leave. I suggest to Mr Henare that they would probably like to keep their annual leave be able to pay the bills and have a proper wage increase. They would like to be able to pay the bills without having to give up time with their family. It is not choice; it is like saying that a family chooses not to pay their rent and then they get evicted that they choose not to be able to afford to send their kids on a school trip and that they choose not to be able to afford to buy clothes for their kids. That is exactly the same— 
Simon Bridges 
: Some do. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Simon Bridges says they do. 
Simon Bridges 
: Did not. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Simon Bridges says they do. The Government is so out of touch that it thinks families are choosing not to pay their rent. Families have seen the cost of living spiral upwards wages stall and rents spiral upwards. The Government increased GST and made it worse for those families and Mr Bridges says they are choosing not to feed and clothe their kids and choosing not to pay their rent. That is offensive and that sums up National. 
This bill is not about choice. People are being forced into cashing up a week’s annual leave because they are so desperate for money to bridge the gap at the moment. It comes back to what my colleagues have been saying: why do we have annual leave? Do we have it because we think it is a nice thing? We have it because we know that it improves productivity when workers are rested when they feel that they have an adequate balance between time at home with their family and time at work. Workers who are stressed about what is happening to their kids at home unattended will not be as productive as workers who are able to be at home if they need to be. The holiday is there to make sure that workers are more productive and that they get time with their families. 
It is very telling that National and ACT see annual leave only in terms of the dollar cost. They do not see it in terms of the value it has for families. They do not see it in terms of the benefit of families being able to have mum and dad at home for 4 weeks of the year to be able to go on holidays together and spend time together as a family. They see it only in terms of the bottom-line dollar cost. That is very telling about this National-ACT Government. This policy comes from National who at the last election kept talking about supporting families and being family friendly. Well it has deserted hard-working New Zealand families who are not able to pay their bills currently and who are struggling to get by. The Government’s answer is not to make sure that every New Zealander has a living wage that can cover his or her costs and that the cost of living does not spiral out of control to the point where families struggle to pay rent and put food on the table. The Government’s answer is to put those people in a position where they have no other option but to cash in a week’s leave and then call it “choice”. It is not choice and the ACT member needs to understand that. If someone is in a desperate situation it is not choice. When there is no other option other than being evicted and not feeding one’s family it is not choice. All the rhetoric in the world from the ivory towers inhabited by ACT members and supporters will not change the fact that for the families on the ground it is not choice. Families do not think it is a choice but of course the ACT member and National members think they know better. I suggest the member talks to families who are struggling at the moment rather than piously coming into this House and telling those families what they should think and how they should feel. He should not be saying that it is a great day for choice and freedom when employees cannot pay the bills when they will not be able to spend that extra week with their families although they would love to and when the Government will not fix any of the actual issues regarding their families. 
Nowhere is the ideological bent of this bill more obvious than when it comes to the issue of sick leave. As colleagues have pointed out time and time again if employers currently believe that someone is abusing sick leave provisions then they can ask for a medical certificate. But National says that anyone who is away from work has to go to the doctor and get a medical certificate even if it is for the flu or a cold. As we know doctors often tell people to stay at home go to bed get lots of fluids. They tell people not to come to a doctor’s surgery because there is nothing that they can actually do for a viral infection. National and ACT say no those people should have to get a doctor’s certificate or go into work and make everyone else sick. That is a really good idea. They are so ideologically bent against employees. Heather Roy—I cannot remember if it was Heather Roy or Tau Henare—said that Labour thinks— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They are so similar. They look the same. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: They are. It is very difficult to tell them apart. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I get them mixed up all the time. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I know. We can only tell them apart when they are together. That is the problem. She said that Labour thinks that all employers are bad and all employees are good. The fact is that we do not. We understand that employment law is a balance and it needs to address issues right across the spectrum. National members think that every single employee who takes a sick day must be rorting it so we need to make all of them go to a doctor to get a medical certificate. 
Darien Fenton 
: Shirkers. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: They say that those people are all shirkers; that is right. That is despite the fact that currently if an employer has reason to believe that an employee keeps taking Mondays or Fridays off or that that employee is always taking the day off whenever there is a really nice day or as my colleague Carol Beaumont mentioned they are seen on TV at the Rugby Sevens then an employer can ask for a sick leave certificate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Helen did that to me a couple of times. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Helen did that to Trevor Mallard quite a lot and I can tell members that the law worked just fine. But it is totally impractical for National to say that every employee who gets sick has to get a medical certificate regardless of the fact. General practitioners do not want it because they do not want to have to see people whom they do not need to see. In fact employees may not be able to always get an appointment and I ask what happens then. If employees cannot get an appointment I ask whether they will get penalised under this ridiculously unworkable legislation that National has come up with. I am not the only one saying that; Treasury the Ministry of Economic Development and the regulatory impact statement also say that is unworkable. Suddenly people will be penalised for something that is outside of their control. 
I want to refer to the 2009 National Employers Wage and Salary Survey. Let us put some facts on the table about sick leave. The survey found that the average number of sick days that New Zealanders took was 4.6 days which is actually far lower than everywhere else in the world. So I ask where the mischief is that we are trying to fix with this legislation. As we found out none of the Government departments collects statistics on this so this measure cannot be based on any kind of evidence; it is just ideological nonsense. Research conducted by Southern Cross Healthcare found that the majority of the costs incurred by employers for sick workers was not from sick leave but from the lost productivity of employees who still go to work when they are sick. That is the big issue. That is the issue that if we wanted to address productivity would have some impact. When workers go to work when they are sick they are less productive and they make other people sick. That is an issue that could be dealt with. The issue of employees taking sick days has no impact on that and if the Government was serious about productivity it would address that issue. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. I will make sure I finish the speech so that we can conclude the second reading before the dinner break. The legislation will improve the overall function of the Holidays Act 2003 the principal Act parts of which have been criticised as being overly complex and prescriptive. 
This legislation is part of a suite of employment law designed to grow the economy boost jobs and living standards and generally move the country forward. This is the main focus for the Government and I make no apology for that. 
This legislation contains practical solutions for employers and employees. It will help to reduce compliance costs thereby giving businesses confidence and the opportunity to grow. It will resolve workplace disputes faster and provide choices for employees and employers. 
A number of provisions that we have already discussed today have been hotly debated. I also want to touch on the agreement and provision in the bill for 1 week of an employee’s annual holiday to be swapped for cash if he or she so chooses. There has been widespread support from many employees. They want choice and this change gives them exactly that. 
We campaigned as a party on this particular change and this legislation achieves that. We believe in New Zealand workers and we believe that they are best placed to make their own decisions about their own personal circumstances. Importantly employers cannot apply pressure to employees to exchange holidays for cash; employees can decline any request. It is really a win-win situation for both employers and employees. We trust employees to make the decision that is best for them and their families. That is what we believe in and we make no apology for that. It is great to see that the fourth week provision was supported by Phil Goff. He supported the provision and he backed the Government policy. It is really good to see that. 
There are many other excellent provisions. Amending the average daily pay will be welcomed by businesses. That issue has been quite confusing and it is good to see clarity now in this particular area. The Opposition has talked about the request for proof of sickness or injury and how that might be used. An employer can in the first 3 consecutive calendar days ask an employee to produce a sickness certificate but this would have to be done on reasonable grounds. Employers will not use this provision willy-nilly. They will have to cover the cost of the employee going to see the doctor and getting that certificate so it will be done only when there are suspicious circumstances or a pattern of behaviour. I am quite sure it will not be used unless the concern is absolutely genuine. I will leave it at that. This is an excellent provision and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It has been very enlightening to listen to the debate during the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. I would say on balance that it certainly reinforces choice. The National Government and the ACT Party certainly trust workers. We appreciate that there is a different view across the House. However we must also be mindful that we have to reinforce our workers and I believe that providing for 1 week of holiday to be cashed up at the worker’s choice is certainly a good idea. I commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The debate on this part includes schedule 1. I recognise the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Only just I think with the bags under his eyes today Mr Chairman. 
Charles Chauvel 
: But does he call you? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He calls me quite a few things actually but not normally from the Chair—it is more when he is sitting next to me in the caucus room. 
As is obvious from some of the amendments that have already been tabled in the House today—and there will be more to come—the Labour Opposition is attempting in this Committee stage to improve the Holidays Amendment Bill not to the point where we think we will vote for it but to the point where we think it would be less offensive to workers. 
I will go through some of the amendments that we are putting before the Committee so that members opposite can give them consideration. The first amendment would take out clause 13 “Requirements for alternative holiday”. Clause 13 provides: “If an employer and employee cannot agree … on when an alternative holiday is to be taken the day must be taken on a date determined … by the employer.” The amendment would take that clause out because we believe it is unfair for an employer to have the right to tell an employee that they must have a holiday on a particular date. To give an example they could require someone who would otherwise be entitled to a holiday during the school holidays to take time off either in the school holidays or outside the school holidays both of which could be inconvenient. We want to make sure this is a genuine agreement not one imposed on workers as would be the case. 
We also make clear that rather than being driven by the employer it should come from an employee’s request. There has been a lot of talk by members opposite about choice and flexibility for workers. Well let us test them on that with an amendment that indicates that these approaches should be based on choice. We will put forward an amendment that inserts something that was originally in the bill around the question of the changes being informed and voluntary. Again it will be a test for National members opposite as to whether the requests and the responses to the requests should be informed and voluntary. That is the essence of the argument that members opposite have been making: that these changes should be informed and voluntary. The Government has removed those words. 
Courts look at changes to legislation. When they are trying to determine intent they look at phases of legislation. I can remember going back to some of my earlier experiences in legislation—even as far back as the 1980s—the courts in making decisions on particular cases going to what the intent of the Parliament was looked at changes that Parliament had made as legislation was going through. I think the particular case that I can remember was a Court of Appeal case that flowed from the rape law reform legislation. The court looked at the legislation that went in looked at the decisions of the select committee and went behind the final words of the legislation and to the intent of the Parliament because of the changes that were being made. It appears to be the case here—and I would be interested in comments from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Police or other members opposite on whether it is the case that the removal of the words “informed and voluntary” could be taken to mean that in fact it does not have to be informed or voluntary because those words have been removed. The other related suggestion around the proportion of annual holidays to be paid out is that they must be made in the absence of duress. It is certainly the view of the Labour Opposition that these decisions should not be made under duress; they should be informed and voluntary and made in the absence of duress. There are also questions around how often these arrangements should be used; a series of amendments gives the Committee the opportunity to make a determination as to how often within a period of continuous employment these particular arrangements should be made. 
There has been a lot of discussion within the House on the question of whether the current arrangements are adequate if an employer has any reasonable cause to believe that someone is throwing a sickie when they are not actually sick and therefore on the question as to the necessity of this provision. I draw the Committee’s attention at this stage to the regulatory impact statement as it relates to this group of clauses in particular. It makes it clear that no case has been made and there has been a determination of the Minister rather than evidence. I think we know this. We have all heard the evidence of Business New Zealand and others who have said that this is not a priority area for them and it is not an issue that they think is important. I think it was just a case of John Key being slightly short of material for a speech to the National Party conference and therefore he decided to give wage earners and salary earners a kick. That is one of the things that Tories like doing at their annual conference: kicking people who work for a living as opposed to being born to rule as a number of people there are. 
There is the question of which days are determined and we will be focusing on a number of public holidays as we move our way through. I think it is fair to say that there are a few things in this legislation where there is agreement across the Committee; I think there might be about three issues. We should be dealing with this bill in a proper way clause by clause. I might say that it is getting to the point of ridiculousness to have a 19-clause bill divided into two parts. It is totally unnecessary. Substantial clauses in the bill are agreed on and the Opposition is placed in the position of voting against stuff it believes in because it is tied up with clauses that in fact are clearly contrary to what most New Zealanders want. If the Attorney-General who is in charge of the Parliamentary Counsel Office dealt with that in a way that had some more integrity I am sure we could work through legislation in a way that I do not think would take any longer but where we could have genuine debate on the particular clauses and the way they fit have votes on each of them and deal with each of them on their merits. 
At doctors’ rooms in Wainuiomata people often have to wait for 2 or 3 weeks for things that are currently non-urgent and even for urgent things it is sometimes hard to see a doctor within the same week. We already have quite a few people from Wainuiomata going to accident and emergency departments for things that are strictly not accidents or emergencies. What this bill will do is put pressure on general practitioners’ rooms but worse than that people who have illnesses that are infectious like colds and flu will be wandering along and spreading them around. They will be sitting amongst pregnant mothers and spreading their diseases all over the place. It is absolutely unnecessary and it is all because John Key had nothing to say at his conference. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on Part 1 of the Holidays Amendment Bill. I will focus on an issue that has not as far as I am aware been discussed at all either in the second reading or in the Committee stage so far. Yet as far as employers are concerned it is probably the single most important change that was made to the 2003 Holidays Act and the single most important change in this bill—that is the issue of relevant daily pay. 
In 2003 I was the vice-president of the Private Hospitals Association. It was an organisation that represented not only surgical hospitals but also a very wide range of the aged-care providers in this country. They were not the residential villages or retirement villages but rest home and hospital-level care for the elderly. We were absolutely emphatic about this issue as many employers were. Regardless of the merits of what was being attempted by the relevant daily pay calculations the calculations created some serious disincentives. 
Firstly it was completely unworkable from a payroll perspective. It simply was not possible for a payroll system to calculate relevant daily pay for organisations that ran around the clock 24/7 as hospitals and aged-care providers do. Thanks to collective employment agreements a number of allowances were being paid for evenings night shifts and weekends. The possibly unintended but certainly perverse outcome of the relevant daily pay clause as it is at present in the Act was that staff would be paid more for being sick than they would for being well and at work. 
Darien Fenton 
: That’s not true. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: It is absolutely true. If time allowed I would give that member the numbers. Somebody working a mixture of shifts—who might work an evening shift the odd weekend shift the odd night shift and then was rostered on a day shift—is according to the Act required to be paid a relevant daily pay that includes all of the allowances that they earned on those swing shifts in the previous 4 weeks. Somebody on a base rate with no allowances who calls in sick has to be paid more than that for staying at home. 
What did that do to the sick leave provisions? Well every employee is honourable and I am sure that they did not intend consciously to take sick leave when they were not sick but two things happened. Firstly sick leave went up and it went up quite considerably. But what also happened was really interesting and it was observed across the country: the pattern of sick leave changed. Whereas there was usually an even distribution between days nights weekends and so on the sick leave shifted into the day shift. Who knows what might have been happening? Certainly the payment for being sick on the day shift was greater than what would be earned if an employee had come to work. 
That has been the case for nearly 7 years and it needed to change. It was one of the things that the working-group that the Minister set up was charged with addressing. It was their No. 1 recommendation. Although the Minister and the officials worked the solution into the bill in a slightly different way I think it represents a vast improvement to what we have now. The average daily pay calculations are much more straightforward. It is likely to take out those perverse incentives at least to some degree. I offer the view that we can still take a journey that will merge the annual leave sick leave and alternative day provisions in the future. But this is a huge advance compared with what we have. 
In the time available I will touch also on the issue of the employer determining when an alternative day might be taken. I offer a story that was given to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by a primary industry company. A whole department of workers who tended to be on the same shift wanted to take annual leave to go to the races. The employer quite rightly said they could not do that as the disruption to the business was too great. They had to keep things going and the employees were a whole shift. They could not do that. What did the employees do? They all took their alternative days and the business had to shut down so that those guys could go to the races. Members can draw their own conclusions about whether that was a good thing or a bad thing but someone has to determine it and when it comes to the running of a business I am very comfortable that it is the employer. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Holidays Amendment Bill which is the substantive part of the bill. It is the guts of the bill; it has all of the changes that the Government is planning to make to the rights of wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand to their holidays and sick leave. We do not disagree with everything in the bill but there are three fundamental things that we do disagree with. 
I will start with the fourth week’s annual leave if I may. I go back to why the fourth week’s annual leave was brought in in the first place. Yes sure it was Matt Robson’s member’s bill in the Labour-Alliance Government and that was fine. But it got through only because Labour supported it. Did National support it? Did Tau Henare’s party support it? Did the ACT Party support it? It is a bit rich now to be making speeches about the fact that it was a bill— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What? What are you on about? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That it is a bit rich. It would never have got through this Parliament if Labour had not supported it. In fact it was Labour policy. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It was never Labour policy. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes it was actually—yes it was. It was Labour policy. 
The fact is that here we are in 2010 with 4 weeks’ paid holidays for all wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand. If we had left it to National or the ACT Party would that have ever happened? They voted against it did they not? I remember John Key said it was a bribe—he said it was a bribe. All it was really about was recognising that if we were serious about trying to keep wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand and making life attractive for them in their jobs one of the things we could do at the time was to catch up with Australia on providing decent annual leave. Australia after all has had 4 weeks’ annual leave since 1974. It was around about that time that New Zealand workers got 3 weeks. I also remember very well during the 1990s that Max Bradford who wanted to get rid of all annual leave wanted to put all of it up for grabs and sell it off. So it is a bit rich for National to be getting all precious about the fact that workers have choice around that. The only reason they have choice—which is not true anyway—or the only reason we are even debating the fact that there is a fourth week’s leave which could be cashed up is the fact that the previous Labour-Alliance Government brought in 4 weeks’ annual leave. 
I have to say that I am quite relieved that at least we are not saying “Let’s go back to 3 weeks.” although that will be the effect of this provision in Part 1—that will be the effect of it. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it will be the effect of it. It one of those National policies that is— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Up for sale. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —yes but hung over from the 2005 election. It was one of those manifesto promises National made for no particular reason. I am not aware of any demand from workers to sell the fourth week’s annual leave. They might want to do it if they do not get a pay rise which is what has been happening under this Government. They are not getting a pay rise so I can understand why workers may say: “Oh well I haven’t had a pay rise in a year so that is looking pretty attractive. The cost of living is going up GST has gone up.” I can understand that. 
I go back to the reason that we brought in a fourth week’s annual leave: there is a fundamental right to rest recreation and leisure. It is a fundamental right to have paid holidays and New Zealand was lagging behind. The provision in Part 1 will ensure New Zealand starts to drift down to the bottom of the scale again in terms of paid annual leave. Members opposite can talk about choice all they like but the reality is that this provision will undermine the 4 weeks’ annual leave. That leave will be devalued because it is cashable—it is up for sale. We know that many many workers will not have a lot of choice about this matter. National members like to talk about choice. David Bennett should not shake his head; I know he does not want to listen to this but it is true. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Well here we go again. Let us rewrite the rewritten history. Let us rewrite it. The Labour-Alliance coalition—it was a member’s bill by Matt Robson— 
Darien Fenton 
: That’s what I said. I said that. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No no. You see the subtle difference is that that member tried to tell the Committee that the fourth week of annual leave was Labour policy. If it was Labour policy why was it not on the previous Labour Government’s agenda? Why did the person in charge of the House Michael Cullen who was in charge of the legislative calendar not bring the legislation in during the first year the second year or the third year? It had to come up in the House because— 
Darien Fenton 
: So? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: She says: “So?”!Well here is the “so”— 
Darien Fenton 
: But you let ACT tell you what your policy is. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh my God! No wonder employers and employees did not like that member coming on to the blimmin work site. 
This provision of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) is about a property right. What is it? 
Darien Fenton 
: Never saw you. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well I was an organiser in the heady days with you Mr Chair and those were good times. We had a lot of fun. 
Here is the rub: why does Labour not want the worker to have the ability to trade one of their property rights? That is what a week’s holiday is. It does not belong to the Service and Food Workers Union and it does not belong to the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union; it belongs to the workers themselves. Helen Kelly and her mate “Stuart Little” cannot come along and say to workers that they cannot trade in their week. They think they know better than the workers—they know better than the workers! That is exactly what Labour’s line is. It harks back to the days of the dictatorship of the proletariat which said that they do not understand so we will make the decision for them. Shame on Labour—shame on Labour! If those members think that that is supporting workers then they are sadly mistaken.  
We can ask any worker on any job site whose holiday it is. In the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I continued to ask that question of union representatives and of anybody who came to the select committee to make a submission. It was quite clear that the answer every time I asked it was that the holiday belonged to the worker. It did not belong to the union organisation and it certainly did not belong to the party in Opposition today. 
Darien Fenton 
: So why are you taking it off them? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am not taking anything off employees. In fact National is saying to workers that if they want to trade one of their property rights they can go for it because that right belongs to the worker and not to the slimy little Labour Party and union organisers who are stealing money out of their back pockets—like the Service and Food Workers Union and the $300000 that they gave to the Labour Party. 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. For the last week or so that member has made references to the Service and Food Workers Union stealing money from union members and giving it to the Labour Party. I say that that is completely untrue and I take complete offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member may take offence on behalf of the union but this is a Committee of robust debate. It is a Committee of free speech and the comments do not offend the rules of the Standing Orders. The comments may not be in good taste but that is for the member to decide. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think you would be aware Mr Chair that the person who took offence was the national secretary for the Service and Food Workers Union and would have been responsible for any such theft. An accusation of theft against a member even if the accusation was made about a period before they were a member is certainly offensive. If I made similar comments about Mr Brownlee or Mr Woodhouse they would rightly be offended. The member was the national secretary of that union; she was the person responsible to the national executive for the collection of subscriptions fees and disbursements including money paid to the Labour Party. I take offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member makes a point. But at no stage did the member speaking Mr Henare attribute theft to a particular individual in this Chamber at all. The member speaking just now Mr Mallard drew all of the connections; he put all the dots on the page and then drew a line between them. 
I say to members that it is not an easy task to find the balance between taste—what people think is fair—and things that are offensive. If this Committee is to have robust debate and if people are to say things robustly themselves then they have to expect that other things will be said in return. Members have the opportunity to later get up and state their case and to state the contrary. Those are the rules of the debate. If members want to have things ruled out of order because people are offended then the amount that people can say will contract and contract and we will not have a Committee of free speech. I am a defender of free speech; I think people should be able to say what they feel. In saying whether this speech has crossed the line I think we need to be careful about where we draw the line. 
I accept the point that Mr Mallard made but the Hon Tau Henare did not accuse an individual member of theft. Had he done that I would have stopped him immediately. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I realise that I have put you in an invidious position because of your own previous work history— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member will not bring the Chair into the debate. If the member wants to make a point of order he should make it. It must be about order the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Chairperson report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling on a personal reflection that the Chairperson had ruled against. 
 The reason I am doing that is that I think it is unfair for the Chair to make a ruling on a matter that I realise in retrospect was a reflection on him as well. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Mr Deputy Speaker the Committee has passed a motion asking that you be recalled to make a ruling. The matter had its genesis in a speech made by the Hon Tau Henare on the Holidays Amendment Bill. In making reference to the Holidays Act Mr Henare made reference to his own personal knowledge of unions and union activity. As part of that he said that the Service and Food Workers Union had been involved in theft and that the money was from union funds and had been paid to the Labour Party. 
Darien Fenton raised a point of order and said that she objected to that statement and found it offensive. I ruled that it was not offensive. I ruled that it was in fact a matter of taste and that the accusation of theft had not been directed at a person and I left it at that. Subsequently a point of order was raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard who brought to the attention of the Committee the fact that Darien Fenton had been an official of the Service and Food Workers Union and that therefore an accusation of theft against the Service and Food Workers Union was by implication an accusation of theft against Darien Fenton. That piece of information might have been known to people personally but it certainly was not a matter that was put on the record by the Hon Tau Henare. I ruled that although that may have been the case no direct accusation had been made against Darien Fenton and therefore it was a matter of taste and I refused to rule it out of order. 
The Hon Trevor Mallard then raised a further point of order and drew to the Committee’s attention the fact that I also had been an official of the Service and Food Workers Union and by implication was compromised. He thought that it was inappropriate for me to rule on the matter. At that point I simply put the motion to recall the Speaker and you have been recalled to make a judgment. 
In my opinion the issue rests principally on the words of Mr Tau Henare and his making the statement about theft and the Service and Food Workers Union. In my opinion he had not crossed the line on that regardless of the positions that members of this House have held previously. I thought those matters were not relevant because they had not been brought into the debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Hon Rick Barker has summarised the situation well and there is not much doubt about the facts of the matter. The problem as I see it is that there are within the Parliament a large number of people who know that both Mr Barker and Ms Fenton have had national secretary responsibilities for the Service and Food Workers Union and that they would have been the people legally responsible for theft on the part of the union. If there was theft and disbursement of stolen funds to a particular party they would have been the people responsible. I know that with Tau Henare we have to be a little bit careful about taking accusations seriously but if anyone in the Chamber—and I would say that half the people in the Chamber know the facts and the relationships—took that accusation seriously it is a very bad reflection on those two individuals. 
Ms Fenton quite properly took offence because Tau Henare was clearly aiming the comments at her. To be generous to him I think he was not attempting to reflect on Mr Barker who was in the Chair at the time but some of us who have been around in and out of the union movement for a period of time and know the history are offended by that. Really the additional factor for recalling you was that there is always a temptation on the part of a Chair to overcompensate the other way when these matters are being dealt with and I thought it was therefore appropriate to get the Hon Rick Barker out of the position where he was making a final ruling on something that a number of us knew was a reflection on him personally through accusations that he was involved in theft and passing money on. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that was an interesting contribution and attempted justification from Trevor Mallard who has just resumed his seat for disrupting the business of the Committee. Firstly let me make it very clear that I did not know of the previous associations of Ms Fenton or for that matter the Hon Rick Barker but I do think the Hon Rick Barker has made exactly the right call in this case. I can recall debates earlier this year when we were passing taxation legislation and repeatedly Labour members referred to members on this side of the Chamber as people who were advantaging their Tory mates. That was never pulled up by the Speaker; it was made clear that it was a comment in general in the debate. 
I think we need to have a robust Parliament. The shrinking violet approach that Mr Mallard wants to take at the moment is not consistent with his general offerings in the Chamber. He will be aware that during the debate on the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill and on the changes it made to employer and contractor status just a couple of weeks ago there were regular references suggesting that members on this side of the Chamber had somehow caved in—I think at one stage the term “bent over” was used—and had acquiesced in a number of fashions to a large corporate. That seemed simply to bring a degree of mirth to the faces on the other side of the Chamber and Ms Fenton was one of those who enjoyed that particular style of humour. 
If we are to become so sensitive to general comments such as those the Hon Tau Henare made we will be saying very little in this Chamber at all. It was not the theme of Mr Henare’s speech and I repeat that I think the Hon Rick Barker has made the correct decision in ruling that there was no personal attack in the statement. In fact there was simply a turn of phrase that was part of the general debate. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make three points in response to what we have heard from the Leader of the House and I think they reflect concern on this side of Chamber. The first is that although Mr Brownlee may not have been present for the entire debate members who were present knew very well the status of Ms Fenton as general secretary of the union concerned because she referred to it a number of times in her speeches of which there have been several in this debate. Certainly Mr Henare knew about the status of Ms Fenton in respect of the matter. 
The second relevant point is that there is a world of difference between accusing a party of “advantaging its Tory mates” and imputing criminal behaviour to an organisation and by extension to a member who has been its principal officer. 
Finally one of the aspects of Mr Barker’s ruling in his rejection of the point of order was his comment rightly that this is a Committee of robust debate. But he commented that if a member had made a disorderly statement or one that caused offence without in his ruling breaching the Standing Orders the proper response from the Opposition would be to engage in similarly robust debate. My submission is that that comment is simply an invitation to disorder in the Chamber and that is really why I think it is appropriate to uphold the point of order that Mr Mallard originally raised in response to the comment and in support of Ms Fenton having taken offence to it. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for those comments. This is certainly a robust debate. I was listening so I heard the interchange—but I have to say not all of it. It has been a robust debate. One of the things that I believe is important is that if members feel that they are overstepping the mark they need to be very mindful of how that could reflect on others. In respect of robust debate however I would have to say that the Chair of the Committee was the best person to judge. He was here at the time and he was able to get the feel for what was happening in Committee what was being said and the reactions of members. 
Personal reflections as mentioned by the Hon Trevor Mallard are covered by Standing Order 116. It refers to a personal reflection against a member or against a party. In the ruling that the Hon Rick Barker made there was no reference to that Standing Order in terms of interpretation. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 41/7. The same thing applies under the definition of personal reflection—that is that something dishonourable must be attributed to another member for there to be a personal reflection. Words used robustly in debate that do not impugn the honour of the member will not be ruled out of order. 
I say to members that the Chairperson was the best person to judge at the time; he was here. He is the best person to rule on that matter. The personal reflection was not attributed to one particular person. He has ruled in that way and it is a matter of taste. A reflection has not been made against the member and I uphold the Chairman’s ruling. It is consistent with rulings of previous Speakers. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you alluded to one further matter in your ruling. Your quotation from Speakers’ rulings goes to the second part of the matter. There are two parts to the objection. One was the objection by Ms Fenton to the reflection on her and her role but also there was a reflection on parties. Included in the comments of Mr Henare which I understand that you heard was an indication that the Labour Party was receiving stolen money. As a member of the Labour Party I find that grossly offensive. It is inaccurate and I am not sure what the right procedure is—whether we have to go back into Committee for that to be brought up with the Chair or whether it is appropriate for you to deal with it now. As well as not being able to make reflections against members there was the matter of making reflections against parties. There was the accusation of both the theft and the receiving and I take offence at the receiving element as well. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Possibly that should have been brought up when the Chairman was actually making his ruling. I will not add anything further to my ruling. My ruling is clear in terms of personal reflections. I understand the sensitivity of these matters; I certainly do not want to downplay that. The Chairman has ruled. It is in line with previous Speakers’ rulings. That is my ruling. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It will not take a genius to work out what this point of order is. It is the subsequent point of order and the offence that I have taken as indicated by the Deputy Speaker. When there is reflection on a party then that is similar to a reflection on a member. I agree with the sidebar comment made by the Deputy Speaker very recently and I say that I take offence at the accusation made by Tau Henare that the Labour Party is guilty of receiving stolen money. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank the member. That is a fresh point and I think it is a fair point. It is inappropriate to say that a party has received stolen money. Theft is stealing and I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I must mention something else that should have occurred to me at the time. At the time I gave my ruling I should have made a delineation between parties inside this House and parties outside this House. I say to members that if an organisation outside this House has been offended it is not for members of the House to take umbrage for them; it is for those organisations outside to do so. The Standing Orders provide for them to make an application to make a response. I refer members to Standing Order 155. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Somebody could have just asked me and I would have apologised. There is another word for it—divert. That is another word for it. We are back to it now are we not? Money was diverted—members’ dues were diverted—to the Labour Party. It is the same thing and the same story and most of the workers did not know it was happening. 
Darien Fenton 
: That’s bullshit. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Sorry? What was that? It was bull what? 
Darien Fenton 
: Bull. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh OK. We have got right down to the gutter now. That is the union representative I know from long ago. No holds barred and she talks like the old cloth-cap unionist Helen Kelly’s dad used to be and he was proud of it. Helen Kelly’s dad was proud of being a cloth-cap unionist. This is nothing more than a steal of workers’ rights. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 The allegations made earlier by the member who has just resumed his seat Tau Henare have dragged us a little closer to the gutter politics we have tried to avoid in this Chamber. As a result of his allegation we have been forced to drag the poor Deputy Speaker from his busy schedule to make a ruling. That member should never have made those accusations here tonight. It is sad because once upon a time that member used to defend the working class. I would say that people who knew that member in his former life as a trade union organiser would be bowing in shame because of his support for the Holidays Amendment Bill—a bill that is designed to screw the workers and screw the workers it will. At a time when this Government should be focusing on giving workers higher pay and an income that can sustain them the Government is instead saying to cleaners caretakers women workers Maori workers Pacific workers and low-income workers: “Here sell off 1 week of your holidays.” and that forces workers who are on incomes that cannot sustain them to be in a position where they are forced to sell that 1 week just to try to get by. 
Here is something else. Two years ago when this Government came into power the first thing it did prior to Christmas was give workers a Christmas present—the 90-day fire-at-will bill. Now prior to Christmas this year we are getting an extension of the “screw the workers” outlook. 
David Bennett 
: You’re reading your lines well mate. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: I say to that member and to every member on that side of the Chamber: “Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!”. This bill is unfair for working people it is unbalanced and it is unnecessary. It is designed only to drive down wages. It is designed to ensure that the greedy become greedier. Instead of handing out rightful money for fair wages to the working people the Government is forcing the working class to sell off every little bit of entitlement just to make a living. Once upon a time it used to be that one worker would be able to sustain a family of three or five. The mother stayed home and looked after the children while that one worker earning a high salary would sustain the family. 
Over the years we have been fooled by Governments such as the National Government such as the John Key Government saying that by giving more money as this Government has done to employers somehow jobs will be created. Jobs have never been created when money is given to the wealthy. Instead the Government cuts jobs—it cuts jobs. That is the kind of philosophy that underlines this Government and its policies. The Government talks about narrowing the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand and increasing productivity but this kind of bill will not narrow the wage gap between the working people of New Zealand and the working class of Australia. It deepens that divide. It increases that gap because all this bill is designed to do is drive wages down to make the poor poorer and to make the poor who are on low incomes beg from the likes of this John Key Government. The sad thing is that this bill is the Christmas present from this Government. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I take the next speaker I remind members that we are debating the Holidays Amendment Bill. We have had some pretty wide-ranging speeches. I want members to come back to Part 1. We have got a little bit off focus here. There have been more general second reading speeches so before I accept the next call I remind people to be a bit more focused. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I wish to speak on the Holidays Amendment Bill and I start by commenting on Tau Henare who said that Labour is going back in time when we bang on about workers’ rights. Well I put it to that member that it is the National Party that is going back in time. This bill is exactly what National did in the 1990s except that at that stage it was trying to cut 3 weeks’ leave down to 2 weeks’ leave. I can still remember the postcards. I can still remember as a union official going in and having workers asking for the postcards. They did not want to sign one; they wanted 10 and they wanted to take them home to their families because they were so opposed to the Government selling off their holidays. What did those postcards say? I can still remember it: “Max Bradford wants to take a holiday—yours”. I put it to this Government that that is exactly the line that John Key is saying. 
If this Government thinks it can be so arrogant and keep chipping and chipping away and effectively assaulting workers by taking rights away from them then it will find at the end of the day that there will be a consequence. We know that the regulatory impact statement gave some very very clear advice to this Government on the changes—the shafting of holiday entitlements because that is what this is—to the Holiday Act. Did it listen? No it did not and that is the arrogance of the Government. Why this Government cannot see it is completely and utterly beyond me. 
Darien Fenton 
: They’re blind. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: They are completely blind. The advice was that the bill would reduce opportunities from rest and recreation from work. It would increase working hours overall and decrease time for family. It may negatively impact on health and safety including increased risk of fatigue and stress-related illnesses. It would reduce entitlements over time the net payment would be less it may decrease motivation and productivity and the list goes on. 
No Government in a developed country can argue that it is progressive to cut holiday entitlements or that 3 weeks’ holiday is acceptable in this day and age with the stress that people are under in this country. I put this to members: there is no one on that side of the Chamber who has only 3 weeks holiday—no one. We could argue that some of them have about 40 weeks. 
Darien Fenton 
: The ACT member who went off. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly. There have been all sorts of examples but the reality is that it is not acceptable. It was absolutely reprehensible when that Government tried to cut entitlements to 2 weeks. We remember the arguments and how vehemently opposed to holidays John Key was. I was on the select committee when young workers told him they wanted 4 weeks’ holiday. I still remember to this day what John Key said. He said: “I wouldn’t employ anyone who preferred holidays over money.” Those were John Key’s words. I challenge John Key to take a call and deny that. 
David Bennett 
: You can’t challenge anyone. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: We can challenge whomever we like. That is the arrogance of this Government. We live in a free world. We may not heap a torrent of abuse on the Government but we can challenge the things this Government does because they are dreadful. Mr Bennett should hang his head in shame. That member should be utterly and completely ashamed of himself. He might get the pat on the head—there have been a few pats by the look of it—for what a good member he has been. He has delivered because he has completely ignored all the submitters. He can do that but I am telling the member that what he did in ignoring every submission to the Transport ad Industrial Relations Committee was a travesty. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will go through the main provisions of Part 1 of the Holidays Amendment Bill. By agreement—and that is a really interesting starting point—1 week of an employee’s minimum entitlement to annual holidays is to be commuted for a cash payment to the employee. So the first thing we have to look at is that it is by agreement. This is not about forcing anybody to do anything. The employer is not even there because it really is a matter of the employee the worker fronting up and saying “Excuse me I wouldn’t mind getting into a discussion with you— 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s the way it’ll happen! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Look in most probably 99.9 percent of workplaces it will. The other thing is that it is about amending the calculation and the application of payment for public holidays alternative holidays sick leave and bereavement leave. This bill is about tidying up provisions not taking away provisions not making them harder to get. Part 1 is about making sure that the Act works properly. It allows employers and employees to agree to transfer the observance of public holidays to another working day. Sometimes workers like to work maybe on the public holiday so that they can take another day off somewhere else that suits the family. Maybe there is a school trip coming up. It actually works being flexible. It is again all about being done by agreement. 
This bill allows employers to request proof of sickness or injury within the first 3 consecutive calendar days of an employee taking sick leave without first having reasonable grounds to suspect that the sick leave is not genuine. Who in their right mind would not want to verify— 
Moana Mackey 
: You can do it now. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: If we do it now what is the big problem with it? 
Moana Mackey 
: Because you are making everyone do it even when there’s no problem. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No no if these things are done now then what is the big opposition to them? 
Moana Mackey 
: Because they have to actually have some evidence— 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No there is an opposition to them and it is because there is too much power from what I have heard tonight from William Sio the man from South Auckland— 
David Bennett 
: From where? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: From Manurewa most probably. He used to live in the heart of Otara until he decided he wanted to move up in the world and he moved to Manurewa but that is beside the point. 
David Shearer 
: Mangere mate. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: He now lives in Mangere. If in our childhood he had said to the brothers and sisters who lived in Otara that he wanted to live in Mangere he knows what would have happened—but I digress. 
This is clearly about workers’ choice. This is clearly about doing things with the agreement of and initiated by workers. So I do not know how the fantasy can be achieved by Labour that there are thousands of ratbag employers out there who want to say to workers that they must take cash instead of a holiday because they do not want them to have a holiday. Of course there is a bad apple out there and that is what we want to avert in Part 1. I cannot see the argument the Opposition is putting forward to the Committee. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I will speak about two particular clauses in Part 1: clause 13 “Requirements for alternative holiday” and clause 14 “Proof of sickness or injury”. When I spoke in the second reading I talked about this bill being unjustified unnecessary unbalanced and unfair. I will measure these two provisions against that. 
I mentioned earlier a very good submission—a very short but very good submission—made by a man called Dennis Hickey who is a bus driver for Howick and Eastern Buses in Auckland. Dennis obviously cares very strongly about his job and believes he is there to provide a service to the public. He recognises that if he is rostered to work on public holidays he works those days. He also knows that if the public holiday falls on an ordinary day on which he would normally work he will get what is commonly called a day in lieu and in this bill is referred to as an alternative holiday. He was telling us that the current system is fair. Basically if he works Christmas Day and he has done that in the past then he will get a day in lieu. He recognises that he is losing something by working on Christmas Day and that is the ability to spend time with his family and friends and enjoy a day off that most other New Zealanders have. However he accepts that his job is to provide that service and he does it. He gets another day off in lieu and that has always worked perfectly well for him. He has been able to choose a day that means that he his wife and his children can spend some quality time together. 
What is being changed here—let us be clear: we are not talking about whether people are flexible as the previous speaker said—is who gets to decide. As the law exists at the moment Dennis and his employer Howick and Eastern Buses can agree when he will take his day off in lieu and it sounds as though they do that in most cases. But if they did not agree ultimately Dennis as the person who has given up his Christmas Day and time with his family and friends would get to decide which day he would have as a day in lieu. This bill provides that it will be up to the employer. If there is no agreement the employer will decide. The example Dennis gave was somebody like him getting a Wednesday off in the middle of March for working on Christmas Day. His wife works on a Wednesday and his kids are at school on a Wednesday so that day off would have no value for him and would not be a good alternative holiday to the day he worked. That is the point. 
This is an incredibly mean-spirited change. There was no evidence of a need for change. The Department of Labour stated in the regulatory impact statement that it “considers that the issue of an employee choosing when an alternative holiday is taken is limited to a few employers (less than 10 submitters to the Group said that employees should not be allowed to choose when alternative holidays are taken).”—that is this is another solution to a problem that does not exist. We are getting a bit of that at the moment. This is just a ridiculous unnecessary provision. The department’s advice to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on this matter was that this change addresses—[ 
Interruption 
] We had submissions and the overwhelming majority of submitters were opposed to this change. There was very little evidence of a need for change. 
Michael Woodhouse gave an example before of somebody submitting on a real-life example. However most of them went like this: “Allowing employers to direct when alternative holiday must be taken: Business New Zealand supports the proposed amendment.” Well that is hardly compelling evidence is it? It is hardly evidence that there is a problem. However departmental officials came back to us and stated: “This [change] addresses concerns that the current arrangements can have a negative impact on business operations and productivity if employees choose to take an alternative holiday on a day that is not convenient for the operation of the employer’s business.” Well that is fine but equally one could say that it would not be very good and it would have quite a negative impact if Dennis was given a day off when his wife was working and his children were at school. 
This change has implications for the workers. After all the worker in that case gave up a day of national significance—a day that mattered to him and his family. I say to those opposite genuinely this legislation is mean-spirited but they can fix it. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is continuing to oppose the Holidays Amendment Bill. There is a bit of hypocrisy built into the way that this bill will operate. It was pointed out by Lynne Pillay I think that MPs will have a real choice. We all work pretty hard actually so it is often hard to take holidays but we have the choice as to whether we want 4 weeks’ holiday. If we went through the top-paid layers of society—the chief executive officers the top layers of the legal profession the judiciary etc.—I do not think we would come up with anyone who did not have a real choice to have at least 4 weeks’ holiday. For people at the top of society there is no problem. They will not be affected by this legislation. I do not think that too many judges will be trying to buy out the fifth or sixth week of their holiday. 
It has been said that it is all a question of choice and that anything done under this bill will be done by agreement. But a lot of choices in our society particularly choices in the workplace are subject to a power relationship because the employer not only employs us in the first place but also can direct which section of the workforce we work in whether it is an interesting one and whether we are working with interesting people. It is the employer who determines whether we get promotion. All of these things can be and are being held over the worker’s head. They will be held over the worker’s head when it comes to questions of selling off the fourth week of a holiday if the employer wants that person or a section of the workforce to sell off the fourth week of the holiday so that it can perhaps increase the length of time the particular enterprise is operating in January say. That control over promotion will mean that it is not a real choice. 
The other end of the problem with choice is that the extra money will be a certain enticement for people who are at the very bottom and are paid only $13 an hour and are really struggling to keep their families afloat. The answer for them is not to give away what little leisure they have maybe on top of all the stresses and strains of holding together a big family on a small income. To on top of that have only 3 weeks’ holiday is not the answer; the answer is to have a higher wage. A minimum wage of $15 an hour is a good start in dealing with that problem. 
The power relationship problem does not operate only in big enterprises. It also operates in small shops farms etc. where the person in charge the owner might want to take 4 weeks’ holiday or more themselves. What better way to achieve that than to convince the employee through the power relationship—and using the various mechanisms of potential sacking particularly if the worker has been employed for less than 90 days—to sell off a week of their holiday? Someone else in the enterprise—usually the boss in the shop on the farm or wherever—can then take an extra week themselves. The idea that it is a choice is a bit mythical. 
As the last speaker Carol Beaumont indicated transferring the day off from Christmas Day to some other time will now no longer in effect be by choice or by any real agreement but can be determined in the last analysis by the employer. The whole concept of choice in our society is a bit mythological when we have power relations and when we have what is still called in law a master-servant relationship in the workplace. In many respects it still is. The unions help to redress the power but the whole aim of this Holidays Amendment Bill and the preceding bill the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) is to redress the power balance in favour of the employer against the union to reduce further whatever choices ordinary workers have in the workplace. I am not saying an element of choice does not exist but it has been reduced. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 I could not help myself. The arrogance of it! That is what this is about—real downright arrogance. “We know best. Thou shall not do what you want to; we will make the decision for you. You are actually too dumb to understand—” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am coming to the Chair’s defence. We all know that the Chair is not dumb and for the member who has more than slight experience in the House to accuse the Chair of that is inappropriate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank that member. Before I call the member I say that when I stand it actually means something. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sure members can see me when I am standing. It means that we terminate the speech at that time and the member with the call sits down. Regarding the point that was made about bringing the Chair into the debate I am sure the member knows that that should not happen. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: I apologise. I say that the Labour members opposite believe that they know best. They are saying to workers that you shall not have the right to choose. You will not have the right to choose what you do. They are saying to a family that you shall not trade that fourth week’s leave. You cannot decide— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: Sorry Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member should not bring the Chair into the debate. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: I was not Mr Chairperson; I was saying to people—I was not referring to you— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member will not argue with me; I have ruled. The member brought the Chair into the debate and that is not allowed. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: I was saying that Labour members are saying to people that they should not have the right to choose. They are saying to workers who do not have the money to take their families away at Christmas that they will not trade off 1 week of their holiday. You will stay home for the 4 weeks of your holiday and you will not be able to— 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the Chair is being brought into the debate again. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am prepared to allow some flexibility. If it is a direct reference to the Chair then that is completely out of order. We have had some points of order on that and the member is correct in that sense. I ask the member to speak in the third person as opposed to referring to the Chair directly. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: Labour is saying to workers who might want to trade 1 week of their 4 weeks’ holiday so that they can take their family to Paihia Russell or wherever they want and have 3 weeks’ holiday that they shall not be able to do that. Workers cannot trade off that week. The Labour Party wants to decide for workers. It is saying that people are better to stay at home for 4 weeks and not be able to take their kids out rather than be able to take them to Russell Paihia or Tauranga for 1 week and have only 3 weeks off. 
The Labour Party is saying to a family who may have a son who is an exceptional young soccer player that they are not allowed to trade off 1 of those 4 weeks of holiday in order to buy that child a decent pair of soccer boots and get special training because that is not a decision people are capable of. The Labour Party and the Green Party will make that decision for workers. 
I find it disgusting that members opposite are not prepared to allow workers to make that decision. If a family has a young talented singer who wants some special lessons the Labour Party is saying that it will not allow that family to trade off 1 week of its holidays in order to get their child some special lessons and expertise. 
The Labour Party and the Green Party think they know what is best for workers. Frankly it disgusts me. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 That was a spirited attack from the Hon Sir Roger Douglas. It is the sort of attack that we see from him after dinner. It is interesting that the attacks on the Labour Party have come from the ACT Party and the pet former union official Tau Henare formerly known as Raymond. That member came into the House for two reasons. One was his venerable surname. But more important the second reason was that he came in on the back of Winston Peters. Tau Henare’s first promise when he came in here was that he would never go into Government with National. What did he do? In 1996 his was the swing vote that decided to go into Government with National. That is what that member’s word is worth. He broke his word at the first opportunity. His word was not worth much as a union official either. 
Then when Winston Peters—who was the reason that the member was here—had some integrity and walked away from the then National Government Raymond stayed with it because he was in National’s pocket then. He was taking National’s coin; he would not resign his position as a Minister. He stayed with Jenny Shipley because he had no principles then just as he had no principles when he was a union official and went around bottling his colleagues. That was Tau Henare. He has not changed in all those years. 
It will be interesting when we come to Darien Fenton’s amendments to give people the right to have an extra holiday when Easter and Anzac Day clash. I agree with a number of members that Anzac Day is a sacred day and that its observance should not be shifted but I tell members that there is nothing in my religion that says Easter Monday is sacred. There is nothing sacred about Easter Monday at all and in my opinion shifting the observance of that day is no problem whatsoever. Some people who have no idea about religion will stand up for Easter Monday. Who on the other side of House will say that Easter Monday is a religious holiday? 
David Bennett 
: Who cares about your opinion? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes David Bennett will say that. David Bennett has not had the courage to get on his hind legs and debate this part. The chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member cannot say another member does not have courage. The member should know that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member opposite who chaired the select committee cannot find the inclination to get on his hind legs and make a contribution to the debate. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Aw! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We hear moaning from over there. “Aw!” says Tau Henare. We have the pet of the National Party the tame member whom the party leads along and lets out— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In amongst all the personal abuse of members on this side of the House I find any mention of the Holidays Amendment Bill distinctly lacking. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am the judge of that. We have 1 minute 30 seconds to go and I will take that into consideration. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point I am considering as we debate Part 1 of the Holidays Amendment Bill and look at the “Proof of sickness or injury” provision is why Tau Henare wants west Auckland health centres to be overrun. Why does Raymond Henare want west Auckland health centres to be overrun with people who do not need medical certificates but who are trying to get them? That member does not care about the sick Maori kids. He does not care about the pregnant mothers who will be infected by the people forced to go into those health centres. He is an uncaring member but he is the pet of the Tories. They let him out every now and again. They let him off his leash and he is allowed to have a go. 
What about Michael Woodhouse? He at least understands the legislation—well maybe he does not. I ask members where he comes from. He comes from Dunedin South. No Michael Woodhouse does not understand the bill at all but he understands it better than Tau Henare does. I would like to know why Tau Henare cannot take a decent look at the amendments and tell the Committee what is wrong with them instead of attacking unionists all the time. The amendments are very very carefully focused on trying to make this legislation work in a way that is appropriate. But I will make it clear to the Minister that although Labour is encouraging her to pick up a few of these amendments and support them even if she does that Labour will be unable to support the legislation. 
I think it is fair to say the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has done quite a lot of work to try to improve this legislation. I think it is fair to say some of the changes have improved it but some of them have made it worse. I will focus in particular on the deletion from new section 28A inserted by clause 10 of subsection (2)(a) because in the bill as it was introduced there was a requirement for requests made under subsection (1) to be “informed and voluntary”. In making a request a wage earner and salary earner had to be informed and the request had to be voluntary. The implication was that the request could not be made under duress. I ask members what happened to that in the select committee. The National Government used its jackboots to take out the requirement for workers’ consent—for the request to be voluntary and informed. One of the amendments that is sitting on the Table—one of several hundred amendments that are being developed to sit on the Table—will put that back in. Labour believes very strongly in that. 
I say to Sir Roger Douglas that I enjoyed his speech but I ask him whether he believes in that kind of consent. No his speech was entertaining. It was entertaining in the way that horror movies are. Does Sir Roger Douglas believe that workers’ consent should be informed and voluntary? There is not a word not a whisper not a whimper from him. He was full of fire earlier on but when some of the ACT principles come back at him—the right to be informed and the right to make a voluntary decision—he shuts up. He will wander along against ACT principles into the lobbies with his old mates from National. Every now and again there is a coincidence of view between the Labour Party and ACT and there are small parts of this legislation and some amendments where we do have the same view. But does Sir Roger Douglas have the ability to stand up and say he will act on principle join the Maori Party the Green Party and the Labour Party and do what he thinks is right? No he does not. 
I reckon that 20 years ago Sir Roger Douglas would have acted on his principles. I reckon that at that stage he was someone who had principles. He says he has forgotten what it was like.  
Hon Member 
: Thank goodness. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I think it is sad because although I used to disagree with Sir Roger Douglas much more often than I agreed with him we used to know that when he said something and he believed something he would act accordingly. We know that he thinks that these requests should be voluntary. Members know this because he told us that workers should have the right to request this but that it should be voluntary and it should be informed. He said that earlier and I want to know whether we can take Sir Roger at his word. Is he prepared to stand up for what he believes in or is it the case that when the Government says he is to go into the lobby he will ask how quickly? 
That is the approach that the ACT Party appears to be taking now. It is taking the Rodney Hide line. It is all right for the Maori Party every now and again—less so—to take the Tariana Turia line rather than the line of principle but in the case of ACT it appears to be happening all the time now with National. Rodney Hide says “Go this way.” and Sir Roger says “How quickly?”. I think it is sad that someone who used to have principles that I know he felt very deeply is not prepared to have workers make their decisions voluntarily. He is not prepared to vote for workers to be informed and I think that is a sad comment on the end of a political career. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 First I say that I have to disagree with my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard on two particular matters. Usually we agree on most things. I will take issue with one thing first and that is about the people of Dunedin South: they are a pretty bright bunch and I think they certainly do understand the Holidays Amendment Bill. I will not cast aspersions on the intelligence or otherwise of my Dunedin colleague on the other side of the House Michael Woodhouse who lives in my electorate. I say that the people of Dunedin South can recognise a rort when they see one and this bill certainly is a rort. The second thing I will take issue with Trevor Mallard on and maybe it is because he likes horror movies—I am not sure—is the speech given by Roger Douglas which made me feel sick. I certainly did not enjoy it at all. Perhaps that is because I do not like horror movies. I occasionally try to watch them but I am not very good at watching them. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Maybe he’ll be in  
The 
Rocky Horror Show 
 like his old mate Rob. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Perhaps he will be in  
The 
Rocky Horror Show 
 and maybe he could follow in the proud tradition of that former Prime Minister of this country and end up being the narrator at some point. That would probably be a fitting thing for him to do because seriously the speech that he gave was a joke in terms of the meaning behind this bill. 
I want to share a story with members. Last week after the House rose I caught a cab to the airport and in the fine Dunedin tradition I shared that cab with my Dunedin colleague so that I did not sit in the cab on my own. The cab driver listened to us talk for a while about the week’s events—this story has relevance to Part 1—then he ventured his own opinion. He said that he had had enough. He had been driving a cab for about 15 years in this country and had done OK but in the last couple of years he had had enough because he could not make a living. He could not make ends meet. Costs were going up he could not make it work and he was heading off to Australia in 10 days’ time. This Government makes claims that it will close the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand but its actions are causing more people to take that step to leave for overseas. 
That is the travesty of the speech made by Roger Douglas in which he said the bill was about trading-up provisions flexibility and giving people choice. He said that the justification for this bill was to give people the money in order to take their family on a holiday. I say pay people more money instead of making them trade off a week’s leave. That is not trading up; that is trading down. He talked about workers’ choice and flexibility but they are all code words for employers having more power in the employment relationship. We all know about that and the people of Dunedin South all know about that. It is a joke and I feel ashamed to be in this Chamber and listen to people speak like that. 
I mention the speech made by my colleague Su’a William Sio in which he said that this bill is about screwing workers keeping wages low and giving people the awful choice of trading off an important part of what makes this country a good country—that is the right to have holidays. The bill forces people to make that choice and gives employers the power to enforce that choice on workers. I agree the bill is about screwing workers keeping wages low and affecting the most vulnerable workers. New Zealanders work really hard and I challenge any members to disagree with that and say that we are a nation of bludgers and that workers try to rip the system off. We have a strong work ethic. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on Part 1 and I want to break through some of the ridiculous rhetoric we have been hearing from the other side of the Chamber. This bill is not about choice. 
David Bennett 
: You should listen to Roger Douglas; he got you in here. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That was another stellar interjection from David Bennett the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee! I thank the submitters. I think they are lucky that they made it past David Bennett because he stops people submitting at our select committee. We were lucky that some submitters managed to make it past the guard dog; he does not like people coming along to make submissions against Government legislation. 
The fact is that this bill is not about choice and when ACT and National say it is about choice they are just showing how out of touch they are. There is no choice for a family who are living on the breadline because their wages have stalled because the cost of living has gone up because this Government—which promised when it was asked during the election campaign that it would not increase GST—increased GST in October this year. Those families have found that all their costs have gone up and they are struggling to get by. 
National and ACT members would have us believe that those families have a choice when it comes to whether they trade in a week’s holiday. Do members know what real choice is? Real choice is asking people whether they would rather have a pay increase and be able to live on their salary. I guarantee that every single one of them would say that that is what they would like to do. There is no choice involved when someone is desperate and has to make cut-backs. There is no choice involved when families cannot send their kids on a school trip because there is no money left at the end of the week. It is not a choice when people have to choose between work and spending time with their families regenerating and taking time to make sure they can be more productive workers. That is why we have annual leave. It helps productivity and it helps workers to feel rested. It means they can spend time with their families and do not feel that they are neglecting them. 
It is not a choice to say to them that instead of a pay increase they will be given the option of cashing up a week’s leave even though we know they do not have a choice about it because it is a choice between paying the bills and not paying the bills. Saying it is a choice is like saying that a family who get evicted because they cannot pay the rent chose not to pay the rent. It is like saying that a family who cannot afford to buy their kid new shoes chose not to buy their kid new shoes. It ignores the reality which is the nub of this issue that too many New Zealanders now are struggling and this Government is doing absolutely nothing except passing ridiculous pieces of legislation like this bill. Such legislation does absolutely nothing to address the core problems facing many New Zealand families. 
This Government said it would be family friendly. How is it family friendly to view annual leave only in terms of the dollar cost of it and not in terms of the value that it provides for workers to their families and to the employer when they have a more productive worker? 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: They plunder families. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right; it is just a commodity to the National Government and it is very telling that it views it only in terms of that dollar value. 
We see that view again when we talk about the changes to sick leave provisions. If an employer has reason to believe that someone is rorting sick leave the employer can demand a medical certificate. But the flipside is they have to have reason to believe that someone is rorting it. How is that unfair? How is it unfair to say that employers should have reason to believe it and be able to show some evidence of it for example someone consistently takes Fridays and Mondays off or the boss sees someone on the television at the rugby? Of course they should be able to demand a medical certificate to prove that. 
But this Government says that anyone can be made to provide a medical certificate if they are sick for 1 day even if it is a cold or flu even though as the Government knows all the research in New Zealand shows that there is no problem. Our workers take less sick leave on average than those of most other countries. The biggest cost to the Government overall is not the cost of sick leave and how much workers are taking. The biggest cost is the loss of productivity that results when workers who are sick go to work. That is the biggest cost to employers in New Zealand. The Government knows that. It has been told time and time again that that is what the studies show. 
Darien Fenton 
: Even Treasury says so. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Yes. Treasury says that the biggest cost is caused by workers going to work when they are sick. If workers are told they have to get a medical certificate if they take a day off sick they will go to work—and they probably would not be able to see a doctor on that day. They probably cannot afford to go to a doctor just to be told that they have a cold or the flu and that they should stay home and rest. Why would they waste money on doctors’ fees—ever-increasing doctor’s fees under this Government—to get a medical certificate from a doctor who will tell them they should not have bothered going to the doctor? 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will follow on from my colleague Moana Mackey and talk about evidence. The assumption is that when we pass legislation we do it for a reason: because there is something wrong because we want to improve things or because there is a problem. 
I will look at Part 1 which deals with the idea of the sickie and I will pick up from where Moana Mackey left off. Let us look at a survey that was done of workers taking sick leave in New Zealand in 2009. It surveyed 593 employers and 38000 employees and found that in a 12-month period the average amount of sick days taken was 4.6 days. Do 4.6 days sound excessive? Is that a problem? Why are we passing this legislation through Parliament when there is simply no problem? 
This bill is about ideology. It is about playing to one’s friends. It is about making a pretence or trying to create some sort of illusion that this Government has a plan for productivity. Labour productivity in New Zealand is among the lowest in the world; in fact I think it is the second to lowest in the OECD—it is one place above Iceland. We work hard in New Zealand. We work harder per hours worked than just about anybody in the OECD. This bill is not about trying to further penalise people for taking the odd sick day because they need to; it is about ideology. 
If this bill were about evidence—and we wanted to look at evidence to support this bill—we would have expected to hear from the Department of Labour from Statistics New Zealand and from the Accident Compensation Corporation but we have not. We do not have data from them. We would have hoped to read a regulatory statement from the Department of Labour. That was something that ACT and Rodney Hide were very adamant about. He wanted to see a regulatory statement for all legislation that went through Parliament. We did not even give the Department of Labour the chance to give or offer any advice on this legislation. 
I come back to the point about evidence and a plan. This bill does not have a plan and there is no evidence. It is simply as I said before the ideology of this Government. In the case of sick leave the legislation is unworkable. Fancy taking the phrase “reasonable grounds” out of the Holidays Act! What is the problem? As Moana Mackey just said if an employer suspects an employee of rorting the system they can ask that employee for a medical certificate—they have reasonable grounds. If we take “reasonable grounds” out of the Act then every employer can ask any employee at any time to come up with a medical certificate within 3 days. Imagine the issue of having to go to a medical centre or a doctor in order to get one. Even Peter Dunne who is supporting the Government—as he normally does but he is supporting the National Government this time—said that was unworkable. 
Then in this Chamber we heard Roger Douglas talk about the right of choice and the 40-hour week. We could go back 100 years and hear the same speeches about employers from people in this House asking why workers have to have a 40-hour week and why they cannot have the choice to work an extra 10 20 or 30 hours. By that logic why give the option of only 1 week’s holiday; why not 4 weeks’ holiday so that people just continue to work through their holidays? There is no logic and this bill shows no understanding of the power relations between an employer and an employee. 
This bill is not based on evidence it is not based on any logic but it is based on ideology. It is based on the fact that we want to pretend that there is a plan and that we want to pretend that we will make New Zealand more productive. All we will do is to take away the rights of people who do not have the right to say no. I am tired of sitting in this Chamber and having ideology rammed down our throats as a plan. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I wanted to take a call to address the provision in this bill to sell the fourth week of one’s holiday. I have sat here for some time listening to how the provision is justified by this notion of choice. We have heard a lot about choice today. The Hon Dr Wayne Mapp said earlier when he entered the Chamber that it was also about money. Well I say to the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp that it is not about money—time is important. I wonder when a Government member will rise to defend the rights and needs of the families who require that time. I wonder whether members opposite will stand up and defend the right to cry “Fire!” in a crowded room simply because they feel like it because that is the choice they have. They will not. Members on that side of the Chamber are reluctant to speak about the limits of this notion of choice. 
Presenting the notion that the provision to sell 1 week’s leave is a choice is really being cute. It is being cute with the lives of our families and I will explain why as I go along. The idea behind the fourth week of annual leave is to give our families time. I do not see Government members rising to defend the right of choice in everything; they do not. They are always very very selective and they have been today as well when they have been talking about choice. It essentially means a choice when members on that side of the Chamber have the chance to peddle their particular ideology on any matter that is introduced into this House. I ask why they do not defend the right to choose in relation to speeding. I ask what their basic argument is to say that one does not have the choice to drive beyond the speed limit. They can see that doing that has dangers. This House has rules in place and that one is about safety; it is about the safety of others. 
Choices have to be balanced out as well. It is not just a matter of choice willy-nilly but it is for members opposite when they want to make a particular ideological point. There is no choice over whether to break into a house because that is about safety and the rights of others. There is no choice over whether we pay our taxes. That is something we all have to do because that is how a decent society and our kind of democracy operates. 
Why has choice become so important for this Government and why is the Minister of Labour driving the notion of choice through this particular provision—the provision to sell the fourth week of one’s annual leave. I wonder when members opposite will show a real appreciation of the notion of the fourth week of annual leave. Why was it introduced and why did Labour members when in Government support that notion? I understand that National members never supported the notion of having a fourth week of holiday. Did they? No they did not. This is one way by stealth that they are trying to get rid of it. 
Essentially this provision says to me that the Government is anti-family; it is absolutely anti-family. The notion of spending time with the family is one of the most important predictors of family well-being. The one thing that families constantly tell us is that they require time—time to parent to celebrate who they are to build relationships and to have real family time. This is when a family recovers. This is when a family enjoys themselves. This is when the family develops all of the good will that family members require throughout their lifetime as a family. 
When this bill attacks family time it is essentially attacking our families. It is taking away from the very unit that we want to make the strongest unit possible in our society. The fourth week of holiday is a very important time. It is incredible that Government members have not shown any appreciation of the provision of the fourth week of holiday. Government members have said that this is simply a choice but it is a choice on the employer’s side only. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for allowing me to take a call on the Committee stage of the Holidays Amendment Bill. I think it is important to put this bill into perspective and before I get to the gist of this I will reflect a little bit on National’s past record on employees’ rights. For those members it has been all about employers’ rights as opposed to employees’ rights but let us look at their record on employees’ rights. 
The unfortunate reality is that far too many of the Ministers in the current Government are from National’s school of the 1990s and we need to remember that. We need to remember that that school of thought taught that employees’ rights should be secondary to business profits. We on this side of the House are not anti-business; we think it is important to support business while ensuring that employees have their rights protected. But the reality is that the Government side of the House does not believe the same thing. National as everyone in this Chamber would know—even those from National—has an absolutely shocking record on employees’ rights. It tried to put on a smiley face at the 2008 election and pretend that things were going to be different from last time and that things would not change much with regard to what Labour had put in place when we were in Government. 
I will touch in particular on what the Government side of the Chamber has tried to say with regard to stopping the sickie. 
Darien Fenton 
: That’s insulting. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: It is incredibly insulting. It is incredibly insulting because the Government side of the Chamber has implied the whole way along with regard to the rhetoric it has put out there that New Zealanders are basically ripping off the system New Zealanders are lazy New Zealanders are lying to their bosses and New Zealanders are taking every opportunity to stay home when they are not sick and not only waste their employer’s time but take advantage of their position. It is a horrible way to think. It is a petty way to think. It is a terrible foundation on which a Government builds a relationship with the public if that is the assumption they are making about workers out there. 
The idea that in taking 1 day off sick an employee would be expected to visit a doctor and get a doctor’s certificate is just absolutely ridiculous. All of us know that since National has come into power since the National Government has been at the reins—since 2008 when it won that election—the medical bills have gone up. Yet now we are putting more costs on to the average working person by saying that if they decide to take just 1 day—1 day—off sick they will have to visit the doctor and they will have to fork out for that themselves. We on this side of the Chamber think that is an unrealistic and unfair expectation of ordinary Kiwi workers who are not lazy who work hard and who when they say they are sick they are genuinely sick and should be supported by their employers to take that time off and stay home. 
My colleague who spoke just before me Mr Prasad brought up the fact that this Government’s employment policy shows that it is unfortunately—but in reality—anti-family. When we look at the provisions that are in place with regard to sick leave we see it is another area that proves that the National Government is anti-family. After 1 day off—1 day off—employees must go to the doctors and get a medical certificate. The cost of going to the doctor is money that is taken away from that adult’s ability to look after their children. That 1 day that they need to take off sick they may not be able to afford to. Therefore they continue on at work and later on they end up much sicker than they would have been. Who suffers from that? It is the children because they have parents who cannot spend time with them. In the long term the parents will be much sicker than they should be because they did not take the time off when they needed to. The Government side of the Chamber makes no sense with regard to the decisions that they make. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I want to follow up on a couple of points in this part of the Holidays Amendment Bill. First of all I will follow on from my colleagues regarding proof of sickness or injury and then I will go back to alternative holidays. I will also talk about some ways that we can improve this bill. There are some very good amendments which those members on the other side of the Chamber might want to look at. 
I made a point earlier about alternative holidays and that this bill is mean-spirited and unnecessary. I note that the Minister of Labour is in the chair. This is her legislation. Why is that provision there? When we look at all of the material and all the submissions we see there seems to be no great desire to make the change around alternative holidays so why is it there? Why does the Minister not rise and address the Committee and become part of this debate? These are important changes that are disadvantaging New Zealand workers. 
On the issue of proof of sickness or injury it is really impossible to figure out the reason behind this. In fact no evidence was provided of a need for this provision. For example there was no commentary about it in the regulatory impact statement. What need is this provision addressing? What problem is it meant to be solving? Doctors have publicly commented on the fact that it will not work. The General Practice New Zealand chairwoman Bev O’Keefe told the New Zealand Press Association that there could be capacity problems in our medical centres if people who are sick for 1 day are trying to get in because they are required to get a medical certificate. I think everybody in this Chamber would probably tell us that it is nigh on impossible to see one’s doctor on the day one is sick. The General Practice New Zealand chairwoman said that capacity problems could well ensue. Doctors also tell us that when people are generally unwell sometimes the best thing to do is to stay at home in bed—not to go into work and spread their illness and not to go into very busy medical centres and spread what they have around everybody else.  
What is the purpose of this provision? How fair is it to be able to require somebody to get a medical certificate for sickness or injury without having to have a genuine reason for doing so and without having to tell that person why? I can see a situation where this provision could actually be abused. We can see a harassment situation occurring where if somebody had got up the employer’s nose one way to go about it would be to start being really hard line on medical certificates. It sounds crazy but it does not sound any crazier than the actual provision.  
Why is it necessary to make this change when there are already very clear provisions in the Act that say if an employer has good grounds to suspect that somebody is abusing the sick leave provisions the employer can require the employee to get a medical certificate? It is already there. The only difference is that the employer actually has to have a reason. That does not seem to me to be unfair but it does seem unfair that an employer can make somebody go and get a medical certificate without giving a reason. I would really like to ask the Minister about that because I may be missing something profoundly important. It would be great to hear the Minister speak on this important legislation that makes major changes to our employment legislation. Certainly I think this is a real concern. Overwhelmingly people who submitted felt that this provision was just Draconian and going back as one submitter said to the Victorian ages.  
We have some good amendments in this area. One of those is an amendment that would require the employer to advise the employee why they are asking them to get a medical certificate. That seems only fair. At the moment the clause provides for the meeting of reasonable expenses. The employer must meet the employee’s reasonable expenses in getting a medical certificate. We in this Chamber all know that the cost of medical certificates can vary around New Zealand. Where I live in Auckland it is pretty expensive. We are proposing that we omit “reasonable” and substitute “full”. That would be an improvement at least in that the full cost of getting a medical certificate would have to be covered. I would like the Minister to get up and answer some of these questions. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 59 Noes 51. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 28A(2) the following paragraph above paragraph (b): 
“(a)must be informed and voluntary; and”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is a correction to the closure motion. The Ayes are 69 and the Noes are 51. The record will be amended. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 28A(2) the following paragraph above paragraph (b): 
“(a)must be made in the absence of duress; and”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 28A(2)(c) “1 week” and substitute “1 day”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next three amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to substitute other amounts of days are ruled out of order as being substantially the same as an amendment already determined by the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 28A(2) the following paragraph: 
“(d)may only be made once in a 10-year period of continuous employment.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next eight amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to substitute other dates are ruled out of order as being substantially the same as the amendment already determined by the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 28A(4)(b) “not”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 28D(b) “ nor may it be raised at any time in the future as a reason for not providing a pay increase to an employee”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
11ADays that are public holidays 
Section 44 is amended by adding the following substection: 
“(5)Whenever Easter Monday and Anzac Day fall on the same day Easter Monday must be treated as falling on the following Tuesday.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 44A(2) “the employee and his or her employer may agree in writing (whether in an employment agreement or otherwise)” and substitute “the employee may request that”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 44A the following subsection after subsection (2): 
“(2A)Any reasonable request by an employee under subsection (2) must not be refused by the employer.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 44A(3) all the words after “for working on a public holiday”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Kate Wilkinson to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause after the clause heading: 
(1)Section 57(1) is amended by adding “; and” and also by adding the following paragraph: 
“(d)not to be taken on a public holiday.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next 12 amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 13 are ruled out of order as contrary to a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 68(1A)(b) “reasonable” and substitute “full”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; United Future 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 68(1A) the following paragraph: 
“(c)informs the employee of the grounds upon which the employer suspects that the sick leave being taken by the employee is not genuine because none of the grounds in section 65(1) are met.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard’s second amendment to in clause 14 add new paragraph (c) to section 68(1A) in relation to genuine reasons for sick leave is ruled out of order as the amendment is substantially the same as an amendment already negatived by the Committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to other Acts and transitional provisions 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that Part 2 is not quite as big as the previous part that we have been dealing with in the Holidays Amendment Bill but it involves schedule 2 and clause 19 “Transitional Provision”. Schedule 2 “Amendments to other Acts” cross-references the Employment Relations Act 2000 No 24. Schedule 2 involves repealing section 79(1) and substituting new section 79(1) which states: “An employer must pay to an eligible employee the employee’s relevant daily pay as defined in section 9 of the Holidays Act 2003 or average daily pay calculated in accordance with section 9A of that Act (as the case may be) for every day or part of a day taken by the employee as employment relations education leave.” 
There is a further amendment in this case to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 No 129 whereby there is an addition to the end of section 42(2) of the words “is taken or paid out”. So the essence of schedule 2 is that the Acts listed—the Employment Relations Act and the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act—are amended. At first glance they appear to be relatively minor changes but when one looks at them more carefully one can see that these provisions hook right into the vicious attacks on workers. In the case of the first Act that is amended by the schedule this nasty new approach to relevant daily pay is important to the Employment Relations Act for people who are taking employment relations education leave as well as for other reasons. 
Clause 19 is the other operative clause of the bill and effectively is a transitional provision. It states: “To avoid doubt a request under section 28A of the principal Act (as inserted by section 10 of this Act) may be made only in relation to an entitlement year that begins on or after the commencement of this Act.” I think members agreed to insert this amendment as part of section 10. One of the questions is whether it should be “section 10 of this Act” or “clause 10” because I think that when this bill is passed the provision will be part of the substantive Act and then there will be a numbering question. It may well be that because this bill will not be a stand-alone Act because it amends the Holidays Act there is the question of whether the reference in clause 19 should be to“section 10 of this Act” or to “clause 10 of this bill”. A section of course is what finally goes into legislation; a clause is what we are dealing with here. 
There will not be a Holidays Amendment Act standing alone in the statute book. All the changes that are made as a result of this legislation will be imported into the substantive Act which is the Holidays Act—I have lost the original year my colleagues might be able to help me—2003. It has been about 7 years. I cannot quite recall whether this Holidays Act was one that was totally rewritten in 2003 or whether it is one from an earlier date. As it turns out the principal Act is from 2003. When the legislation is reprinted and all put together there will be a 2003 Act. 
The Holidays Amendment Bill that we are dealing with now will not exist as an Act because it will sit right through the other bits of legislation. We will not be able to find it. When the legal people of Brookers have worked their way through consolidating the Acts in the way that they do wandering through our offices every now and again this bill which will become an Act will be part of the substantive Act and we will be able to find it in the statute books with the points I have mentioned all made. It is a question for the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson—and I know she is right on top of these drafting and constitutional issues—to tell us whether the reference in clause 19 to section 10 should read “section 10 of this Act” or “clause 10 of this bill”. 
In fact the person who was an assistant lecturer at a polytech and could not make it into the legal faculty but instead made it into the commerce faculty as an assistant lecturer Dr Wayne Mapp is the font of legal wisdom currently on the other side of the Chamber. It may be that he is able to take a call and let us know from his experience which got him as far as being an assistant reader. Does that mean that he helped people read or does it mean that someone had to read to him if he was an assistant reader at the polytech in the commerce faculty rather than the legal faculty? Perhaps he could not quite make it into the law faculty because his qualifications were not flash. It may be that he has the drafting knowledge to indicate to us what the right approach should be. 
Going back to the question of employment relations education leave I am pleased that the Minister of Labour has decided to put it in the bill. She raises what is an important issue for us. Making sure that the conditions are appropriate for people as they take their employment relations education leave is very important. This bill is designed to drive down the conditions and drive down the payments that people receive when they have employment relations education leave which used to be pretty widely available and is now very very rationed. The leave initiative has been widely supported by the union movement and by a lot of employers because they know that a well-educated workforce which understands the industrial relations area as a result of employment relations education leave is much more likely to take a problem-solving approach rather than a combative problem-causing approach. 
Of course National has different views on this. Those members prefer people to be at the barricades and lobbing grenades at each other and we can look at schedule 2 which contains amendments to other Acts including substituting section 79(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Labour is very strongly supportive of making sure that when employees take their employment relations education leave they are not disadvantaged in the way that has been done in that amendment. Frankly it has been done in a pretty sneaky way. I ask why the Minister of Labour did not stand up in this Chamber and say that the Government will cut employees’ pay when they take employment relations education leave. I ask why she did not get on her hind legs and admit to the House that the objective of this Government is to cut back the payments that people receive when they take their employment relations education leave. What did she do? She sneaked it into a schedule sitting it at the back of the bill. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I have to admit to being absolutely dismayed on examining schedule 2 and the amendment to the Employment Relations Act in relation to employment relations education leave. I was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I have to admit that the provision went past me. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Oh! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Jo Goodhew should listen because it is a very very important provision for workers when it comes to having an active and engaged workforce whose members understand their rights— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Unlike the current member who is neither active nor engaged. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: What is that noise over there? There is a bit of a noise going on over there. It would be good if it just stopped. 
This provision comes on top of the sneaky cuts that this Government made to employment relations education in last year’s Budget. It cut the contestable fund by 56 percent. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well this is consistent with that. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I know that Wayne Mapp gets all excited when we start talking about workers’ rights but that fund also applies to employers. They were just as upset about that as unions workers’ representatives and the Council of Trade Unions were. Employers also use that fund to educate their managers and businesses about productive employment relationships. 
Let us face it one of the problems we have in this country and it has been well researched and well documented is that we have a low quality of management. That is one of the issues that are standing in the way of increasing our productivity. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If they went to some of those union education leave courses the quality of their management could well improve. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well that is true. They might learn something. But now it will be even more difficult of course. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The managers wouldn’t want to go on the pay that the workers get for it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No that is true and what will happen is that unions will have to top up that pay. It will become yet another compliance cost on unions which are trying to do the right thing. They are trying to make sure that they are able to have engaged informed and well-educated workers so that they do not have to knock on the door of employers all the time to talk to them about what is going on in their workplaces. The whole idea about employment relations education leave is that many issues can be solved in the workplace by workplace representatives or delegates. 
I am disappointed about that but I also refer to the transitional provision in clause 19 in Part 2 which refers to section 28A of the Holidays Act. I think it is an illustration of the mess that this whole legislation has got us into. We heard from members opposite in the earlier debate about how workers will just love the ability to cash up their annual leave and that they cannot wait to do so. We heard that they are so grateful to the Government. Of course this bill will not come into force until next year. I come to the commencement date because there is some confusion over that as well. The bill will not come into force until next year. All sorts of people have been listening to the National Government’s rhetoric. They are thinking that at least they can get a pay increase by cashing up their annual leave this year. They have not had any other sort of pay increase because this Government has no plan to build the economy— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Stop your moaning and stand up straight. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes sergeant-major I say to Tau Henare. 
There is no plan to build the economy to increase wages or to bridge the gap with Australia—we all know that. 
In schedule 1 “Consequential amendments to principal Act” what we have again is an illustration of the confusion of this bill. Although we have not talked a lot about average daily pay versus relevant daily pay because overall we do not have major difficulties with the change what we do have in this bill is a choice for employers between one system and the other. How confusing is that? We have heard again and again how difficult the Holidays Act is to interpret and how complicated relevant daily pay is to calculate and so on but now we have a choice. Oh my goodness all of those sections under schedule 1 will be amended and I think we are getting into a right old mess. 
The Holidays Act is criticised again and again and this bill is supposed to be the opportunity for the Government to show everybody in the country that it can do a better job than the previous Labour Government but I think it has mucked it up. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I will also talk about clause 19 “Transitional provision” in Part 2. It contains the phrase “section 28A of the principal Act (as inserted by section 10 of this Act)” which relates to the question of when people will be able to cash up 1 week of their annual leave as my colleague Darien Fenton has said. New section 28A(5) defines the term “entitlement year”. It is “a period of 12 months continuous employment beginning on the anniversary of the employee’s employment; and (b) includes a period of 12 months continuous employment described in section 16(2).” of the Holidays Act. 
When we look at the provisions in new section 28A “Employee may request portion of annual holidays be paid out” we see that they go through the process as to how that will happen. Originally that process was to be informed and voluntary. It will no longer be informed and voluntary. The suggestion that was made to people that the process would happen only when employees wanted it to happen and that everyone would understand the full implications and be very very clear that it was voluntary is no longer there but there are some other provisions on how employees will request that a portion of their annual holidays are paid out. The request must be made in writing and it may be made on one occasion or on more than one separate occasion for example. Employers must consider the request and advise employees in writing as to whether they agree. Employers can decline the request. 
We heard a lot of rhetoric about this matter. We heard that Labour is not supporting workers’ choice and we have had all the high dudgeon about property rights and about whose holidays they are. They are employees’ holidays and apparently we are trying to stop employees using their property their holidays. Well actually if people were honest—and members opposite did not mention this bit—the absolute right is with the employer. We have heard all the great rhetoric on this matter tonight from ACT and National but the property right in relation to buying out holidays effectively sits with employers because they can deny the request. But more than that employers can have an absolutely blanket policy that workers in their workplace will not be able to buy their fourth week’s annual leave. That will be the policy of those employers—full stop tough luck. I would quite like to see whether Ms Roy will get up and explain that situation with regard to the property right and choice. Given that the Opposition got such a bollocking from her about that perhaps she can explain why it is OK for employers to do that. 
After section 28A there is a whole range of requirements in clause 10 regarding how this provision will work. New section 28B “Payment for annual holidays paid out” sets out how the payment will be made and what will happen if it is incorrectly paid out. New section 28D “Requirement to make payout prohibited” provides that an employee’s request under section 28A for a portion to be paid out must not be a term or condition of that employee’s employment. We agree with that—we certainly agree with that. 
In new section 28E as I said employers may have a policy preventing paying out a portion of annual holidays. New section 28F “Labour inspector may determine payout” states: “(1) This section applies if an employer has agreed to an employee’s request to pay out a portion of the employee’s annual holidays under section 28A”—which is the bit that the transitional provision in the bill applies to—“but the employer and employee cannot agree on—(a) the portion of annual holidays that are to be or have been paid out; or (b) the amount that the employer is required to pay the employee for the annual holidays that are to be or have been paid out.” 
These provisions are quite a lengthy bit in the bill. My point in relation to the transitional provision and section 28A is that before employees may be able to access this provision depending on whether their employer has a policy that they can access the right to cash up their holidays a year might be necessary to deal with all the arrangements. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am standing again along with my colleagues to take a call. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh you’re not standing again! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Well it is a pity that that member is—[ 
Interruption 
] I will start again. I am not getting into any of that nonsense. Members should settle down. I want to talk about schedule 2 which relates to employment relations education leave and average daily pay which will be calculated let us be honest on the lesser amount. What does that mean for workers in New Zealand? I know that the Government would argue about the value of paid education leave and I acknowledge that it has not applied its usual slash-and-burn approach this time. It has been more a case of burning a bit off the corners but essentially it takes some money out of it. As my colleague said paying at the rate of employment relations education leave for the day means effectively less pay—just as there are fewer holidays and fewer rights etc. It is a case of same old same old from National. 
Members on the Government side of the Chamber—certainly not those on this side of the Chamber—may say: “Well so what? What’s a few bucks less on paid education leave? What’s a few dollars less?”. Again it is one of those dreadful choices that workers have to make. They want to take education leave because they know the value of it but they know that if they will be a few bucks down it will make a real difference to their household incomes. Why? Because this Government does not care about ordinary people and their ability to earn a good living. And I could go right through all the cuts and all the things that have happened under this Government. But I want to talk about the importance of a few dollars when workers take paid education leave. Workers will weigh up the increased cost of GST and the increased cost of early childhood education which may be up to $50 a week for some parents. So when it comes to paid education leave which is a necessity for good workplace relations it will be another one of those dreadful choices. National says it is the party of choice. Yes—and the choice people are given is absolutely reprehensible. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: And the choice New Zealand made was not you. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am not even listening; I cannot hear what the member is saying. I am really pleased about that because he has been talking nonsense all night. I will not even acknowledge him although it is irritating. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask whether David Bennett has taken a call. No it has been Tau Henare every step of the way. We are over that man! Let the Minister in the chair the Minister of Defence take a call. Come on bring it on! 
I want to finish by acknowledging the value of paid education leave. I have been to paid education leave days that enlightened employers have attended in order to learn about health and safety. They see the value of it. 
Once again this Government is trying to disincentivise workers using and having the right to use paid education leave. It is being done as are other things in this House—and I can see Chairman Roy looking sympathetic—by stealth. That is what is most offensive. At least we know where the ACT Party—shocking as it is—and Roger Douglas are coming from. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to focus again on the schedules and the consequential amendments in the Holidays Amendment Bill to the principal Act. I take my lead from my colleague Darien Fenton who has made a great contribution in this area. I am sure at some stage as these matters get to the Employment Court if it still exists or the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court they will be cognisant of it. In particular I want to look at section 16(4) of the principal Act which as we established after a little bit of work last time is the Holidays Act 2003. I know it is spelt principal with an a-l and not an l-e because due to the way it has been changed it could never be described as a principled Act; it is a principal Act in this particular case. 
As a consequential amendment to the principal Act section 16(4) is repealed and substituted not surprisingly with new section 16(4). It states: “An employee’s entitlement to annual holidays remains in force until the employee has—(a) taken all of the entitlement as paid holidays; or (b) been paid out under section 28B for the entitlement in the entitlement year.” One of the questions that I want to ask is a drafting question. We have as the Minister in the chair the former “Assistant Professor” Mapp of a commercial law faculty of a polytech the name of which I cannot remember. It is a question of drafting. What is the technical name of quotation marks the thing that sits in front? I note the quotation marks are sitting at the beginning of each of the clauses but are only at the end of the last one. I wonder why the statements are not either all surrounded by quotation marks or each of the headers in the subclauses are surrounded by quotation marks. Again I think it is pretty important at some stage that we get this right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member is talking about schedule 1 and we are debating schedule 2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sorry; I am happy to switch to schedule 2. I thought we were on schedule 2 as well because as I indicated I heard my colleague Darien Fenton make an entire speech for 5 minutes on schedule 1. I thought it was such a learned contribution that the Chair had decided we would open it up and have another debate in that area so that we could go to some of the possible drafting errors there. I know the Chairman comes from Southland and is generally pretty reasonable and not too stuffed shirt about his approach to these things— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Schedule 2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —and I just thought that he was being generous in a way. Frankly I want to know which drafting approach is the proper one. Is it the approach in schedule 1 or in schedule 2? In schedule 2 the quotation marks are just at the beginning and the end. I think it is fair to say that in schedule 2 there is only one subclause. There are no subparts of the clause; therefore what has happened is that there are quotation marks around the beginning and the end of it. That could be the reason. But when one looks at the parental leave change one can see that the quotation mark is partway through the line and the addition repeal or substitution is outside of it. It does not appear to have the type of quotation notations that are in the earlier stage. I know that after a number of years in this place I should be used to some of the drafting foibles and some of the questions—and I ask the member not to yawn because I am likely to go sleep during my own speech if she continues— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: I’m not yawning. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Or is she hiding her face in amazement at the contribution? 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is  
That the question be now put 
. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye of the contrary opinion will say No. Party vote called for? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Absolutely. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The Clerk will conduct a party vote. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not think you declared a result. I think you have to declare a result before we challenge it. You did not say that the Ayes have it or the Noes have it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure that is the case. I can make a determination that it is a split call. I said “Party vote” and the member consented that that is what Labour wanted. That is what we are doing. The Clerk will now conduct a party vote. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There is zero tolerance for comments made during voting—zero. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a minor matter and it is a matter that I have referred to. I refer you to Standing Order 136. The Speaker is required to state the result of the voice vote. I am not challenging your ruling asking the Speaker to come back or anything like that; I am just indicating that point. I know you are getting a bit tired but in future— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member would note through my conduct in the second vote that I had already absorbed the point he made. I thank him for his contribution. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak about the title of the Holidays Amendment Bill and I want to reflect for just a moment on the word “holiday”. When we think about the word “holiday” generally we conjure up an image of having time away from work on pay. I think that is generally what the average person would think of when he or she thinks about that word. I think they would also think about spending time with their family and friends while they are off work. I can even see members across the Chamber nodding about that. A holiday means time off work with family and friends. 
The Holidays Amendment Bill amends the provisions around holidays. One of the major changes—and let us cut to the chase—one of the most controversial changes is the new provision relating to the ability to cash up 1 week of the statutory minimum which is currently 4 weeks. Currently we have 4 weeks when we can have a holiday—that is be away from work and spend time with family and friends. One of the major provisions in this bill will allow that to change so that the statutory minimum could be 3 weeks away from work with family and friends and 1 week in money. 
First of all I ask whether the name Holidays Amendment Bill is appropriate when a full quarter of our statutory minimum holiday will now not be a holiday as we know it but in fact will be a lump of money. There is a rather convoluted process in the bill to work out how one would go about getting that how it is paid out for what period it applies and so on. I wonder about that title given that money is not time off work. Perhaps an alternative title might be something like “Holidays (Dollars Instead) Amendment Bill” or “Holidays (Stay at Work) Amendment Bill” because that is what people will be doing. They will not be having a 4-week holiday away from work with family and friends as we have agreed is a good definition of a holiday. Instead people will receive a week’s pay and they will be at work. Therefore those are perhaps alternative titles for the bill. 
We have holidays so that we can have time off work. Why do we need time off work? Obviously time off work is time for rest and recreation. The Act actually talks about a worker’s need for rest and recreation. I think we can all agree sitting here now at 9.55 p.m. when some of us have been in the debating chamber since 9 o’clock this morning that time off work can be a very good thing—a bit of rest and recreation. That is why we have holidays and generally those holidays are times that we spend with family and friends while we have that rest and recreation. Usually people go back to work refreshed and probably often more productive as a result of having had some time off. Certainly many people argue—and there seems to be evidence to support this—that fewer accidents occur when people are rested and refreshed as opposed to what happens if people keep working. That is one important part. 
I thought that my colleague Rajen Prasad who was previously a Families Commissioner gave an exceptionally good speech about the importance of holidays for families. When we have a holiday we get to spend time with our family. In our country we have a culture of working long hours. Many people regret especially when they reach an older age in life that they have not spent more time with their family. I may have mentioned earlier that there are probably not too many people who when they reach their retirement age look back and say: “Gee I wish I had spent more time at work.” Most people would wish that they had spent more time with their family their friends and having holidays and enjoying themselves. 
One of the real genuine concerns we have about the payout on holidays is that it is not a particularly family-friendly thing to do. It means that people who really need the money will take the money and as a consequence they will miss out on spending time with their family. There are broad and significant implications from parents not spending time with their family and this has been shown by good research. There has been some really interesting research done by an Australian researcher— 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the—[ 
Interruption 
] What? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s all right. I was just criticising my colleague for taking only one call. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: All right. I was beginning to speak on clauses 1 2 and 3 “Title” “Commencement” and “Principal Act amended”. I want to talk about clause 3 “Principal Act amended”: “This Act amends the Holidays Act 2003.”. My colleague Trevor Mallard was trying to remember earlier the date of the last Holidays Act. It was 2003. I could not remember it either actually. But I did know that it was during the term of a Labour Government and that the last time we amended the Holidays Act we made some significant improvements. We made significant improvements to the holidays of New Zealander workers. It was great because we were on the path towards catching up with Australia in terms of its annual leave. We approved things like improvements to sick leave and bereavement leave. We gave workers time and a half for working on a statutory holiday which they had not had before plus a day in lieu. I was not in the House at that time but I really supported what the Labour Government did. It made a huge difference to working people throughout New Zealand. If they had been asked about it at the time they would have said it was one of the most significant amendments to any Act that the Labour Government made. 
Here we are in 2010 amending the Holidays Act once again but unfortunately we are going backwards. We are now in reverse drive and going back and undoing all the good work that Labour did. The National Government is picking at it bit by bit. I think there will be more change as time goes on. It is a real missed opportunity because while we are debating this in the Chamber tonight our friends and fellow workers and employers in Australia have been talking about holidays once again. They have been talking about what happens next year. There is a great opportunity for this Government to do something right for a change. Next year we have the unique situation where Easter Monday and Anzac Day fall on the same day so New Zealand workers will miss out. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s April 2011 just after this comes into force. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. It is just after the commencement date for this legislation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It might be on the 25th. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is true. The Minister of Labour said that Anzac Day should be revered. Well we agree with that. It does not mean that workers should not get another day off to compensate for the fact that they will miss out on one public holiday next year. That is the truth. Every state in Australia has brought in a provision giving workers an extra day off on pay next year to compensate. In the meantime we are making it harder for workers to have proper days off to recognise public holidays that they are currently entitled to. We are going backwards. This is a huge missed opportunity. 
There are other things that the Government could have done. If the Government really had to go down the path of doing the things it has done—for example requiring a medical certificate after 1 day’s sick leave—it could have introduced an amendment to make sure that the reimbursement was for actual costs. It could have ensured that the reimbursement was not just for the cost of the doctor but also for the cost of finding a babysitter or childminder getting into the car to go to the doctor and perhaps taking time off work. The Government could have done that but of course it did not. It was one of the sensible amendments that members on this side of the Chamber proposed. 
Another amendment that would have made this bill much fairer related to the whole issue of transferring public holidays. Labour members do not have a problem with the idea that people can transfer their holidays to a day that has more cultural meaning to them. Our concern is that it could be used to avoid paying time and a half on the actual day. This bill could have been amended to make it much stronger so that that could not happen. If a worker is required to work on an official public holiday—a recognised public holiday—the worker should be paid time and a half. 
Another missed opportunity was an amendment to make sure that if workers cash up their leave it is not a substitute for a pay increase. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak to clauses 1 to 3 of the Holidays Amendment Bill. The part that I really want to focus on is clause 3 “Principal Act amended”. The bill says that the Holidays Act 2003 is being amended. I pose the question of whether the Health and Safety in Employment Act should also be amended as a result of what is proposed in this bill. 
The Health and Safety in Employment Act which was brought in under Labour requires the employer to take all practicable steps to keep employees safe at work. I wonder whether the legislation we are debating in the Chamber tonight complies with that requirement. We know and all the research and evidence tells us that there is a really strong link between the hours of work that people engage in their ability to have a rest their ability to take holidays and their fatigue at work and therefore there is a link with their susceptibility to making a mistake having an accident hurting themselves or even worse—perhaps a fatality in the workplace. We know the evidence is very strong about that. 
The bill that we are debating gives an incentive particularly to low-paid workers to cash up their right to have a week’s annual leave to recuperate and to do all the things that good health and safety practices tell us are really important in the workplace. It gives them an incentive to give up their week of annual leave and therefore put themselves at greater risk of having a workplace accident. 
We know that in New Zealand because we focus a lot on primary production many of our workplaces are in very dangerous industries and we have a high level of workplace accidents and increasingly under this Government a larger number of workplace fatalities. I ask whether as well as amending the Holidays Act 2003 the Government—[ 
Interruption 
] Tau Henare does not seem to take very seriously workers’ rights to be kept healthy and safe at work but I am asking whether the requirement under the Health and Safety in Employment Act still holds true if we amend this Act. 
There is a requirement for the employer to take all practicable steps to keep employees safe at work. A worker might come along and say they would like to cash up their fourth week of annual leave—for which they can thank the Labour Government. Does that mean that the requirement under the Health and Safety in Employment Act requires the employer to say that actually because of the nature of the workplace and because fatigue is a really big problem in that workplace they cannot be allowed to do that because the employer would not be upholding their legal responsibility under the Health and Safety in Employment Act to take all practicable steps to keep the worker safe? It is a question that has not been asked in this debate so far and I would really appreciate it if the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith rose and responded to the question of whether the Health and Safety in Employment Act as well as the Holidays Act ought to be amended to make this provision lawful. 
The commencement date of 1 April 2011 of course is pretty interesting. I think some witty official must surely have come up with that date. The Government has chosen April Fool’s Day as the commencement date for this legislation and I think it is sadly very appropriate. But I hope that I am wrong. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I would like to talk to clauses 1 to 3 of the Holidays Amendment Bill but probably in a slightly unusual order. I would like to start with clause 2 and focus on the Royal assent. I think it would be inappropriate to do it on 1 April. Today we have the announcement of the impending marriage of Will and Kate in the spring of 2011 which in British terms of course means the wedding could well be held on April Fool’s Day. I have made it very clear and my Facebook friends all know that I think Will’s dad should not be the King. But it does not mean that Will and Kate should not get married; there is nothing wrong with that. The question is whether on their honeymoon they could pop into New Zealand and using the royal prerogative sign the bill. Could Will sign the bill? 
Darien Fenton 
: I’m sure they would love that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well of course. If they really thought New Zealand was important they could have the wedding at Huka Lodge or at one of the churches in Wainuiomata or at a number of places like that and as part of the general documentation the Royal assent to this legislation could occur. 
Sue Moroney 
: John would love to go with them. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: John would smile and wave and he probably would not even walk away if the Royal assent was applied in that way. 
Of course some provisions of the bill come into force on the day after it receives the Royal assent. Clause 7(2) and schedule 1 are the ones that relate to section 29 of the principal Act. They are the sections that come into force on the day after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent. But the rest of the Act as I am sure you are aware Mr Chairman through your intimate study of this bill comes into force on April Fool’s Day. I think for the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Kate Wilkinson that is probably an appropriate date for the bill to come into force. 
I do not think there can be a lot of debate about clause 3 “Principal Act amended”. There is not much doubt that it has an effect on the Holidays Act of 2003 although I think after the debate on the schedules we could consider whether clause 3 should state that the Act amends not only the Holidays Act 2003 but also the Employment Relations Act 2000—which was subsequently amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2010 which we debated not long ago—and the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. We should consider whether to say that the principal Acts amended are those three Acts rather than just the one Act to which we refer. 
We then turn to the title which is the Holidays Amendment Bill 2010. You will be aware Mr Chairperson because I know you have been carefully studying the bill that some very thorough work has gone into some alternative titles for this legislation. Some of the titles go to whether there are better names for the bill and whether the title should be the “Holidays (Taking Away) Bill or whether some better alternative names than that should be considered. 
Carol Beaumont 
: The “Holidays (Cash Instead) Bill”. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It could be called the “Holidays (Cash Instead) Bill” the “Holidays (What the Hell Are We Doing with Our Time) Bill” or the “Holidays (Go to Work Instead) Bill”. It could be the “Holidays (John Key Says ‘I Am Going to Hawaii—Stuff the Workers’) Bill”. There are a number of alternatives. I agree with Whale Oil. He said tonight that probably the reason John Key turned down Pansy Wong’s resignation from Parliament last week was that he did not want to disturb his holiday in Hawaii over Christmas. He wants her resignation to come after Christmas so that he can have an undisturbed holiday. So instead of this bill being called the Holidays Amendment Bill it should be called the “Holidays (Leave Me in Peace in Hawaii) Bill”. I ask whether that would be appropriate. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am really pleased to join my colleagues in taking a call. Obviously this is a very important bill— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You cut me down. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: What was that? 
Hon Member 
: You’re a shocking member cutting me out of the debate like that. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Well I know— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The Chair has sole prerogative on who speaks. The Chair is not shocking. He did not cut that person out. The call has gone to the honourable member Lynne Pillay. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson. I know that you will be very happy to hear a contribution from Mr Mallard again because he makes very good contributions. Perhaps a little bit of camaraderie and team playing around his fellow team members would be very good. 
I return to the bill. As my colleagues have said the name Holidays Amendment Bill is not appropriate. There have been many other suggestions. I know that Darien Fenton and Sue Moroney had one before. Just thinking about it we could call it the “Holidays (Entitlement Repeal) Bill”. Some of my colleagues are being a little bit flippant. Or it could be called the “Selling Your Holidays Bill” the “Holidays for Cash Bill” or the “Holidays (Workers Must Not Be Trusted) Amendment Bill”. We know why that is and people may ask why we would call it that. It is simply that we ask why else would a worker have to get a sickness certificate for 1 day. We could call it the “Holidays (Enabling Bad Employers) Amendment Bill”. These titles are more in keeping with what the bill is all about. It could be the “Holidays (Loss of Productivity) Amendment Bill”. 
Sue Moroney 
: What about the “Holidays (More Workplace Accidents) Bill”? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It could be the “Holidays (More Workplace Accidents) Bill”. I ask whether Trevor Mallard will be taking another call. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I’ll work on it. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: He will suggest some other titles I am sure. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You’ve only two and a half minutes to go. Keep going. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: OK the title could also be—rolling up a number of titles into one—the “Holidays (Entitlement Repeal Selling Your Holidays Holidays for Cash Workers Cannot Be Trusted) Bill”. I think that pretty much sums up what this Government thinks of the workers of New Zealand. 
I note that this will be the Holidays Amendment Act 2010 or whatever it will be called if those suggestions are accepted by the Government yet quite a bit of the Act comes into force in 2011. I have always found that quite confusing because if the amendment Act is enacted in 2010 we would expect all the parts of that Act to be enacted. But some of the amendment Act— 
Sue Moroney 
: Dribbles in. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —dribbles in as other people have said on April Fool’s Day. One wonders for clarity whether it should be called the “Holidays (Entitlement Repeal) Act 2010 and 2011” because by virtue of being called that it would signal that it will not all happen at once. The whole Act will not be enacted in 2010. Some of it will actually be enacted in 2011. 
Members opposite are quite stunned and are thinking that that shows quite a bit of common sense. They are having another look at it. Tau Henare is having a big debate over it. I wonder whether those members can give it that consideration. I know that my colleague Trevor Mallard has a very important contribution to make and he will be able to enlighten the Committee on that pretty soon. 
Going back to the title of the Holidays Amendment Bill I say that even if it was called the “Holidays Amendment Act 2010 and 2011” it still would not say enough about what the legislation is about. If there was more of an explanation in the legislation then members in this Chamber would know and people outside this Chamber would know. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I will continue on from that very inspiring speech given by one of my great mentors Lynne Pillay. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Standing shoulder to shoulder with her! 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: We are definitely the long and the short of the Labour Party. Stand up Lynne. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I’m not allowed. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: OK then sorry Lynne. In all seriousness I will add to what Lynne Pillay was saying and provide the Government with a few other ideas for what might be more appropriate titles for the Holidays Amendment Bill. Lynne Pillay provided some very good suggestions which followed on from Trevor Mallard’s very very good suggestions. 
One of the suggestions I would like to put forward which I am sure the other side of the Chamber will take some time to consider seriously is that we title this legislation the “Holidays are for Slackers Bill”. I am sure Government members would appreciate that title given that that is their general attitude towards workers. Using that as the title of this bill would demonstrate and illustrate the National Government’s attitude towards workers. Alongside that I think all the members from the Government side of the Chamber should really consider whether they will need a holiday at the end of this year. Perhaps they want to give their holiday up given that they see no value in holidays and do not believe that workers— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What about Pansy’s holiday? 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Well we do not know how long that holiday will be. As Mr Mallard said earlier Mr Key has deliberately asked her not to resign too early so he can have his holiday in Hawaii. Is that correct? Yes it is. 
Given the undervaluing of holidays from the other side of the Chamber it would be appropriate to call this legislation the “Holidays are for Slackers Bill” but it would also be appropriate for all the Government members to consider giving up their holidays at the end of this year. They could spend Christmas Day New Year’s Day and all of January not with their families because the members do not value families—in fact they are anti-family. They could instead spend all of their time away from their families as they would expect the ordinary Kiwi worker to do and they could spend all of their time working. That would set the example of what those members expect of every other worker. 
Another example of what might make a more appropriate title for this legislation would be the “Holidays (Stopping the Sickies) Amendment Bill”. From the other side of the Chamber an assumption a generalisation has been made that all ordinary Kiwi workers are lazy good-for-nothing slackers and because of that those members want to make sure that if workers take even 1 day off sick they will have to visit a doctor pay the money and get a medical certificate to prove they were sick. Unfortunately the Government members do not trust workers because they believe that workers are all lazy and slack. Their attitude toward other workers is a reflection of their own work ethics. They see in others what they themselves are like. It is quite sad because the vast majority of workers are nothing like National MPs. They work really hard and can be trusted. The reality is that the legislation before us does not reflect that type of attitude towards workers. Instead it shows complete distrust and a very patronising and condescending attitude towards workers. Again I say they really should consider calling it the “Holidays (Stopping the Sickies) Amendment Bill” as that fits with their attitude towards workers. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I like that. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Does the member like that one? 
Another idea that has just been handed to me— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: No it’s your own. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: —I have been told it is my own—is the “Holidays (Wake up your Ideas) Bill” or the “Holidays are for Wusses Bill”. Those are great ideas that I just came up with! Let us consider them the “Holidays (Wake up your Ideas) Bill” and the “Holidays are for Wusses Bill”. They are both great because they illustrate the general sentiment behind the bill that we are now considering. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The title clauses are usually a summing up but I have not heard a lot of summing up at this stage. I will take one more call in the hope that I get some fresh material. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to talk on the title clause because the title does not reflect the content of the bill as we come to the end of the Committee stage. I believe we need to amend the title in order to better reflect the debates we have had the amendments that have passed the amendments that have failed and where we are at. The title “Holidays Amendment Bill” simply does not adequately reflect that. I think an adequate reflection of the debate would be to call the bill the “Holidays (This is Nothing About Choice) Amendment Bill” or maybe the “Holidays (Working People Living on the Breadline Have No Choice) Amendment Bill”. 
We discovered during the Committee stage that the National and ACT members genuinely believe that working people who are facing incredible cost of living increases and wage freezes and who cannot afford to pay their bills have some kind of choice when it comes to whether they cash in a holiday. National and ACT think those people have a genuine choice and that they would rather have the money than have another week with their families rejuvenating and refreshing themselves so that they can be more productive in their work. We know from the debate during the Committee stage that that simply is not the case. Perhaps this bill could be called the “Holidays (This Government is so Out of Touch it is Unbelievable) Amendment Bill”. 
The other thing we heard a lot about during the Committee stage was that this bill is about property rights because the workers own their holidays. Maybe the bill could be the called the “Holidays (We Argue About Property Rights When it Suits Our Cause) Amendment Bill”. I remember a debate in the House about accident compensation. The Government decided it would take workers’ holidays off them if they were entitled to accident compensation. The Minister for ACC Nick Smith said that if they had holidays they should have to take those holidays first. Let us look at an example where two workers in exactly the same situation have an accident and are entitled to accident compensation but one has already used up all their holidays and the other has not. The worker who has used up their holidays will get accident compensation but the worker who has not used all their holidays will have to use those holidays first. 
Where was the respect for property rights when that legislation went through the House? Those holidays belonged to that worker. It was an entitlement that had already been earned. We have heard that this bill is about property rights but where was the respect for property rights then? Perhaps this bill should be called the “Holidays (Where was the Respect for Property Rights When They Were Taken Off Workers Under ACC Legislation) Amendment Bill”. This Government is at sixes and sevens. It is contradictory. It uses the arguments only when they suit and when they do not suit it completely abandons them. 
We have also talked about the sick leave entitlements in this bill. I think the bill could be called the “Holidays (Using a Sledgehammer to Crack a Non-existent Walnut) Amendment Bill”. As we found out in the Committee stage there is absolutely no evidence that there are any problems happening in this area. There is no evidence that workers are rorting sick days. The Government has no evidence to back this up. As we found out during the Committee stage if an employer has reasonable grounds to believe that an employee is rorting sick days the employer can demand a medical certificate—which is absolutely right and proper—but they have to have reasonable grounds. If for example someone is constantly taking Fridays or Mondays off or if the boss sees that person on TV at the rugby then there are definitely reasonable grounds for demanding a medical certificate. 
But with this bill which could be called the “Holidays (National and ACT Believe That All Workers are Rorters When it Comes to Sick Days) Amendment Bill” the Government is saying that it has very little trust in workers. It is saying that a worker’s default position is to rort the system as opposed to believing that that is the exception rather than the rule. The Government wants to make every single worker produce a medical certificate for being sick for one day if their employer says they need to. They have to spend money even if it is something a doctor cannot do anything about. And they may not be able to get an appointment to see a doctor. This requirement goes against all the evidence the Government was shown which is that New Zealand workers on average do not take a lot of sick days compared with other countries. The evidence also shows that the biggest cost for New Zealand businesses when it comes to sick leave is not the cost of workers taking sick leave. The biggest cost is the loss of productivity caused by workers going to work when they are sick and making others sick. That is where the big loss occurs. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now come to clause 1 and the question that it stand part. There are nine amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to the title. Each of these is ruled out of order as it is not an objective description of the bill as provided for in Speakers’ rulings 112/4. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “1 April 2011” and substitute “30 September 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The remaining amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 2 are ruled out of order as they are substantially the same as the amendment already negatived by the Committee. The substantiality rule applies and they are out of order. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 69 Noes 49. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Report adopted. 
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill aims to improve financial management transparency and accountability in local government. It will also remove unnecessary consultation requirements and level the playing field for private sector participation in providing local government services. 
First I refer to the provisions to improve financial management in local government. The bill requires councils to develop a financial strategy that includes limits on rates and debt levels. Critics suggest that the strategy will stop councils from responding to community needs. This is incorrect. Councils set their own rates and debt limits and can exceed those if necessary. If disaster strikes the bill will not prevent a council from responding. The financial strategy will encourage councils to be rigorous in prioritising spending proposals and to provide clearer accountability over expenditure and funding. Councils need not fear ratepayer scrutiny if decisions are made wisely. 
Prudent financial management for any organisation includes sticking to core businesses. These are the services that local government must pay particular attention to because they are fundamental to what a community is. This bill requires councils to have particular regard to the contribution of those services to their communities. It does not direct them to be provided but reminds councils to consider these services during planning and decision making. 
Normal financial reporting practices allow much variation on how councils report their affairs. This bill will make council accounts more transparent and allows regulations to be made for standardisation of some accounting disclosures. It also introduces an additional accounting statement that councils must produce which is a funding impact statement. 
It promotes transparency in the management of council infrastructure. Providing roads water services stormwater disposal and flood protection are core local government activities and take the greatest part of council investment funds. If councils neglect infrastructure the future cost of restoring those services would be huge. The bill requires councils to show each service separately in plans and reports with clear information on planned and actual capital expenditure. This gives ratepayers a clearer idea of how prudently councils manage assets on their behalf. 
It is important that ratepayers can compare services offered by the council with those offered by others. Developing standard performance measures enables that comparison. This is not a ploy for central government to tell local government what level of service to provide; each council will still determine its performance targets. The select committee recommended changes to clarify this provision—thank you. The result should be a simple set of measures that informs ratepayers about the major aspect of each service whether it is provided by a council or a council-controlled organisation. 
The bill proposes that councils produce a pre-election report before local authority elections to give candidates and voters important information at a time when elected members can be held to account. The select committee recommended two changes to this provision. One slightly narrows the report’s scope so that the chief executive’s responsibility is limited to statements of fact. The other provides an alternative reporting option for small councils which have limited reporting capacity at this busy time. 
The bill proposes substantial changes to the Act’s community outcome process. Councils should not have to coordinate wide-ranging community debate about services they have no direct responsibility to deliver or fund. This makes them appear accountable for things that they have no control over. The bill also changes some of the Act’s provisions on public consultation such as repealing councils’ requirements to consider the views of affected and interested people four times during decision making. The courts have interpreted this provision strictly. This is leading to repeated and meaningless consultation. Although councils must still consider the views of such people the when and the how is for them to determine. 
The bill repeals section 88 of the Act relating to proposals to contract out activities. This means only that councils need not consult ratepayers about changes in how a service is delivered. Proposals to change the quality or quantity of service still require consultation. We doubt ratepayers greatly care who mows the council’s sportsgrounds as long as they are mown in the most cost-effective manner. The section 88 consultation requirement is unnecessary and repealing it allows councils to get on and manage their services. 
Finally I want to raise the proposals on water services. Local government should have the option to use the private sector to develop new water services investments. Choosing that option is a decision for each council. An example which was established before the 2002 Act is Wellington’s sewage treatment plant. It was built and is operated by a private company. The arrangement works adequately and I doubt that most Wellingtonians know or indeed care that the plant is privately operated. We cannot see why other councils should not have that option. The bill is clear that councils cannot sell existing water service assets to private companies unless it is incidental to and desirable for the proposal’s success. If a private company were building a new treatment plant the council could sell the land on which it was to be sited but not the rest of the network. The bill as reported back also clearly prohibits concession arrangements like that currently operating in Papakura. This bill is not about privatising water services. Local authorities will remain responsible for providing water services but may contract private partners to assist them to do that and they should be able to do so. 
I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for its excellent work on this bill and particularly the chair of the select committee Mr Chris Auchinvole who has done an outstanding job and a great service to the people of New Zealand particularly those in his own district. The committee has been attentive to submitters and its changes will aid significantly in achieving the bill’s intentions. I commend this bill to the House. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I preface my comments by congratulating the Minister of Local Government the Hon Rodney Hide on announcing to New Zealand today his impending nuptials and impending addition to his family. I warmly express best wishes to the Minister and all happiness for his family. 
What is the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill? It is the bedraggled and washed-up remains of Rodney Hide’s nutty Business Roundtable - inspired agenda to remake local government. He set off around the country last year with his TAFM paper otherwise known as the paper on the transparency accountability and financial management of local government. That paper contained a number of elements that alarmed New Zealanders. It contained his proposal for a list of core services that councils would be required to limit their activities to. It contained his rate-capping agenda. It contained proposals for mandatory referenda. If councils wanted to stray from his arbitrarily prescribed list of core services or if they were going to deviate from previously established limits on rates they would have to put that proposal to a referendum. It also contained an agenda for the deregulation of municipal water which the Minister followed up by recommending to Cabinet the total liberalisation of the ownership of municipal water. That would have led to a sweeping away of every single control that exists currently in legislation for the public ownership of municipal water. It is a recipe for small government and an extreme right-wing prescription that really lives only in the imaginations of the members of the ACT Party. 
The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill bears little resemblance to the mad agenda that Rodney Hide trotted around the country last year. One word explains the difference between these two things: Auckland. Auckland became for Rodney Hide and this Government a political disaster zone. His stewardship of the Auckland super-city reforms seriously dented the Government’s political standing with voters in Auckland which holds one-third of the population of New Zealand. His principles and policies to corporatise local government and open up assets for privatisation alarmed Aucklanders so much that a solid 50 percent of them registered serious concerns about his Auckland policies for the last year. Those concerns contributed I believe to the election of a mayor and a council who utterly rejected Rodney Hide’s policy prescription for local government. There was a massive public backlash against his policies: the over-centralisation of power the corporatisation of three-quarters of local government in Auckland and the total lack of consultation and democratic process with which he proceeded to implement the Auckland super-city. 
So I ask what remains in this bill of Rodney Hide’s agenda. Well there are the provisions for water privatisation which will allow a council to contract the private sector to deliver water supply services for periods of up to 35 years—35 years. That is 11 electoral cycles; that is a contract one or perhaps two generations long. This bill legislates for private sector contractors to be able to own water infrastructure for the duration of those contracts. What is worse than the fact that a council will be able to contract out water services for 35 years is the fact that—and this alarms New Zealanders even more— it can do it in the dead of night without consulting anybody. It can contract those services without saying a damn thing to ratepayers who have paid for those assets and whose parents have paid for them with their rates over generations. We will be talking more about the provisions that allow private ownership of treatment plants dams pipelines—private ownership of water infrastructure—during 35-year contracts. 
What else is in here? There is a raft of cuts to the current statutory requirements for councils to consult their citizens. For example if a council wants to contract out public services to the private sector it can do so without saying a thing to its ratepayers and citizens. If a council wants to transfer services to a council-controlled organisation a council-owned company it can do that under this bill without saying a thing to its citizens—without consulting the public. 
The bill contains the provision for core services albeit in a watered-down form. Clause 5 introduces a narrow arbitrary list of core services that councils must pay particular regard to. We believe—and many many submitters to the Local Government and Environment Committee believe—that the list will tilt the playing field in favour of the listed core services and make it more difficult for councils to do many of the things that New Zealanders consider to be very important functions. Mr Hide’s list of core services does not mention environmental protection economic development or social development like for instance pensioner housing. We see in here a watered-down remnant of Mr Hide’s desire to have a rate-capping mechanism to stop councils increasing their rates and we see also that the financial strategy binds councils to limit rates increases and budget expenditure. We will discuss that some more in the Committee stage. 
A number of other issues which are probably the least offensive provisions in this bill relate to financial transparency: the requirement of a financial strategy a pre-election report and a funding impact statement. We are in general support of these provisions with some exceptions but I note that the preponderance of submitters to the select committee was lukewarm at best about them and the overwhelming verdict of the local government sector was that the provisions would have very little consequence if any. A number of the councils said that the main result of the provisions would be a whole lot of extra compliance requirements and significant extra cost to the ratepayer. That will be one of the significant legacies that Rodney Hide—the “Minister of Ratepayers” as he likes to call himself—delivers to New Zealand ratepayers through this bill. 
What did the select committee make of all this and what did the people think? Overwhelmingly people submitted against the bill. By my count there were 414 submissions in total; 360 of those 414 submissions were expressly against the water privatisation provisions—360 out of 414. I think that is a damning indictment of Rodney Hide’s policies. 
Louise Upston 
: How many of them were form submissions Phil? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Almost none of them—almost none of them were form submissions. The member might like to go back and check the pile of submissions and she will find that very very few—probably only a handful of them—were form submissions. There was overwhelming public opposition to the water privatisation provisions in this bill. No one except the Local Government Forum which is the Business Roundtable with its local government hat on thought that the core services idea was sensible. Hardly anyone had a good thing to say about it. I am amazed that the Government has seen fit to leave the core services provision in the bill because no one had a good word to say about it. I do not understand that. 
The great majority of individuals who submitted on the bill thought that the cuts to consultation were appalling. As I said the main verdict on the transparency provisions and financial reporting was that it was going to lead to a significant increase in cost to the ratepayer. 
The most galling thing about this process is that this bill is the latest bill that Rodney Hide has brought to this House that takes away the democratic rights of New Zealanders in local government. What do we see? Yet again he is pushing through a bill under urgency that weakens our democratic process and our public institutions. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand before the House today to support the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill in its second reading. All one can say with regard to the previous speaker Phil Twyford is “What about the bill Phil?”. We heard an awful lot of criticism of what the bill might do and we heard how Phil felt but we did not hear much about the bill itself. I know that in his heart of hearts Phil thought that parts of it were not too bad at all. 
As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee I am very cognisant of the need for this bill to be passed into law and of the issues surrounding it. I would like to thank the select committee for working so tirelessly—all members—on making the bill the bill it is. I think we have got the balance just right. If I may I would like to commend the Minister of Local Government for introducing the bill and bringing these things into good order. 
In spite of what we have heard from the previous speaker I found and I continue to find that local government is supportive of the thrust of this bill. It is supportive of it. When we think about it we realise that local government really is a business. Businesses like to be accountable to their shareholders. They like a good relationship. This bill will help local government to have a better relationship with its ratepayers. 
The general purpose of the bill is to make local authority decision-making more transparent and more accountable. There is really only one question that needs to be asked—only one question. Does the bill do that? The answer is yes it does. The bill also reflects the principle that local authorities should focus on core services and operate within a defined fiscal envelope. Members on the other side of the House should think of those people who are on fixed incomes; when they see rates going up it is a bit overwhelming for them. This bill defines the activities. It will simplify the decision-making process and level the playing field to better enable the private sector to deliver council services. That will improve the financial management of local Government. 
But let us look first at the issue of transparency and accountability. I would like to acknowledge the minority view of the Opposition—so roundly expressed as detailed in the select committee report—that this bill would do the opposite of what it intends to do. Let us see what those members say to explain how misguided their view is. Labour and the Greens believe that by removing some consultation requirements the bill could undermine transparency and accountability. I would like to assuage their fears: this will not be the case. One must remember that the proposals in the bill have been considered and designed in terms of the broader decision-making framework of the Act. We have only to ask builders contractors—people who are dependent on work from councils—whether they would like to have available to them this sort of future planning and they will say yes. The majority of the provisions that allow local people to continue to be involved in council decisions and to be consulted on important issues are retained in the Act. 
The Act also contains several principles relating to local authorities requiring them for example to conduct their business in an open transparent and democratically accountable manner. I do not know of many council officers who if we asked them whether they are happy to do that would tell us otherwise. They are already required to give regard to community opinions. This bill will provide councils with greater flexibility and discretion to determine how to give effect to this principle. It seeks to simplify council decision-making processes and remove some of the more prescriptive elements of the Act so that consultation is not merely a quick tick-box exercise. 
Phil Twyford 
: Speak from the heart. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Very well if the member wishes. Phil Twyford has asked me to speak from the heart. Well I was not really going to do it I say to Phil but honestly his point about privatisation of water could not be further from the truth or further from the mark. The member is completely wrong on that one. I look forward to the various parts of this bill being read and I think we will have fun with that one. No council will be compelled to use private services to extend its water. Members should think about it from a business point of view—but maybe people on that side of the House are not particularly familiar with a business approach. If we are to limit the amount of time that a private service is extended I ask my colleagues on this side of the House what that will do to the price. It will take it up. If one extends it over a longer period one can spread one’s overheads over a longer period. One can reduce one’s profits because one has a longer-term income and that is the way it works. 
The bill’s new provisions will give ratepayers better information about their council so that they are in a stronger position to participate when consultation does occur. 
The provision for a financial strategy will provide transparency for the overall effect of the proposals on services rates debt and investment and this is a very very important thing. We had a presentation from the Deputy Auditor-General. He talked about the debt levels that councils have. He talked about the need to foresee how much is being spent by councils. He talked about the need for transparency of future funding and this is very important. 
Provision is made for a pre-election report to be produced by the chief executive of each local authority. This in effect will be a summary of key financial information about each council covering both the past and the coming 3 years as well as details of planned projects. It will include a statement that compares rates rate increases borrowing and returns on investment with the targets set in the financial strategy. 
With this bill ratepayers will have greater confidence in local government. I must say that I am very pleased to have been part of the planning process. Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker i tenei po. For a mercifully short period of time I remained on the Local Government and Environment Committee enduring its chairing by the member who has just resumed his seat Chris Auchinvole. I can tell members that since my departure the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill has not improved. That is reflected no doubt in the powers of attention that were directed to it at the instigation of Rodney Hide by our colleagues over there. 
Labour opposes this bill. The reason that we oppose the bill lies in its very secretive and clandestine agenda. It avoids the challenge of how the community will pay for the underlying costs of the infrastructure that local government has a stewardship role in providing to its citizens. That debate is buried because the democratically elected representatives will no longer be under a statutory duty to seek out the views of the people who actually own those assets. They are assets that have been paid for over many generations. The long-term capital plan which has been deeply eroded as a consequence of this legislation played a very important role. The Auditor-General’s staff came to the select committee on numerous occasions and no doubt I was one of the few people who paid attention on that particular day. The staff came and they reminded us that local government had to seek if not the consent then a mandate from the rate-paying community as it sought to commit the rate-paying community to a capital strategy. That is the long-term capital plan which is being gutted as a consequence of this wretched legislation. 
The long-term capital plan at a very deep level was designed for families firms and communities to have their say through the long-term capital plan provisions as to priorities and their costs and benefits and which services might be cut or expanded. We should allow that debate to take place rather than its having to be abandoned because of the ideological innovations brought forward by Mr Rodney Hide. He seems to think that ratepayers are suffering a growing burden of pain through the cost of local government because local authorities are splitting out into more extraneous activities. 
The truth of the matter is that there is a rising tide of cost associated with the development of infrastructure. Indeed the rate at which the cost of infrastructure has risen actually goes beyond the rate of inflation. That is the real problem that this bill ought to deal with but it tries to leave local government people with the obligation that they have no real duties to the communities that they purport to represent. They can monetise and they can privatise. There is nothing wrong with economising but when one is going to privatise one should seek the informed consent of the owners of those community assets. One should not use a piece of legislation that under the camouflage of Rodney Hide’s language is designed to strip every single member of the community of the ability to stop these furtive transfers. 
Water treatment assets water harvesting assets—whatever the asset is the real damage being done here is being done by the fear on that side of the House of going out to seek a mandate. It is a rather novel concept in their view of democracy to have to get the informed consent of families and ratepayers as to whether they think it is a good idea for a 33-year period of a property right to be handed out to preferred and favoured interests. They want to do that without seeking meaningful community input or without seeking the community’s imprimatur. That is really what is going on here. 
We had the organisation that represents all regional and local government in New Zealand come and make a submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee. My colleague Mr Twyford has already referred to its contribution. It came and said this bill will have the effect of worsening red tape. This bill it said will have the effect of adding layer upon layer of more paperwork and more material— 
Phil Twyford 
: But he’s the “Minister of Red Tape”. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I know it sounds ridiculous that this bill comes from the man who purports to be the destroyer of red tape. That is just one of the many contradictions that adhere within Rodney Hide’s psyche but that is another matter for another time. We have the most authoritative voice on behalf of all local and regional government actually saying that the impact of this bill is to worsen the dead-weight effect of Rodney Hide’s hand upon the affairs of local government. That is what will happen here. It is hard to imagine anyone more important than the organisation that represents all local government when it came to see us. We should pay particular attention to the fact that although it made quite a strong attempt to avoid alienating anyone on the select committee in particular anyone skilled in understanding bureaucratese would know that its contribution was a stream of disdain for Mr Hide’s very narrow and wretched ideas about how local government should be restructured. 
The pith of this bill is an attempt to turn local government for community purposes into corporatised local and regional governance. That member aided by his colleagues over there has lost confidence in the ability of democratically mandated organisations and indeed democratic communities to chart a course as to where they are to go. Nowhere is that more evident than in the very clumsy language that is employed in this bill in relation to those responsible for delivering on outcomes. Communities own outcomes. Communities embrace them and they have to live with the consequences of them whether they are successes or failures. This legislation by constraining the opportunities for communities to be consulted actually allows the decision makers within councils to arrogate all the power and authority in order to quietly and secretly dispose of assets without bringing that power back to the people who represent not only current generations but future generations. Fortunately after 2011 help will be on the way. 
Perhaps the final point that I should round up on in this brief but nevertheless important contribution lies in the fact that community consultation which was the hallmark of Labour’s style of governance in relation to local government has been both abandoned and stigmatised in this legislation. Members on the Government side of the House are endeavouring to treat community consultation as an unbearable cost and threat to the financial viability of ratepayers in their capacity to contribute to local government. Consultation with the community gives legitimacy to local government. If we remove local government from the community it is no longer local. It then grows into something akin to a Gordon Gekko creature more at home in the Wall Street marae than in the halls and the community centres etc. of local government. That is why we do not support this bill and we certainly do not support a single thing that that member over there is bringing forward for local government. But we will provide and make allowances for the lost members on the Government side of the House. Kia ora tatou. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Here we are once again in the dead of night at almost midnight debating under urgency another sinister bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill which implements the radical agenda of ACT and the Business Roundtable—what I call Rogernomics part 2—to reduce democracy in local government gut local government consultation requirements and corporatise or privatise as much of local government’s commercial activities as possible including water. 
I have a copy of ACT’s local government policy. It states: “Local Government will be required to shed its commercial activity. … Roads and piped water will be supplied on a fully commercial basis.” Council services will be contracted out and councils will be required to focus on their core activities. This of course is exactly what this bill does. It may not go as far as Rodney Hide’s extreme agenda which he released last year but it implements this policy—the ACT local government policy. It removes the consultation requirements of local government. It allows councils to get rid of their strategic assets or to enter into 35-year contracts with private water companies without the inconvenience and the nuisance of having to consult their local residents first. 
It sends a signal to the world that New Zealand is now open to water privatisation. It makes water privatisation extremely attractive to global water companies which are on the prowl for new markets. Now in New Zealand they can own as well as manage and control water infrastructure for 35 years. 
The bill requires councils to focus on a narrow range of so-called core activities. When Rodney Hide introduced this bill he said: “it gives councils a clear indication first that they need to do core services well before they engage in any other services”. The narrow and arbitrary range of core services listed in this bill is supposed to become the No. 1 priority of local government. 
It is the water privatisation provisions that are most alarming because once a private corporation has taken over the management and ownership of local water supplies its focus will not be on protecting the public interest or ensuring everyone has access to clean fresh water but on maximising profits for its shareholders. 
We know from the experience of water privatisation around the world that there are three ways that water corporations maximise their profits once they get their hands on a local water supply. The first thing they do is sack most of the staff that run the water services and reduce their working conditions. The second thing they do is charge more for water. The price of water soars and becomes unaffordable for large numbers of people who then have their water cut off because they cannot afford to pay their water bills. Thirdly they allow the water infrastructure to be run down just as Fay and Richwhite ran down our rail network. They do not bother to fix the leaks or invest in basic infrastructure; instead they siphon off the profits for their shareholders. That is what has happened wherever water has been privatised: higher prices for water; huge profits for the corporations; more and more people being disconnected; no incentive to conserve water because it is in the interests of the company to sell more water to maximise their profits; and no incentive either to address long-term health problems associated with water. 
The United Kingdom is a case study of what happens when water is privatised. When Margaret Thatcher introduced water privatisation into the United Kingdom the water industry fired 25 percent of the workforce and increased the price of water by 50 percent in the next 4 years. Then it cut its investment programme and used the increased dividends to pay huge salaries and bonuses to the directors of the water companies. While customers were faced with continual price hikes and the number of people having their water supply cut off tripled company profits soared by 142 percent in the first 8 years. What happened in the United Kingdom is what will happen here—mark my words—if we go down the path of water privatisation that the Minister of Local Government is desperate to take us all down. 
Another problem with the long-term contracting out of water supplies is that once a private corporation owns or manages the water supply for 35 years the public and its elected representatives their councillors will have very little input into or say on water supplies for the next generation. The long-term contracts that are negotiated will inevitably be commercial-in-confidence—that is secret—so ratepayers will be completely in the dark about the deal their local council has struck with their water company. 
Many contracts have guaranteed rates of return for the company regardless of its performance. Chile had to guarantee a profit margin of 33 percent to Suez as a World Bank condition regardless of its performance and in Argentina Suez pulled out when it could not get a guaranteed rate of return. It said that the contract was not profitable enough and it just pulled out leaving an incredible mess behind. 
Another thing is that once councils are locked into the 35-year contracts they cannot get out of them even if the circumstances change radically or unforeseen circumstances arise. What happens pray tell if a company goes bankrupt or is unable or unwilling to deliver on its water services? What happens then? Many councils especially smaller ones do not have the expertise to negotiate contracts for water services with large private multinational corporations. The United Water contract in Auckland for example was negotiated by local solicitors. It did not include any conditions on customer service. There is a clause in the contract that states the contract can be extended by an additional 20 years and that is not even linked to performance. 
Water privatisation has a terrible track record around the world and there is a huge backlash against it. Communities are fighting back against water privatisation and more and more councils and Governments are trying to get out of contracts they have entered into with private corporations. In France more than 40 towns and cities have taken back their water services into public hands and in June this year Paris took back its water service after huge controversy. Other countries such as Uruguay have brought water back into the hands of the State at a national level because privatisation has been such a fiasco and caused such problems. In Bolivia hundreds of thousands of people lost their connections when their water was privatised and thousands of people took to the streets until the Government finally backed down and told the company to leave. Is that what we want here in New Zealand? 
Water is a precious resource. It is one of the life-support systems of the planet. It is really the ultimate public good and it should be controlled in the public interest not handed over to the private sector to make profits out of. Water is simply too important to our health and well-being and to the environment to be handed over to the private sector. 
As water has become scarce around the world global corporations are seeking to take advantage of the water crisis by trying to take over water supplies. They are lobbying Governments all around the world and the Business Roundtable here in New Zealand is frantically lobbying to privatise our water supplies. Those lobbyists must be rubbing their hands together with joy as tonight this Parliament agrees to allow water privatisation here in New Zealand. Some of them will try to argue and the National Party will too that it is not water privatisation but I can assure any listeners that contracting out owning and managing water for 35 years is precisely that—water privatisation. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker kia ora tatou katoa i tenei po. Kua tu ake me te ahua awangawanga o te ngakau mo te ahuatanga o tenei pire. Ana na runga i te aha? Na runga i te mea ko taua ahua no ra me ki mo tenei momo kawanatanga me ki ara kua whakakorengia ko nga whakaaro o te hunga kainga o te tangata whenua ka mutu kua whakakorengia o ratou tumanako o tatou tumanako o roto i nga whiriwhiringa o te komiti. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us all tonight. I rise but with some misgivings about the context of this bill—and for what reason? Simply because of the supposition once again shall we say in the context of local government where it appears the views of the home people their aspirations and ours have been largely discounted in committee deliberations 
.] 
I rise to speak to the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill with some considerable discomfort in the sense that yet again we come to the context of local government and find that the views of tangata whenua have been largely minimised and discounted and the challenges laid out in submissions largely ignored by the majority of the Local Government and Environment Committee. It was for that reason that the Maori Party made the decision to submit a minority report alongside the views of others on committee. In that report I noted that there are some key areas in respect of the Local Government Act 2002 that must be addressed but none more so than that of tangata whenua participation and involvement at local government level. 
In light of the views of mana whenua being silenced from the record I will bring some of the key points from the submissions back into the discussion and the debate. This House must take note of the words of Te Ora o Manukau. It stated that if public participation is marginalised in local authority decision-making the utilisation of Treaty of Waitangi models of maintaining effective working relationships as well as Government aspirations of effective community engagement will be further undermined by this bill. The analysis by Te Ora o Manukau states: “This bill is a lost opportunity in that it does not make any proposals that will result in improved Maori health.  
Indeed the proposals restrict participation overall in the local Government processes.” We in the Maori Party do of course acknowledge that there are some local authorities that engage with tangata whenua in positive ways. But there are also some local authorities that distinctly lag behind. 
Ngati Haua tangata whenua and other Whanganui River tribes gave a very strong message that the implications of this bill will directly impact on the lives of Maori. I quote from their submission: “The Bill removes the means whereby Whanganui Maori continue to hold customary rights to the Whanganui River and its tributaries … and other Taonga.” Ngati Haua and Whanganui river tribes were united in their concerns about the way the legislation addresses the matter of water management and in particular how that will impinge on their claim for the Whanganui River. It was their view that the Crown must acknowledge its Treaty obligations to consult on any activities that may impact on Treaty claims. Ngati Haua and the Whanganui River tribes were concerned that at no stage were they consulted on the impacts of the proposals of this bill on their claim to the Whanganui River. 
Concerns permeate about the water services provisions of this bill and they were raised by a number of submitters. Colleagues from across the board have also mentioned some of them in the debate tonight. We take into account the points raised by Te Wai Maori that local government cannot deal with fresh water in isolation from Maori and that Maori have an ownership right of water which is subject to this bill. A major concern about this bill is that it proposes actions that in the opinion of Te Wai Maori will serve to privatise water services. The increase in the terms of contracts from 15 to 35 years and the delegation of management illustrate the creation of a form of privatisation that is often described as a public-private partnership. 
Wakatu Incorporation also had a very clear view and concern about the provision of water services. Wakatu Incorporation is based in Nelson and is a key Maori enterprise within Te Tai Tonga electorate. It is driven by the aspirations of shareholders and whanau members from four tribes: Ngati Koata Ngati Rarua Ngati Tama and Te Atiawa. I give this background merely to provide some justification for the fact that when Wakatu Incorporation makes a statement to a select committee we in the Maori Party pay particular attention to its advice. In its submission it stated: “We disagree with the Bill’s intention to relax restrictions on private sector involvement in the delivery of water services. We think this proposal needs much more debate and consideration at the community and national level taking into account tangata whenua views about the ownership and management of water.” 
I could go on a little bit longer about the concerns that iwi and Maori organisations raised about this bill. Suffice it to say that the underlying theme of those submissions is that tangata whenua do not have adequate comprehensive and mandatory representation at the local government decision-making table. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that the acting Opposition whips are attempting to telephone the acting Government whips but the member concerned appears to be asleep. I wonder whether you could draw attention to that; it would be helpful for the phone call to be put through. I think they are very keen to speak to them. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well I guess at this hour of the night that is to be expected. I am sure one can communicate without having to use the phone—that is just interrupting the member. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted the underlying theme is the desire of Maori to be involved in decision-making processes. But from all accounts from the submissions provided that is pretty much missing in this bill. 
It is acknowledged by almost everyone except perhaps the Minister of Local Government that at the local government level tangata whenua have been unfairly inequitably and disproportionately underrepresented across selected councils. In general less than 5 percent of elected local councillors in any term of local government have been Maori. I repeat—less than 5 percent. The Maori Party had hoped that serious consideration might be extended to the concept of Maori participation and engagement at the local government level. Although there are established processes to maintain tangata whenua participation at the local government level including through iwi management plans ultimately there is a lack of Maori enfranchisement in local government. So it was ultimately extremely disheartening that Maori participation in local government was not given more thought by the committee. 
We have raised three serious and longstanding concerns. We raised them during the first reading and during the select committee’s consideration of the bill and we want to revisit them. The first is the issue of the lost opportunity to improve relationships with Maori at the local government level. I have given the background to that—there is no more to be said. 
The second is the issue of the provision of water services. Although major concerns were raised in submissions about the provision of water services they have for the most part been ignored. Only one further amendment was made to those provisions. This amendment will prohibit the sale of existing local government infrastructure to a private partner except when a local government organisation reasonably believes that the sale was related to the joint arrangement and is desirable for the success of the arrangement. That appears to bring with it a level of looseness that will not provide any assurance to Maori submitters that their rights to Treaty-based processes have been respected. 
The third issue is about the broader context of community outcomes. As a result of this legislation there will be a new definition of community outcomes. Under the new definition community outcomes are “those a local authority aims to achieve” replacing the definition in the Local Government Act of community outcomes as “the outcomes for that district or region that are identified as priorities …” It should also be noted that periodical reporting on community outcomes is removed. Both of these decisions are in our view disastrous in the context of community development and provide us with considerable concern. In light of all those issues the Maori Party has no alternative but to vote against this bill. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. This bill is all about better transparency more accountability and improved financial management of local government. There has been much concern among ratepayers that rates are rising continually and dramatically and that they can do nothing about it. In response to this concern this bill makes amendments that will allow ratepayers to assert greater influence on the work of their councils. It is aimed at providing ratepayers and residents with better information about council costs rates and activities and at encouraging them to understand and to play their part in influencing planning and decision-making processes. 
The bill supports standardised and plain English financial reporting and it introduces pre-election reports. Both these measures are to ensure that residents and ratepayers can know more about their council how it operates and what they are paying for. The pre-election reports are designed to stimulate informed debate amongst voters before council elections. Too often we see innuendo and misinformation in local body campaigns. The pre-election reports will provide a factual base for any debate. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee was aware that we needed to find a balance between the cost of providing information and the benefits of that information to the community. We realised that providing a pre-election report increased costs to councils and for that reason we have lessened the requirements for councils with fewer than 20000 constituents the idea being that the smaller the community is the more transparent it automatically is. 
The amendments are also designed to simplify long-term planning processes and to give them a more strategic focus. There has been concern from a number of submitters that some consultation requirements have been removed in this bill and that is true. However the proposals in the bill need to be considered as part of the broader decision-making framework of the Local Government Act 2002. The vast majority of provisions in that Act that enable local people to be involved in council decisions are retained and consultation requirements on significant issues are untouched. 
A huge amount of consultation is still required. Public consultation is required to make changes to the level of service of any significant activity. It is required to start or to end a significant activity and to change the way a service is funded. Public consultation is necessary to establish a council-controlled organisation and consultation is required to transfer ownership or control of a strategic asset. 
Sue Kedgley said that the consultation processes are being gutted; that is nonsense. In fact 24 provisions of the original Act remain only five are repealed and one has been added. The principal Act also requires local authorities to conduct their business in an open transparent and democratically accountable manner. Councils are already required to be aware of and to have regard to the views of communities. Several submitters including the Wellington City Council said that they would consult on issues even if they were not required to do so under the Act. We also heard from some councils that in meeting the requirements of the present Act were actually paying people to come and give their opinion. In many cases we heard that the ordinary public has consultation fatigue. It is a costly waste of time and energy to go through the process just to tick the boxes to say that it has been done. Everyone agrees with and supports the need for meaningful consultation and the amended Act requires consultation on significant matters but we do not want expensive consultation processes merely for the sake of consultation. 
Finally the amended bill gives councils more flexibility to choose effective and efficient delivery methods of water and other services. Again I say it was interesting to hear from the Wellington City Council which has very successfully contracted out its waste-water treatment system. The Government believes that the changes in this bill represent significant progress towards better more effective local government and that they will make it easier for ratepayers and residents to participate in the important activities and decisions of local councils. Thank you. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 The Manukau City Council made a submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill and opposed it. I will give members some reflection on why. When Mr Hide became the Minister of Local Government it was believed by many in Manukau that he had the National Government firmly on a leash and that he took that leash led the National Government and designed for the Auckland region a structure that would create local government in Auckland as a business unit. It was designed to gut local government. It was designed to break up the income-flowing assets of that region and put them into council-controlled organisations. Again Mr Hide led this Government by the leash and told the people of Auckland that it would be good for them. 
The people of Auckland reacted and poll after poll told us that they did not want to sell their assets. That was reaffirmed last month when Len Brown won a resounding victory over the National-backed candidate in the local body elections. Mr Brown won by a majority of more than 63000 votes. The win of Len Brown in the Auckland super-city election was a resounding response from the people of Auckland—they do not want to sell their assets. That mood has not changed. 
The people of Auckland are again up in arms. They are angry and outraged that this bill—which again was introduced by this Government led by the leash by Mr Hide—is designed to do away with the valuable water assets of the region. Tomorrow at 9 a.m. a protest is being held outside United Water at 116 Great South Road Papakura. This has been organised by the community which is angry and outraged about the way this Government is rushing this bill through. People do not want their water assets to be readily available to multinational water companies so that they can strip the profits from water companies that are owned by formed by organised by and paid for by ratepayers throughout this country. 
A lot of people are asking whether Kiwis along the length and breadth of New Zealand can say with confidence and with hand on heart that they can trust the Minister who is driving the changes in local government today. A lot of them are wondering whether the changes being introduced in this bill will make things better for ratepayers throughout New Zealand. Will this bill reduce rates over the next 3 6 9 15 or 35 years? After all this is the same Minister who once told the people of Auckland that he would help cut their rates. Can Kiwis have confidence in a Minister from a minority party that received a mere 3.65 percent of the vote in the 2008 general election? 
Hon Member 
: And dropping. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Yep and dropping. This is the party that has been dubbed by many as the “1 Percent Party” yet despite its low percentage of the vote and despite its low polling this Minister has been given the power to simply lead the National Government on a leash. Mr Hide leads the Government on a leash just as a master leads his prized dog. Winston Peters’ party New Zealand First got more votes than Mr Hide’s party yet Mr Peters is out of Parliament. Mr Hide’s party despite getting fewer votes than New Zealand First is not only in Parliament but is in Parliament with five MPs and Mr Hide is the Minister of Local Government leading the National Government on a leash. 
If the New Zealand public can say with hand on heart that they can trust this Minister and this Government then my speech is concluded and this country has gone to the dogs. But if the New Zealand public can with confidence and without compulsion say that they cannot trust this Minister and this Government then believe me when I say that the New Zealand public is absolutely correct. Practically every piece of legislation Mr Rodney Hide has introduced into this House as the Minister of Local Government has been passed under urgency with the exception of one bill. How Mr Hide can claim that ratepayers want greater transparency and accountability in local government when he ignores that principle in Parliament? 
Although this bill purports to improve transparency and accountability in local government it will do the opposite. The bill aims to weaken local democracy. It strips away the key consultation provisions that the public and the community currently have. It forces councils to focus on a narrow range of core activities and it will allow councils to privatise water supplies for 35 years. Despite the Government’s weasel-word rhetoric this bill does not increase transparency and accountability in local government. It will not increase transparency and accountability no matter how many times the Government says it will. 
This bill will undermine transparency. It will undermine public accountability by local government. It will undermine the participation of local communities. This bill will remove the right of local communities to participate in consultative processes. It will remove the right of local communities to influence the activities of local government. It undermines transparency and accountability by removing the rights of local communities to participate in reaching outcomes that benefit the well-being of local communities. 
More important and of major significance this bill removes the current requirement that councils must consult if they intend to sell key strategic assets such as water services or change their method of delivery. This bill will force council water supplies to be contracted out for 35 years. A ratepayer who is 70 years old today will be dead before they can have a say in respect of the water they have paid for. 
The number of submissions on this bill totalled about 414. Of those submissions 360 were expressly against water privatisation. I want to quote from two submitters because they were significant submitters form the Auckland region. The first submission is from the Auckland District Council of Social Services an umbrella organisation covering the Auckland isthmus area which opposed this bill overall. Its submission states that it is opposed to this bill because: “it will undesirably reduce democratic accountability; reduce consultation with and responsiveness to local communities; tend to privatise strategic assets and basic services including water supply; and reduce the range of services provided by local authorities to a narrower list than communities actually want local authorities to continue to deliver for them.” 
The final submission I want to quote is from the Auckland City Council Community Board Chairs Forum. Again this is a significant group from the Auckland region. It is a committee made up of chairs of all the community boards across the Auckland City region. Its submission states that “the current legislation is delivering transparency and accountability for ratepayers and that the proposals set out in the legislation are unnecessary and anti-democratic. We believe that there is always room for improvement within Local Government however this can be achieved by best practise guidelines to councils and policy changes within councils.” In other words this bill is unnecessary and the big ado about accountability and transparency just will not wash with the people of Auckland. I suspect that next year they will treat this Government in the same way that they responded when they voted for Len Brown as the super-city mayor in an overwhelming defeat of the National candidate. 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction—Holidays Amendment Bill 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The result of the vote in the Committee of the whole House on the Holidays Amendment Bill on the question that clause 2 be agreed to was incorrectly announced as the Ayes 69 and the Noes 49. The correct result is Ayes 69 and Noes 51. The record will be corrected. 
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 This Government knows that good strong local government leads to strong communities. This is a Government and a Minister of Local Government that are listening to ratepayers. We listen to ratepayers when they tell us about their ongoing concern about the constant increase in rates and when they tell us that they want better information in local government elections which they will get in their pre-election report. They want better information so that they can influence what happens in their community. That is why it is called local government. This is a Government that will keep the “local” in local government. We are listening to what ratepayers want and delivering what they want. 
I will touch on a few things and I know there will be plenty of opportunity to do so tomorrow as we move into the more detailed Committee stage. We have heard a lot from the Opposition benches but not anything that has any credibility. 
This bill delivers choice for ratepayers and more important choice for local government. We recognise that councils across the country are different and that therefore they need the ability to make decisions that suit their community. One thing that I will leave members to dwell on is the fact that local communities and local councils should have the ability to choose how where and for how long they contract their services. I will leave it on that note. 
This bill is about choice. This bill is about listening to our ratepayers and removing the burden of rates—the increase in the collection of taxes that the guys opposite think is totally acceptable. Well we do not. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I am not a member of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee but I happened to sit on it for a full day in Auckland and listen to the submissions of the people who came in front of us. There was overwhelming opposition to this bill. There were 414 submissions on this bill. More than 80 percent of them opposed it of which 36 were from councils. A huge number were from local community boards. If Louise Upston is really serious about listening to ratepayers she should listen to councils and the local boards elected by ratepayers and what they think about this bill because they do not want it. That includes the Mayor of Auckland who came before us and spoke out against the provisions in this legislation including the idea that we need to have a pre-election report. When we asked him what the pre-election report was needed for and how much it would cost he along with other councillors said that they would probably have to devote at least one or two extra people in their council to that in order to be able to put it together. 
This bill will increase red tape. It will increase the amount of bureaucracy and administrative costs. We are sitting here today in urgency— 
John Hayes 
: You’re standing. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I thank Mr Hayes. I am standing in urgency once again talking about local government or a bill about Auckland. Three out of the four local government or super-city bills have been brought in under urgency. It is a paradox that we come in here to do this under urgency and we are talking about more transparency more democracy and more ability for people out there to have a say. This legislation removes a lot of the consultation. It is interesting that some of the people who came before us believed that some of the consultation should have been streamlined. 
The key aspect of this bill is that it removes the obligation to consult particularly when there will be some ability to privatise or certainly put something into the influence of a council-controlled organisation. It also means as a number of speakers have said that water can effectively be privatised. It will be taken from a 15-year to a 35-year lease under this legislation. Effectively that is privatisation. If we think about that 35 years is half a lifetime. It is nearly two generations. I am open to discussing this. I am open to looking at the evidence that this will make our water more accessible of a higher quality and cheaper for people. But I have not seen the evidence of that. As Sue Kedgley pointed out this evening all around the world this process has made water more expensive of a poorer quality and less available to people. The evidence is overwhelming. 
Why are we trying to do it here? I can only suggest that it is part of an ideology that is being pushed through this legislation. It is not a bill it is not a plan and it is not a piece of legislation. This Government does not have a plan and it does not have a strategy. This bill is a piece of ideology being shoved through without any real evidence or analysis. It is focused obviously on funding. Again there is not one person on this side of the House who would say that increasing rates is necessarily a good thing. But as the Local Government Commission pointed out to us in its submissions overall in relation to GDP rates have not gone up. That is the evidence. This comes back to my key point. Let us put legislation through with evidence to support it with the right sort of back-up with the right sort of analysis and maybe with a semblance of a strategy or a plan. But there is no plan no strategy no analysis and no evidence. There is overwhelming opposition from the local people who have been elected into local government telling us what to do. That point raises a very interesting question and I am talking about Auckland in particular. How will our local body politicians interact with the National Government in this case? 
I turn to clause 5 which talks about transport. Transport is one of the core services that comes under this bill. Let me give members one example of this. Under the previous Labour Government we took enormous steps to improve rail transport in Auckland. Mr Joyce has made it his business to turn up to every railway station opening throughout the Auckland region to get the kudos for something that he did not even have the imagination to put into place. What he has the imagination to do is to run a brand-new highway up to Warkworth inside the new Auckland boundaries as part of the new super-city so that his mates can have better access to the beaches up in Omaha. This is a travesty. You will be spending nearly $2 billion and for every $1 that you spend on this highway less than $1 will be returned. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will not be spending anything. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I get carried away just like Sir Roger Douglas did earlier but I will not stoop to what he called the Chair in that outburst. 
This will mean that the real opportunities for infrastructure development under clause 5—the real core services and the inner-city loop—are threatened in terms of being implemented. This will make an enormous difference to Auckland. Railway patronage in Auckland has doubled in 5 years and when the railway is electrified—again something the previous Labour Government brought into being—we will see a massive spike once again in patronage. It will not be able to cope with that and we will need an inner-city loop. There has been a lot of talk from our mayor Len Brown. He was supportive of this along with John Banks the other mayoral candidate Christine Fletcher and a number of the other Auckland councillors. What is this Government saying? We need to think about ways of paying for it. Actually there was a way of paying for it before: it was called the regional fuel levy. That was taken away by this Government. Why? Because it did not want local government to have a real say in its own planning. 
The Minister of Local Government might want to take a note of this. Why does he not get in behind Auckland and support something like a regional fuel tax which might have enabled Auckland to get on and fund its own infrastructure programmes alongside National Government funding? This is a narrow stingy bill that is based on ideology. It is not based on anything but ideology. It is completely unnecessary as my colleague said. It takes out the obligation for community consultation and effectively privatises our key assets such as water. It increases the administrative costs in this pre-election report which will enable our local government to cost more rather than less. It is an ideology looking for a strategy and a plan. It is certainly an unnecessary waste of time at 5 to 12 on a Wednesday night. Thank you. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is great to see passionate debate as the previous speaker pointed out at five to 12 in the evening. There has been passionate debate there has been some informed passionate debate and there has been some debate that has been alarmist and extremist. 
I must say I have enjoyed the contributions from Mr Jones which were somewhat hyperbolic in nature. He seemed at times to be speaking on another bill completely as did some of the other contributors. However it is always a pleasure to hear his rounded tones and demi-basso profundo voice. We miss him in the Local Government and Environment Committee—come back Mr Jones. 
The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill will be welcomed by the vast majority of ratepayers. I look forward to talking about it further in the Committee stage. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill is a great bill and the ACT Party will be supporting it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.  
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to take what I think will be a fairly brief call. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)