Tanczos Nandor: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16143] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak specifically to the United Future amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 276 to extend the exemption that allows unions to be denied access to a workplace on religious grounds in certain circumstances. Of course this Committee knows that this amendment is particularly about the Brethren who already have an exemption under current and past law and I acknowledge their presence in the gallery tonight. 
More than most members of this House I understand how law can conflict with religion. In fact I am probably the only member of this House who faces victimisation for practising his faith so I have some sympathy for the position of the Brethrens. Although I will not discuss the theology of their position—I was tempted to because I am always keen to engage in a bit of reasoning—and regardless of my interpretation of the Bible we do have some sympathy for their position. 
However on looking at the issue it seems to be that a genuine concern for protecting religious rights in this House would make provision for people to practise their faith without persecution as long as that practice does not infringe the rights of others. So we consider that the law should never require people who have a religious conviction that forbids membership of a union or any other organisation to become unionised. In fact the law should never require anyone to become a member of a union if that person wishes not to be a member regardless of whether that person’s objection is religious or otherwise. 
However the argument that a person who has a religious or otherwise principled objection to unionisation or membership of any organisation apart from his or her church should be allowed to impose this objection on the rights of others by denying union access to a workplace in order to offer employees the chance to join a union is not in my opinion a convincing one. Religious conviction entitles people to practise their faith; it cannot entitle them to deny other people their rights or protections under the law. 
The Green Party will vote against the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 276 to extend the exemption even though we do have some sympathy for the position of the Brethren. We would certainly support the amendment if we felt that it was genuinely protecting people from a threat to their right to practise their religion in so far as that practice did not interfere with the rights of others. The respect for religious rights which United Future New Zealand First ACT and National purport in supporting this Supplementary Order Paper will be demonstrated not by whether they support an anti-unionist clause in this bill but by whether they support religious rights in other areas and contexts where they have no hidden agenda. 
The last point I would make is that it is contradictory to hear the ACT party the National Party and New Zealand First run a campaign declaring “one law for all” in respect of Maori but then to vote for an amendment that creates a different right for some. The hidden agenda of political parties has little connection to the genuine religious conviction of the Brethren—who as I said I acknowledge here today—who have lobbied for this Supplementary Order Paper. We will vote against this amendment.