Brown Peter: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5133] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I want to respond to some of the remarks that Wayne Mapp and David Bennett have made against New Zealand First. First of all it is true that we voted against the Employment Relations Amendment Bill at the first reading and we are now voting for it but there are some significant changes to the bill— 
Katherine Rich 
: Baubles! 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not know whether I have any more baubles than she has—maybe she would like to tell me where my baubles are. We changed our minds simply because we struck an arrangement—a deal if you like—to improve the legislation which is something the National Party would have really liked to achieve. We have achieved full disclosure of everything and a review will take place within 3 years. 
Mr Bennett believes that he is an advocate for small business but if I were a small-business person with a staff of fewer than 10 and I were in the position of tendering for a contract I would like to think there was a good chance that I could win it. If I had full disclosure I could win it. If I did not have full disclosure I would probably never win it. 
Sue Moroney 
: That member understands small business. Good on him! 
PETER BROWN 
: I support small business. If I were an employer who had a contract that was going out for tender and I employed fewer than 10 people I would like to think that if I lost the contract my people would be looked after. But under David Bennett’s amendment they would get the sack. They would be out the door—whoops! If that is looking after small business and looking after vulnerable workers then I am a Dutchman with plenty of baubles. 
New Zealand First has put some common sense and fairness into this legislation. Wayne Mapp knows that. He is sitting over there in Opposition envious that we can represent the business community. I tell him to talk to his employer mates and ask whether they appreciate legislation that requires full disclosure both in the public sector and the private sector. The honourable member spoke to me privately a little while ago and admitted that David Bennett’s amendment was flawed. Mr Bennett knows that it needs to be amended to cover employees working for small business. He knows it is unfair. He knows that if an employer who employed fewer than 10 people lost a contract then those guys would be out of work. In his heart he knows that yet he stands up and rants and raves and says he is the champion of small business. 
If David Bennett is the champion of small business then he knows that small businesses must look after the people who work for them. I invite members opposite to think about that. Let us say that a small business or even a large business employed these vulnerable workers who had over a period of time upped their negotiating strength and as a result had received increased wages and better conditions and then because of this legislation those people lost those conditions overnight. Is it fair for them to have no protection? Those people are at the bottom of the heap anyway. They need to have a bit of legislative protection. All they have is the protection of the minimum wage which New Zealand First is doing it darnedest to get up to $12 an hour within this term of Parliament. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
PETER BROWN 
: Members opposite should think about the hardship that those vulnerable workers go through. A whole host of them came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and outlined their concerns. They need to have some legislative support. 
The New Zealand First members were convinced that if we could make amendments to this bill by means of a Supplementary Order Paper we would be doing the best for small businesses and for the people who work for them. I am very proud to say we approach this sort of legislation with an open mind. We are not committed to ideology unlike the crowd opposite me in this Chamber.