Little Andrew: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 10 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9609. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I agree with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that this is a most unusual—in fact I would say unprecedented—occasion on which a piece of employment legislation which typically divides this House certainly as it went through the Committee stage received as I recall unanimous support from members of this House. There may have been one exception and it is the dog-tail to the National Party but we do not have to dwell on that. The idea that all but one member in a House of 121 MPs should support a piece of employment legislation is I think an important occasion. But there the pat on the back will end.They say that success has many parents—whether or not on paid parental leave—and failure is an orphan. But we will take credit for making changes to a piece of legislation that would have entrenched what the Minister described as a pernicious device that employers were in fact using during the course of this legislation passing through this House.Let us be clear about what the legislation does. It does make improvements to paid parental leave. It does not go as far as the changes that Sue Moroney has been campaigning for and had huge support for for many many months. There is a sense in which the Government is responding to the demand of the people not leading the people. But that is not unusual for National Governments when it comes to employment law employment rights and workplace issues.As for the enforcement regime I cut my professional teeth as a lawyer on what was then regarded as pretty basic work called time and wages book inspections of employers. It was pretty routine. Actually it was a legal obligation and has continued to be since for employers to keep a record of the hours their employees work and what they are paid for them. The idea that things have become so bad on such a widespread basis that in 2016 we have to pass another law reminding employers that they have to keep a record of the standards and terms and conditions under which their workers are employed is an outrage frankly and reflects poorly on this Government and I want to come to that.I want to say this too: as I said this legislation represents a step forward on many fronts for workers—and I have outlined those aspects. It was encouraging to see that at least at the Committee stage there was widespread support and that was unprecedented. But let us go to some basic principles. Having a set of rules about how relationships are conducted in the workplace is absolutely vital. Those rules have to be clear they must be fair and they must reflect what society regards as right.You know there is a moral element when it comes to workplace law and workplace rights. Public debate in New Zealand about workplace rights and employment law so often descends into meaningless claims about flexibility about red tape and about costing jobs. So it was disappointing that the Minister in his introduction of this third reading debate could not avoid references to having “a more equal playing field” to “unnecessary compliance costs on employers” or having “a better balance of flexibility”.Let us get one thing absolutely clear: it is the common law of employment which still exists in New Zealand and which statutory law—the law that this Parliament passes—so often has to grapple with. It is common law that creates the unequal power relationship in employment. It is the common law duty to obey. The ACT Party will understand this because it thinks that all statutory law should go and we should revert to common law which by and large in the workplace is the law of the jungle. The duty on the worker to obey is what creates the inherent imbalance of power in the workplace relationship. That is why what this House does on employment issues and on workplace issues is so vital and so important and what we do in this House every time we pass a law relating to employment and workplace rights sends a signal.The Minister can claim credit for saying “Here is a piece of legislation that improves workplace rights.” but if we look at the other 29 pieces of employment legislation passed by this House under this Government with its majority each and every one of them takes away workplace rights—each and every one of them changes that inherent imbalance of power in the workplace towards the employer. And now 8 years on 29 pieces of legislation later here we have a piece of law that just starts to crawl in the other direction but that is about all it does.Consider this: there never was a law or anything mandating zero-hour contracts. What there was was a record of employment law changes that sent a signal to employers that the rules are in their favour or in some cases that the rules do not apply or in some cases that the law just does not matter—go for it do what you like do what you can get away with.Something about our employment laws something in our workplace culture has given a signal to employers that they can do what they like. The idea that anybody—an employer their highly paid high street lawyer—thought that it was OK to draft an employment agreement with a clause in it that said: “You are obliged to turn up to work but I’m not obliged to offer you any hours of work and if I haven’t got any hours of work for you I will send you home and you will get no compensation for it.”Where in our egalitarian tradition did that ever come from? Where did it come from? I regret to say that in my view it came from this House passing law after law after law that said to workers: your rights do not matter anymore; we are interested in the interests of only one group of people—the powerful and the privileged who happen to be your employers. That is what they have done—that is what they have done.And here is the real test: how is it that in a country whose employment jurisprudence has been driven by two basic principles—the principle of mutuality and the principle of reciprocal obligation—driven through our employment jurisprudence. Employment Court judges Court of Appeal judges and even Supreme Court justices more recently are saying that the principle of mutuality and employment is an absolute founding principle. And yet we have a culture in this country that has allowed employers to sign up workers and to bully workers into accepting that this was an OK practice. Something has been seriously wrong. It is not acceptable and it is not right. It is right that we have laws that establish a moral standard of acceptable conduct for employers.The idea that we would have agreements that create that provision and they never go to court to be tested is testament to something else and that is the fear of workers to test their legal rights—to challenge the wrongful conduct of employers. How could we possibly be surprised about that when we have Government departments—giant Government departments—including the department responsible for administering our employment legislation that cannot even get it right and cannot pay its staff right.I hope that passing this legislation—I hope it will be unanimous although I am even prepared to concede that ACT’s vote is not that important; I hope it will be unanimous. I hope this will be the start of a process of New Zealand workers now receiving a signal that they matter that they count—that this Parliament does not just side with the powerful and the privileged; that it sides with ordinary working New Zealanders that there are moral standards—not just minimum legal standards but moral standards that we expect of employers and others about their conduct towards the people who work for them. These are the people who do have a duty to obey the people who do not have the means to go to court and who do not have the means to engage high-paid powerful lobbyists to preserve their interests.We will support this legislation—it is an important step. I want to acknowledge the work not only of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but also of Iain Lees-Galloway Sue Moroney—our representatives on that committee—and others who have stood firm and fast and realised and accepted that our culture that our values must change and that a signal will go from this day forth to New Zealand workers that now we will start to make laws that look after them that respect them and that give them a chance to get ahead and to pursue their Kiwi Dream.