Swain Paul: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Swain Paul: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16067] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of comments in response to the member but I personally want to congratulate the Commerce Committee because I think it did a good job on making a number of improvements and clarifications to the bill as it went before the select committee. I was highly disappointed with that member’s speech. Often he makes reasonably incisive speeches and on the odd occasions Ministers get to change bits of legislation on the basis of them. But I listened to that speech. It was the same old tired rhetoric that was given in the year 2000. What did he and people like him say in the year 2000? That the Employment Relations Bill was going to lead to a slacking off of growth! It was going to lead to rising unemployment and strikes were going to skyrocket. I remember that. It was doom and gloom in the National Party and the ACT party backed up by a number of people commentating in the private sector. What have we found? Let us just look at the reality. Growth on average now is about 3.5 percent. That is not bad actually relative to the OECD. Unemployment is now 4 percent and we know relative to the OECD that that is amongst the top performers of the OECD and of course strikes are virtually non-existent and certainly down even from the days of the Employment Contracts Act. 
So what we have heard from that member are all the crocodile tears that were shed at the time the Employments Relations Bill went through. But I do want to take up the point about bargaining fees because this is really the substance of one of the Supplementary Order Papers that have been introduced at the invitation I should say of the select committee. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No the majority. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: At the invitation of the select committee. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: The majority. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It was at the invitation of the select committee that I introduced this Supplementary Order Paper. The committee invited me to and I did. So the bargaining fee arrangements are quite clear if one reads the bill. It says that a bargaining fee arrangement can be entered into with three conditions attached. Firstly the employer and the union have to agree that such an arrangement should occur. Secondly there has to be a ballot of all the people likely to be covered. Thirdly any member—any worker—who does not like the idea simply opts out. Now to hear the outrage about that from that member and the National Party that this somehow is a return to compulsory unionism is just plain garbage—absolute garbage. They have tried to run the line. It has got absolutely no traction because anybody with a cursory understanding of what the bill says will know that that in fact is simply not the case. 
There has been some discussion because I have read this in a couple of places in the media and I have had a discussion with Peter Brown of New Zealand First asking whether the employer has to agree—there is possibly some confusion around this. I have gone back had a look and said that it is reasonably clear to me. But for the avoidance of doubt I have introduced another clarifying Supplementary Order Paper to say that the employer and the union have to agree as part of a collective agreement. I cannot make it I think any more clear than that. The Supplementary Order Paper also states as I say that there has to be a ballot; and finally any employee who wants to opt out can—there need be no reasons he or she can just opt out. Therefore somehow this being seen as the big outrage in returning to compulsory unionism is just absolute nonsense as has been pointed out by a number of people leading up to that proposition being put forward. 
So this is actually quite sensible reasonable legislation that has been reported back. It addresses a matter that employees and unions were saying was a problem which is basically what is called freeloading; that is people not paying their taxes and wanting free health-care. The unions and a lot of the delegates have said that what happens is that they pay their fees they negotiate they bargain and automatically the things get passed on as of right. They were outraged at that and they had a fair point to be frank. Freeloading is not acceptable. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is not acceptable. On the other hand the employers were saying that they wanted to make sure actually that they could pay employees in the work-site whether they were unionised or not the same. So we have gone out of our way to spell that out as clearly as we can. Employers can pay whether people are on a collective or an individual contract the same or similar. We cannot be any plainer than that. 
So I return to where I started. We heard the crocodile tears in 2000. This was going to be the death knell of capitalism. I remember people making speeches such as that. This was going to be the end of New Zealand. “No one would employ one more person.” I heard someone say; the same kind of thing that Richard Prebble just said before. Unemployment is now 4 percent. We have not been in that situation for nearly three decades. I think the facts have spoken for themselves. This is an entirely reasonable bill. The reality is that 80 percent of the workforce in New Zealand is not covered by collectives—they are not unionised. In fact this particular piece of legislation will have very little impact on them as it had very little impact on those who were not involved in collectives anyway. So I think that it is important to note that the select committee has done good work on this. It has put work into it and has come back with some sensible recommendations and I recommend it to the Committee.