Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Speaker. If ever there was a piece of legislation that clearly and decisively separated the differences in terms of philosophy and ideology between the socialist left and those of us on the centre-right of this Parliament it's this piece of legislation. This is nothing more than an ideologically driven piece of payback for the trade union movement. When my colleague Paul Goldsmith says that—Hon Michael Wood: Point of order Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders are very clear that it is out of order for a member to suggest that other members might be behaving in a way as reflected by the member's comments about payback just now. Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker. The member is correct except for the fact that in the previous two parliaments his former ministerial colleague the Hon Phil Twyford made repeated references to the National Party doing particular things because of kickbacks and paybacks and other unsavoury allegations all of which were allowed to stand and none of which were ruled out of order. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I will allow the member to continue his speech. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you Madam Speaker. So the fundamental philosophical and ideological difference is one that sees—on this side of the House—people as individuals as intelligent smart people who can and should negotiate deals with their employer on terms and conditions that they negotiate directly with their employer. And over the last 30 years or so that's exactly what we've had. But on the other side of the House on the socialist side of the House people are considered to be little more than units of productivity to be herded cajoled and coerced into group actions that they may not want to participate in. So for those of us who are of an age where we remember the bad old days before the Employment Contracts Act of 1991 we recall how bad what used to be called national awards" were. And this mandatory union deals piece of legislation does exactly that. It takes us back 30 years to a time when most New Zealanders thought we had well passed and would not be ever returning to. Because for the last 30 years or so New Zealanders had a nimble easy flexible employment relations framework that has enabled employers and employees to come to terms with each other in a way that encouraged businesses to succeed and to thrive.This piece of legislation is a road block to that continued nimbleness that continued entrepreneurialism and the handbrake will be well and truly put on—mostly small—businesses around New Zealand. Because this is a piece of legislation that seeks to pigeon-hole everybody every business every employee into a pre-set determined view of what their role in our economy should be.I'm wanting to focus a little bit on some of the historical detail that has caused us to be debating this piece of legislation today. It goes back to the very formation of the parliamentary Labour Party. And those people who have studied their history will understand and remember that actually the trade union movement was formed towards the end of the 1800s at a time when workplace reform was desperately needed. And the trade union movement around the word—not just in New Zealand but in Australia in the UK in North America and other parts of the world—developed to achieve those outcomes. But very quickly just as in other parts of the world they found that if they were to have true influence on decision making they needed a role in a place like this—in a parliament. And so out of the trade union movement was birthed the parliamentary Labour Party. Those connections are deep they are historical they are political and they are of course financial as well. So since the Employment Contracts Act 1991 and the abolition of compulsory trade-unionism a couple of interesting things have happened. And one of the most interesting things is that New Zealanders have realised that for most of them trade unions are simply irrelevant—for most New Zealand workers trade unions are simply irrelevant. Very few New Zealanders these days are members of a trade union and so over that 30 years of course union membership and union financial strength has diminished considerably. And then join the dots as to why it should be that a parliamentary Labour Party in 2022 would want to wind back the clock to be putting through legislation using it's absolute majority in this Parliament to ensure actually that unions have a continued future. Well if unions were so important New Zealanders would have joined them; they would have done that voluntarily. Actually it's something about like 14 percent of New Zealand employees are members of trade unions and the vast majority of those are in the public sector. In the private sector the percentage is very low indeed.So for those who are younger than I am in this Parliament and there are a few but out there in the workplace there are a whole lot of people who are say under the age of 40 who simply don't remember the bad old days of demarcation disputes—which were not disputes between employer and employee but actually demarcations between unions scrapping over which unions should have the right to represent a particular employee at award negotiations. Now there's nothing in this piece of legislation that prevents demarcation disputes occurring again. Yes there will be in this legislation a provision that prevents employees and employers going to an industrial action dispute but nothing about unions fighting over—in a demarcation way—who is going to represent a particular group of employees. And so we'll be back to that. So there's a whole group of younger people who don't remember any of that bad old days stuff but are soon going to be back in it.And what happens for those younger people? Well they've grown up and are now used to a level of workplace democracy that is good that is proper and that is working very well for New Zealanders and they don't want to be cajoled and coerced into a template pigeonhole model that is of the sort that this legislation seeks to provide. And so for most younger New Zealanders they'll be scratching their heads and saying "Why am I being forced to negotiate—well in fact to lose my right to negotiate with my employer? Why is it going to be that decisions about my terms of employment my hours of work my rate of pay and the conditions upon which I'm employed—why will it be that I no longer have a say in those matters and that those matters will be decided by big unions and big business probably in a closed room in Wellington somewhere?" The only difference between that kind of scenario and what used to happen 30 years or more ago is that the smoke-filled rooms will no longer be there. But in secret meeting rooms behind closed doors pay and conditions and terms under this piece of legislation will be negotiated by faceless people who don't represent the interests and the best prospects for those people who they are purportedly negotiating for. They will be representing the interests of either business or unions and there'll be very little concern for individual employees.And so the whole term "fair pay agreement" is just so wrong on every level. The really proper term should be "mandatory union deals". But there's going to be fightback because this Parliament will pass this legislation and it will do so on the back of the current Government's absolute majority. But I want to give fair notice to the current Government most of whom won't be coming back in the next Parliament—fair notice to those few that will return but a re-elected National Government will repeal this legislation. A re-elected National-led Government will repeal this legislation. So that's fair notice to the employers to the businesses and to the employees around New Zealand who are fearful and worried about a trip back in time a time that was less enlightened a time that was less flexible a time that was less nimble and a time that—in workplace relations—was less democratic less fair and was dominated by big unions and big business. That simply doesn't reflect a modern future-focused employment framework and it's not going to be suitable for New Zealanders as we strive to make our way in a competitive world.So mandatory union deals are going to be a feature of the New Zealand framework for a very short period of time. It's my absolute hope and I know that my colleagues on this side of the House will be working even harder with legislation of this sort to ensure that there is a change of Government at the next election so that this sort of old-fashioned tired draconian legislation—and to use the words of the Hon Stuart Nash "tired words and out-of-date" thinking which represents this legislation—will be repealed absolutely as soon as possible. And New Zealand employers New Zealand employees can take heart that that help and assistance will be forthcoming to them just absolutely as soon as possible and that the use of a blunt instrument like an absolute majority based on nothing more than ideological principle and a relationship with—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member's time is up."