Fenton Darien: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21104] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on clause 1 of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. I note that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee of which I am a member made a recommendation that the original title the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill be changed. It is interesting that the recommendation in the report from the select committee says that the word “Workers’ ” should be removed because that term is not used in the principal Act and that is true; it is not used in the principal Act. The bill seeks to require unions and not workers to hold secret ballots. 
I go back to the genesis of this bill. It came out of Tau Henare’s brain a couple of years ago when he was lying around thinking “What can I do to put forward a bill that makes me look important but doesn’t really have a problem?”. It is a bill that is looking for a problem and we do not have a problem. He put the word “Workers’ ” in there because I presume—I ask the member in the chair Tau Henare and he might respond to that—he could not bear to write the word “Unions’ ”. He could not bear to write the word “Unions’ ”. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was right when it looked at this clause because the title “Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill” actually provides for unions to have the secret ballots not workers. But it is very interesting. I would like to know what members opposite and the member in the chair think unions are because actually they are workers. 
But I maintain that the word “Workers’ ” ended up in the title originally because the member in the chair has had such a torrid history with unions in the past. We all know that he thinks he was a hero in the 1980s of the very militant Clerical Workers Union. He is looking back to those glory days and he has not realised that times have changed an awful lot. I think that he is holding on to some kind of grudge and could not bear to use the word “Unions’ ” in this bill so he used the word “Workers’ ”. 
As I said the select committee was absolutely right; there is no such thing as “workers” under the Employment Relations Act. I would be really pleased if there were because the meaning of “workers” is actually much broader than that of “employees”. The meaning of “workers” is everybody including contractors who are people outside of the employment relationship as well as those who are in the employment relationship. The meaning of “employee” under the Employment Relations Act is very specific. It is all there. It is all about the employer-employee relationship apart from homeworkers who can be in any kind of employment relationship. 
Homeworkers can be contractors and that goes back to a case that was taken in the 1990s about homeworkers who were being paid less than the minimum wage and were being employed as contractors. It was a famous case—it was  
Cashman v Central Regional Health Authority 
—and the outcome of that case was to say that homeworkers are actually employees and as such they should have all of the entitlements of an employee. 
I was quite comfortable with the word “Workers’ ” in the title because I thought that if we could introduce the new word “workers” into the Employment Relations Act then that would bring into employment law a whole new category of working people who are currently not in that law. I have already mentioned dependent and independent contractors who do not have employment relationships. They are outside employment law and there are a lot of problems with what is happening to them. They are being exploited in many cases apart from the very highly skilled workers in that situation. In fact I tried to do something about workers in the minimum wage for contractors bill which National members voted down last year. 
Phil Twyford 
: Excellent bill. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It was an excellent bill that would have seen a minimum wage for all workers in New Zealand whether or not they were in employee-employer relationships. It would have covered vulnerable contractors such as courier drivers whom I see on a regular basis who are not earning the minimum wage and who are being enormously exploited. 
So I did not have a problem with the original title and I have to admit to being somewhat disappointed. Members will note from the select committee’s report that the bill was passed by majority and Labour put in a minority view. I have to admit to being somewhat disappointed that we did not retain the word “Workers’ ” in the title because I think it would have opened up a whole new area of law beyond the employment relationship. We would have been able to have a discussion. We would have been able to argue in this bill and beyond that workers whether or not they are in employee-employer relationships are covered by all the provisions of the Employment Relations Act. I would have really welcomed that. 
But I go back to the point about the member’s original title. I would be interested in hearing from the member in the chair about why he put “Workers’ ” in the title and why he did not put “Unions’ ”. I wonder whether there is some sort of prejudice lingering from his time as a Clerical Workers Union organiser in the 1980s. In those good old tough days that member used to wander into workplaces and say: “Let’s pull the pin. Everybody out!”. He could look tough; he could look really important. Clerical workers for goodness’ sake! I do have to wonder whether he was just harking back to those days. 
As I said earlier he may still have some residual resentment about unions because in the end he did not survive in the union movement. I would not say that he was kicked out of the union movement; certainly his reputation is still alive is it not? People still talk about Raymond Henare. They all talk about what he used to do in the good old days of the 1980s when he was staunch but he could not hang around during the 1990s when it got really tough. In fact he ended up sidling up to the National Party. He has consequently joined the National Party and helped make sure that things get harder for workers. 
I would be interested in hearing a response from the member in the chair about why he used the word “Workers’ ” and not “Unions’ ” and about whether he is comfortable now with the change that has been recommended by the select committee which changes the title to the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. I want to know whether he thinks that is better than it was or whether he regrets losing the word “Workers’ ” from it. I want to know who he had in mind when he was talking about workers why he did not use the word “Unions’ ” in the first place and whether he was just trying to target a particular group. 
I am interested in why he put “Workers’ ” in there in the first place. Maybe he should have put “Companies’ ” in there as well. That is a debate we will have a bit further on as we get into this debate because I have an amendment that proposes that companies or employers that are imposing the opposite of a strike—which is a lockout—should have to be subject to a secret ballot as well. 
The title clause is very interesting. It is a very interesting clause and I am sure that my colleagues will have many other suggestions about what the title could have been. As I said this is a bill looking for a problem—and there is not a problem. Maybe that could have been the title of the bill. It could have been the “Employment Relations (Looking for a Problem) Amendment Bill” or the “Employment Relations (Using a Sledgehammer to Crack a Peanut) Amendment Bill”. It could have been the “Employment Relations (National Hates Unions) Amendment Bill”. Who knows? 
The title could have been the “Employment Relations (Let’s Make Stuff Up) Amendment Bill” because there is no problem here. The member in the chair knows that. He knows that there has not been a problem. Actually since his bill was first introduced in April 2010 I would be very surprised if there had been one single worker in the country who has complained about being forced to go on strike—one single worker who has been forced to go on strike without a secret ballot for a strike as the title suggests. 
I would be interested to know how many complaints the member in the chair has had. Going back to the title I think that another possible title could be the “Employment Relations (Tau Henare’s Time in the 1980s Clerical Workers Union was a Complete Failure) Amendment Bill”. Who knows? Or it could have been the “Employment Relations (Let’s Go After Workers and Make Life More Difficult For Them Than It Already Is) Amendment Bill”.