Brown Peter: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5021] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to correct the member who has just resumed his seat because somebody out there might have been listening and taking note. I say to the honourable member that he should have used the most recent figures on union membership. The figures I have obtained show that union membership has gone up of recent times. The member usually makes sense but he is wrong on this occasion. If the National Party doubts me it should check with the library. The member might be right on one account: the percentage of the workforce in terms of union membership has gone down slightly but that is because workforce numbers have gone up—something that never happened under National. And try as we might even New Zealand First could not get them up when we were with National. 
When it comes to unions National members are dead scared of collective strength. They want it for themselves but they resent working people having some sort of collective strength. I have another piece of information for members opposite. There is nothing in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill about unions—not a single word! It would not be a bad idea if members opposite read bills from time to time. They should read the bill before they stand up and take a 10-minute call on it. I have to say I am disappointed with Simon Power’s contribution. He is a man of some intelligence; he is a lawyer. He did not say one thing in regard to the bill. 
Let us face a few facts. In the last term of Parliament the Government passed the law that deals with vulnerable workers. In listening to the last National Party spokesperson one would think this amendment bill is new law but the law governing the protection of vulnerable workers is already in existence. But typical of the Labour Government it did not get it right. 
The Government needed some help so we in New Zealand First said to ourselves that there is something not quite right about having a workforce that stays on and does the job but with rotating employers. It is sort of like pooled labour and we were not terribly happy about that. But we have to recognise that 99 percent of the law is already there and is it not right and proper that the law becomes right and proper? We thought there was some merit in getting it completely right. 
This bill has come about only because of the judicial decision on the Gibbs and Crest situation down in Dunedin which was spoken about by many members earlier on. The Government is absolutely keen to offer protection to vulnerable workers. New Zealand First looked at this legislation objectively and fairly. We believe basically in direct employment where the employee goes where the employer goes. We could call it “employment purity”. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What does that mean? 
Paula Bennett 
: Ha ha! [ 
Interruption 
] 
PETER BROWN 
: I tell those members to close their mouths for a minute and listen. Employment purity and fairness can often be complementary. They work together but where there is conflict between employment purity and fairness then Parliament must come out on the side of fairness if we really want a decent society. We will not have a decent society if we bow to employment purity—or fiscal purity; call it what you like—at the expense of fairness. I hope those members opposite have taken note of that. 
Some of us on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee listened to the cases put forward by vulnerable workers. They were heart-wrenching and brought tears to the eyes if one was listening genuinely. We heard frequently that when there was a change of employer the workload went up or the wages went down and quite often both the workload went up and the wages went down. Worse still staff numbers were reduced so there were fewer people on less pay doing more work. Is that fair? No it is not. 
So New Zealand First decided to rethink this issue. We spoke with the Government. We said that we were not committed to this forever; we said that we wanted a review. I advise the House that Supplementary Order Paper 53 in my name will be on the Table at the Committee stage if it is not there already stating that there will be a review. 
But that was not enough for us. We know of concerns about employers not knowing the liabilities they take on when they buy a contract or re-tender for it. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Are you going to get Noel Ingram to do the review? 
PETER BROWN 
: No I will not. If that member would sit and listen for a while he might learn a little. 
At the insistence of New Zealand First the Government has produced Supplementary Order Paper 54 in order to provide for full disclosure before the tender is handed across. So with respect to what Paula Bennett said there will be no case for doubling the wages and increasing whatever and letting it fall into the lap of the second employer because before employers take on the contract they will know what they are up for. There will be full disclosure both in the public sector and in the private sector. 
Supplementary Order Paper 53 which will be on the Table by the time the bill reaches the Committee stage is a direct reflection of New Zealand First’s input into Government policy. We told the Government that this needed to be done. I want to be fair to the Government—because I have been quite critical of it before and I am likely to be critical of it again. The Government told me that it had the numbers without us. I said: “Well you will not get the principles without us. We want this bill.” The Minister said to me that it would go ahead with the Supplementary Order Paper because we had approached the Government in good faith. So this is another New Zealand First gain for this country and for the employers of this country. 
Much of the National Party assertions and allegations are false and based on academic theory. We are talking about vulnerable workers who need some protection. The current Act protects them to some degree and this completes the picture which is what the Government intended to do last term. This is not new legislation or new political policy; this is completing what the Government intended to do last time. But as a result of New Zealand First’s intervention we are getting full disclosure so that employers who take over a contract will have the full information about what they are taking over. 
I see that National members are laughing with envy. They know when political parties stand in this House and achieve something. We have achieved in the last week more than they have achieved in 9 years and I know that that hurts. There will be a review in 3 years. Employers and employees will have a chance at that point in time to say whether the legislation is working properly or whether it needs a bit of adjustment and the matter will be looked into objectively. 
But I emphasise that New Zealand First claims the credit for these two Supplementary Orders Papers that are going through. Modesty is out the window now; we claim the credit and we think that the Government will give protection to vulnerable workers whether or not we are with it. However what we do have is full disclosure for the employers. We think that that will make a huge difference to this legislation and will be to the advantage of all involved. 
After listening to vulnerable workers when they came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in particular but some have also spoken to us privately I say that there is a case to be addressed. This bill attempts to address the issue and I believe as a result of New Zealand First’s intervention the Employment Relations Act will be all the better for it.