Williamson Maurice: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Williamson Maurice: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:16283] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am absolutely delighted to be able to take a call on this legislation. I want to tease out with this Government what I think is the most central difference between the left and the right in politics. When it comes to labour relations law the members of the Labour Party especially those on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—who I repeat were all members of trade unions—were actively advocating the fact that workers should have a right to organise. OK that sounds perfectly sensible. I do not have a dispute with that. If workers want to get together and negotiate collectively as a group I do not have a problem with that. But the members then went on to say that the only group that can organise and represent any group of workers in a company is a trade union. So one may have a company with 600 staff 500 of whom are in the union and 80 of whom are not and those 80 workers say: “Well look rather than doing 80 individual contracts why don’t we get together and negotiate a collective of our own?”. When one raises that with Labour Party members the answer is: “No that is absolutely outrageous.” 
Hang on! I thought Labour supported the idea of being able to organise collectively. Oh yes it does but the only way people can use a collective organisation for their negotiations is to be a member of the union. So the 80 workers cannot get together collectively and appoint an employment law specialist or an advocate of some sort and say: “We’ve had a little club together and we’d like you to negotiate on our behalf.” No the Labour Party says that that is wrong because those employees are not part of the trade union movement. So it has nothing to do with being able to organise collectively because if it were Labour members would not mind a group of X number of employees getting together and negotiating their own deal. Instead they want those employees to be members of the trade union. 
Let us tease that out. Why would Labour members want that? Well one can see the thinking behind the little deal. My colleague in the front row is doing the twitching of the fingers and that is what it is about—it is the moolah the payola. But let me explain even further how that works. The Government is now saying: “Well all right you can negotiate collectively if you’re in the union and get a deal. Those of you who aren’t can’t have the same terms and conditions as those who are.” Now let us imagine the first law case. I want to see a businessman in the dock of the High Court: “The charge against you sir is you treated all your workers the same.” The outrage that the public would feel for some evil employer who said— 
Hon Member 
: Would they agree about that? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: They will! There will be marching in the streets. These filthy employers—they want to treat their workers the same! That is what the employer will be charged with. The judge will say: “How do you plead sir? Is it true that the charge the Department of Labour has brought against you is that you want to treat all your workers the same?” That will be the charge. There might be some other questions such as: “Do you pay your taxes sir?”. “Yes I do I pay my taxes.” the employer will say. “Right are you a good corporate citizen?”. “Oh sir I am I am yes.” will be the reply. But the judge will say: “Right but the charge still stands. You tried to pay all your workers the same.” What a crime! Yet that is what this bill will do. But hang on! There will be another round in order to boost the trade union’s coffers and that is the bargaining fee. So the Labour Government has decided to do the tricky deal. It will say: “No no it’s probably a bit harsh to say you can’t all share. You can share the same as everybody else and all be on the same but you will have to pay a bargaining fee.” 
Hon Member 
: To the union? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well that is the first point. Who does the bargaining fee go to? 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I want to pay mine to the Waipareira Trust. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Good on that member! At least he will know where it is going. So the employee will have to pay a bargaining fee. Now there are just a few questions here. Who do the employees pay that to? Well they will have to pay it to the trade union. How much will it be? At the select committee we suggested that we should limit the bargaining fee to quite a small percentage of the union membership fee. I do not think I can live with that concept but I can live with it more comfortably than I can live with the situation as it is now. If members on the other side are saying that the only thing a trade union does in the whole calendar year is negotiate the wage round then I have to say that that is completely against everything the trade unions say they are there for. They say they are there for welfare as benevolent societies supporting education funds for the kids of the workers and doing stunning stuff all year round. In fact I think that some of the unions—and someone could help me with this—especially the teacher unions negotiate once every 3 years and the contract lasts for 3 years. So they negotiate—and the negotiations are say 3 or 4 weeks’ work—and then 3 years of union fees are paid. They are telling people who are not in the union—and who are not enjoying any of the benefits or any of the so-called wonderful things I hear people such as Andrew Little say are the benefits of being in the union—that they will pay a bargaining fee that will be the exact same amount as the whole union fee. If members of the Labour Party are saying: “Oh no it won’t be that much.” then why would they not accept amendments that limit the fee to no more than 20 percent or 10 percent of the union fee? Oh no they will not have that. They have left it at 100 percent. 
Let me make that last point clear. The people in the collective—that is the union members—pay their union membership dues of maybe $600 a year to the union. In return for that—if the rhetoric from the trade unions can be believed—they get stunning services stunning value and unbelievable quality and one of the small things that the union does along the way is negotiate terms and conditions. Now the Government has come along with a grubby little thing called the bargaining fee and if one is not in the union and one’s boss says: “All I want is to do the same for you as I’ve done for the rest of the workers in the collective.” he will be able to as long as he says “And by the way that’s 600 bucks a year bargaining fee.” The workers will say: “But hang on! This took us 2 minutes.” and the employer will say: “I know but the Labour Government has put in place a law that says I now have to extract from you a bargaining fee. It will be 100 percent of what the union dues are even though those union members supposedly get fantastic other products and services.” The poor old workers will say: “What is this but compulsory unionism by any other name?”. And that is exactly what it is. 
It was clear to see what the Government’s agenda was by the presence in the precincts of this Chamber during the Committee stage of one Ross Wilson. I do not know whether he is a relation of Margaret Wilson but I am really getting worried. [ 
Interruption 
] He could be. He could be a very close relative of Margaret Wilson. He is the head of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. [ 
Interruption 
] No Ross Wilson is not better than this. The member cannot say he is better than this. Ross Wilson is the head of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and one would expect him to have no say in— 
Judith Collins 
: Is there an office out there? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am told that a room has been set up with Ross Wilson’s name on it and the phone extension goes through to him because he had to be right here within the precincts of this House advising the Minister. In any other political regime that would be seen as direct interference in the political process. If the Business Roundtable had an office in the lobby and was advising a Tory Government we could imagine the meltdown and the marching in the street. But here was the head of the organisation that will benefit most out of it and he was not in the gallery—he was here in the precincts of the Chamber where members are supposed to be and he was being told he was here only to give the Minister advice. Well if people believe that they believe in the tooth fairy and they believe that the Waipareira Trust does things transparently—neither of which I believe. 
I have to say that this legislation represents all that the left of the Labour Party has come to believe in. They do not trust employers. They do not trust workers to negotiate their own conditions. They put nebulous definitions like “good faith” into the legislation and—listen to this—even the Employment Court judges whom I do not have a great deal of time for came before the select committee and said that they do not know what “good faith” means. If they do not know how are we supposed to? It is an outrage.