Brown Peter: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:16273] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Whilst I do not agree with the member who just resumed her seat I have to say that I thought she took a more rational approach than my honourable colleague of a few moments ago. He was saying that this legislation will give unions strength to the degree that we will go back to the bad old days. I think he was referring to the bad old days of the 1960s when there was a low crime rate when we could go outside our houses and leave the doors unlocked when there was full employment— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No productivity. 
PETER BROWN 
: —I will come to the issue of productivity—when there was no traffic congestion and when we were very much an egalitarian society. My honourable colleague said there was no productivity. Let me tell him that even in those good old days of the 1960s which I think he tried to paint as the dark old days we would handle cargo in the Port of Tauranga faster and more efficiently than in any Western port in the world. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That is actually not true. 
PETER BROWN 
: I tell the member that that is true—even in the 1960s particularly with log and timber-type cargoes that got the port into the realm of being well-known. Things have improved since then in terms of productivity. I have heard the reflection against the watersiders. I am not going to defend the watersiders who have taken a strike in Auckland for whatever they want. They are trying to address the issue of casualisation. I do not know whether they are wrong or right—I have not studied it. But I will tell members that there are no ports in the Western World that can handle cargo faster and more efficiently than—again—the Port of Tauranga. I would suggest that Auckland is not too far behind but it is behind. Some of our other ports are up with the play also. We should be proud of our productivity when it comes to ship handling and waterfront handling. No ship comes to New Zealand and gets an inferior service. There is no place in the Western World—or even in the world I would suggest—that can load ships faster and more efficiently than we can in New Zealand. So let us get a few things in perspective. 
This legislation however does concern employers particularly small employers. Large employers will take the attitude that if they do not like the country or do not get a fair go they will move to Australia or somewhere else. They are no longer at the beck and call of the New Zealand economy. Small employers do not have the same luxury. They will either continue or close and this sort of bill will make it harder for the small employer to make the positive decision of employing somebody. That is a real concern. But the concern is not because we have unions. Unions by and large are just part of society— 
Simon Power 
: Oh steady! 
PETER BROWN 
: Unions are part of society. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That might be a fair comment but what about compulsory unionism? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am not talking about compulsory unionism. I would not want that any more than I would want people to join New Zealand First on a compulsory basis. But I would not be telling the truth if I did not tell members that New Zealand First believes in collective strength. I am sure the honourable member over there wants to advance his party by getting a few more people in this place. He knows he can achieve that only by getting collective strength in the public arena. Collective strength is a very important facet of political life and industrial life. I do not think we should chastise unions or put a black mark against them because they want to have a stronger power base. That is not to say that we have to agree or roll over. That is not to say anything except that they exist they are entitled to exist and they want to strengthen their hand in the industrial environment. 
Much has been much made of the bargaining fee arrangement. I say to honourable members that first and foremost the employers have to agree to it. They cannot be in breach of good faith if they say no. If employers do not agree with a bargaining agent type of arrangement then they are not in breach of good faith. I should imagine that most employers who have a majority of employees who are not in a union will not agree. I would expect employers with a large union workforce and who have a few people who do not belong to a union to think seriously about the bargaining fee arrangement. But I am not expecting employers right across the country to agree to a bargaining fee arrangement. I do not want to insult employers by saying that they will be rolled over a barrel if they do not agree. I cannot accept that for one moment. If that does occur I will have a good career after I leave this place because there is still a little bit of steel in my backbone. 
I am not expecting any major catastrophes as a result of the bargaining fee arrangement. I believe that the moderate unionists who have spoken to me have a case. I know that they have spoken to some of my colleagues. They do the work they pay the money to set up an arrangement to do the negotiations and then they see it passed on to all and sundry. It is human nature to have some concern about that. I believe that this arrangement will help them considerably. It will help both the employers and the workforce. As I said the bargaining fee arrangement is not compulsory for the employer or for the workforce either. They will vote by secret ballot if they want to proceed and anybody who still does not want to proceed will have the opportunity and the ability to opt out. It will not be the end of the world. Ideally unions should not have the monopoly on collective contracts. New Zealanders are not inferior to Australians— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Labour doesn’t believe in that and the member knows it. 
PETER BROWN 
: I know it does not. I am saying that this is the best option we can get because Labour does not believe in what is the very best option. But New Zealanders are not inferior to Australians. My understanding is that collective contracts are working very very well in Australia where a group of working people can get together and appoint their own bargaining agent and have a collective contract. We are kidding ourselves if we think that is not occurring here. The members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee will remember several submitters telling us about independent collectives or covert collectives or some such term. In other words there are many workforces in this country where workers are all paid effectively on a collective contract although it is written into the agreement that they are on individual contracts. New Zealand First says that it is about time we were honest with our own system. We know that the Government is not prepared to officially recognise collectives outside the union movement so this bargaining fee arrangement has some merit. I believe it will be a short-term solution. I believe that in a few years’ time we will come to our collective senses and say that collective arrangements could be negotiated by whoever wants to employ a bargaining agent. I fail to understand the rationale for blocking that. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: You’ll have to have a National Government for that. 
PETER BROWN 
: I correct the honourable member. There need only be New Zealand First teamed either with National or with Labour to put a little more sense into the whole thing. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: They’re dead. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not want to debate coalition arrangements with National—not right now. We will talk to them maybe after the next election. 
In conclusion I say to United Future that this is the debate where that party can really talk about the Brethren clause. I felt that the United Future member was a little bit confused during the debate on the Holidays Amendment Bill but this is the bill where it is appropriate to talk about that clause. I draw the United Future member’s attention to the fact that New Zealand First supported him 100 percent with that clause. I only wish United Future had supported New Zealand First and my colleagues in National on the other bill as we would have got a lot more sense into the Holidays Act.