Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): National believes in workers. National believes in everyday working New Zealanders and that is why we oppose this bill. Now the members opposite may be living in an alternative reality where what everyday New Zealanders care about is the definition of MECA". They may live in an alternative reality where they think workers have no rights and unions have no rights where we're living in a time of industrial servitude but actually we are living in a time of unprecedented high employment. We are living in a time where National has set the framework for employment relations in this country and the results have been the creation of up to 10000 jobs a month wages rising faster than inflation year after year and record high rates of labour force participation. These things don't just happen. They happen when you focus on managing the economy in a way that supports businesses to hire people to treat them well and to provide them with more opportunities. Instead what we have in this bill is an alternative approach that says "Let's ignore reality. Let's ignore modern reality."—let's ignore the fact that actually 83 percent of working New Zealanders are not in a union. That is not the choice they made—83 percent of people working in a job today say "Actually I like having an individual employment agreement with my employer. I like the flexibility that provides me to negotiate what works for me and what works for them in a modern workplace." This bill ignores the reality of flexible workplaces and this bill supposes that employers should not be trusted—that employers are trying to erode worker rights. Now let us be clear: there are some bad employers out there and that is why we have a robust legal framework in New Zealand that allows them to be taken to task when they don't treat people well. But what this bill does is put at risk a relatively settled employment relations framework that has existed in previous years and it's already started to erode while the Labour Government has been in power. What we are told is that the reason businesses lack confidence in this Government has nothing to do with this bill; it's actually the power of Scott Simpson. Scott Simpson's roadshow has managed to erode all business confidence in New Zealand. If that is the case as Marja Lubeck likes to claim then I would like to congratulate Scott Simpson for taking on the resources and power of Government the dozens of Government departments and the thousands of dollars being spent on promoting this bill and winning. But let's be honest. This is not about Scott Simpson; this is about businesses not liking a Government that wants to load on the bureaucracy load on the red tape and take away the flexibility. That is not what businesses in New Zealand want. So let us have a look at what it is in this bill that's worrying people and that's giving them cause for concern. Well of course one of the key features is taking away 90-day trials. Oh that's right: 90-day trials are just fine when it comes to businesses with fewer than 20 employees. So here we have this terrible contradiction that members opposite have had to dance on the head of throughout their speeches that actually 90-day trials are great when you've got fewer than 20 employees because we want to encourage people to take a risk on workers and we want them to take on people they might otherwise fear will put their business at risk—we want them to do that when they've got fewer than 20 employees—but the minute they've got 21 employees no way. Members opposite seem to have no understanding of the practical implications of that arbitrary distinction. I have visited early childcare services who say to me "We will keep our headcount under 20 from now on because we always want to be able to protect the children we serve and the families we serve from employees we believe are not up to scratch and we believe the 90-day trial provides us with a way of doing that." They say to me that they will actually stop hiring people in order to be able to use this provision. That is the practical implication of taking away 90-day trials for many employers. What else does this bill do? Well one of the things it does that I think New Zealanders should be made much more aware of and will become very aware of in the coming months is that it subjugates privacy rights to union recruitment needs. It does that by requiring every employer in this country who comes to an individual employment contract agreement with an individual employee—it says "You may have done that but here's the form you need to require your employee to fill out." stating which union they may or may not join in the future and giving their contact details. Now some employees might not want to fill out that form. They might forget to fill out that form. They might not quite get around to it. So what happens in that case? Well then we have the privacy punishment—don't fill in the union form and then the unions will be told you haven't filled in the form and will be given your contact details and who knows what happens next? We will find out over the next few months and mark my words people do not like it when their private information and their private choice not to join a union are shared against their knowledge. We will see that play out. What else does this bill do? There is a series of steps in here that erode flexibility in the workplace. Let's—Hon Willie Jackson: We don't like flexibility. NICOLA WILLIS: Oh Willie Jackson calls out. He says "We don't like flexibility." so what he doesn't like is the fact that in New Zealand we have seasonal industries. We have industries where in fact actually at some times of year they're busier than others because you're picking fruit at one time of year or another. What he doesn't like is the fact that some businesses are busy at some times of day and not busy at others. What he doesn't like is that thousands of people have been hired in this country because workplaces have been able to be flexible in the jobs that they offer. That's what Willie Jackson doesn't like. Well Willie Jackson I'll tell you what you don't like: you don't like 2018. This is the modern reality of workplaces and employment not just in New Zealand but around the world and taking us back to a rigid time is simply a back-to-the-future step—you're looking a little bit tired on it Minister. So where else do we erode flexibility? We have this idea that rest and meal breaks will now need to be imposed and of course we had one of the speakers earlier saying "Oh no they can negotiate out of that." Well of course I'll tell you what real employers fear. They fear a situation in which unions—growing because of these wonderful provisions they've been provided with—are able to muscle in to workplaces and impose collective agreements that erode flexibility. That is what employers are worried about. And you can tell me that employers' worries are unjustified—you can tell me that—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! NICOLA WILLIS: —but all you should do is look—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The use of—NICOLA WILLIS: —members opposite—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The use of the personal pronoun "you" brings the Speaker into the debate. Please don't do that.NICOLA WILLIS: Members opposite can say that employers' concerns are misplaced but what members opposite need to look at is the business confidence rates in this country. Employers lack confidence in this Government and what they are doing for the economy and they lack that confidence for good reason and members opposite should look at those statistics on a daily basis and hang their heads in shame. Then we have this issue of collective bargaining. We have the issues of reasonable paid time for unions. Again employers—more than 200 of them; the actual number was more than 250. I don't have the precise number here—249 submitters raised concerns about what this bill would mean. What they said was that they were concerned about how would it be interpreted what the words would mean would they end up in court and they simply didn't see the need for change. What they felt was that it was implying that one size could fit all when they knew that that was not the case in their workplace. I sat on the Education and Workforce Committee and listened to the people who came and talked to us about their concerns and their fears about their bill and I want the people listening tonight to know that in this country we have some incredible employers. We have people who go the extra mile for their staff who make the choice to do the extra bit for people to give them a chance to get the next opportunity to get ahead. We have people who put their own livelihoods on the line so they can hire people give them pay rises and give them a few more hours work. I say to those employers the National Party backs you. The National Party trusts you and we think that this Government should too but this bill unfortunately does not. This bill says the Labour Government doesn't believe in New Zealand's employers and doesn't trust them to do what's right by workers. This bill is not about modern New Zealand. It is not about the workers of 2018. It doesn't bring us forward; it brings us backwards. It diminishes trust between employers and employees for no benefit. It puts at risk the settled employment relations and businesses up and down this country. This is a step backwards—another step backwards—by this Labour Government and National is proud to oppose it."