Jones Shane: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Jones Shane: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5099] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call—far be it for me to say I was goaded to do so by my colleagues on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—to pose the question that underlies the Employment Relations Amendment Bill: what are the qualities that comprise a fair and decent society? And why do we not hear anything about them from our colleagues on the Opposition side of the Chamber? Let us think about what some of them might be. 
One of those qualities is equity. How are we to give expression to or recognise equity? One of the quickest ways to do so and one of the most enduring qualities of equity is the manner in which it is to be found in human relationships. I think it is very disappointing and backward looking for the Opposition to constantly force human relationships and human interaction in the context of the labour force through a very narrow miserly opening. No our approach is to build on what was picked up by that very important judicial institution the Employment Court which found a loophole and identified a failing. The Government in its usual vigilant and thoughtful way will not let that loophole continue because the loophole diminishes the status of vulnerable employees and also undermines their capacity to maintain a fair and reasonable level of earnings. 
We can have lots of debates as to whether this legislation will make us more like Australia than we have been. I think that scratched record has long since lost its appeal in terms of the broader public sentiment. No the public are not interested in that. They all know that every time a member from the Opposition side of the Chamber talks about how good Australia is he or she is actually diminishing the status of those New Zealanders who are prepared to buckle down and make this country a great place—possibly the greatest place in the world—in which to live. 
What else underlies this particular approach? Well we need to have premier legislation. In order to advance premier legislation one needs power. To attract and sustain power so that one enjoys the benefits of the Treasury benches one needs appeal. And in order to ensure that one’s appeal penetrates all areas of the electorate one needs to have vision which is precisely what underlies this thoughtful piece of legislation. We envision a time when both the owners of businesses—the providers of capital—and the providers of labour meet and seek an accommodation. Why should vulnerable displaced and possibly even marginalised workers in large institutions be tossed aside like chaff in the wind of change that is driven by very short-sighted business decisions? No people need to have their respect and esteem needs to be accorded to them. That is what we say about vision. 
How do we actually create a nation where all people can feel that their particular talents contribute to a deep abiding and very embracing concept of identity? Well we have to respect their rights not only as consumers and not only as the fortunate few who have a handsome array of property rights but also as the providers of labour. That is what this brilliant piece of legislation seeks to do. 
Laundry workers up and down the electorate offices of this country know who is looking after them. In addition to that in terms of age-related residential care not only is this bill a contribution to that whole sector—we have already contributed to it by means of our very thoughtful and handsome policies that address the concerns of the aged—but we are now ensuring that there is a platform of security and safety underneath those whom we charge with looking after some of the most vulnerable people in society. What about the caretakers in education? The caretakers in education are obviously schoolteachers and principals but they are also the people who do the work that goes unseen and often unheralded. Why on earth should they live in the context of a set of contract negotiations in a state of fear that their entire lives will be turned upside down and that their families will be in a state of upheaval? Anyone who supports that is actually focused on a very destructive way forward.