Lees-Galloway Iain: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:167. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):Thank you very much Mr Deputy Chair and given that this is the first time that I have spoken whilst you are in the Chair may I congratulate you on your election to that role.I hope that members opposite enjoyed their meal break because we in this House get the right to a meal break. It is something that we kind of take for granted. We work pretty hard but we expect to get a meal break in the evenings. I suspect that most members particularly those on the other side of the Chamber have had a very enjoyable one. There were a few maiden speeches today and there might have been a few wines and beers and maybe some nice nibbles enjoyed during the meal break tonight. But that is not of course what the National Government wants for the ordinary worker in New Zealand—no sir. No it is what those members want for themselves. It is what they want for themselves but it is not what they want for the ordinary workers. So I hope they enjoyed their meal break. I hope they enjoyed their meal break because workers right across the country will be watching this session of Parliament this evening and thinking to themselves what a lovely bunch of people they are in the National Government. They want meal breaks for themselves. They want caviar for themselves and scraps for the rest of the country.Part 1 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is essentially the thrust of the whole bill. There are a number of changes made to the principal Act in this part and I expect that there will be a lot of debate about those different changes. I want to focus my first contribution this evening on clauses 7 8 and 9. These are the clauses that relate to collective bargaining and in particular to the duty to conclude collective bargaining. What clause 7 does is it repeals section 31(aa) of the principal Act which states that one of the objects of Part 5 of the Act is “to provide that the duty of good faith … requires parties bargaining for a collective agreement to conclude a collective agreement unless there is a genuine reason based on reasonable grounds not to”. What a perfectly reasonable clause to have in a piece of employment legislation—employers and unions that are at the bargaining table have a duty to do their utmost to conclude that bargaining to form a collective agreement and actually conclude that bargaining and reach some form of agreement that allows the people working in that workplace to be on a collective agreement that is shared amongst them all. What a very reasonable thing to have in your legislation and yet this Government with clause 7 plans to remove that.Then what clause 8 actually does is repeal section 32(1)(ca) which states: “even though the union and the employer have come to a standstill or reached a deadlock about a matter they must continue to bargain …”—they must continue to bargain. Yes we know. Look I have been at the bargaining table myself and I know that sometimes you reach an impasse and it can be incredibly difficult to see a way forward. What the legislation does right now is it keeps people at the table. It takes away the soft option of simply giving up and walking away from collective bargaining. That is what this legislation which this Government intends to pass this evening will do. It will give principally the employer the opportunity to give up as soon as bargaining gets difficult and walk away.Clause 9 replaces the duty of good faith. The principal Act required parties to conclude collective agreement unless there is a genuine reason not to and clause 9 amends it to say basically that they can walk away from collective bargaining at any moment. This weakens the position of every employee in the country. This says to employers that you can bargain for a while—you can do a bit of surface bargaining you can show good faith—and then as soon as you reach an impasse you can walk away from the bargaining table.David Bennett: Oh not true—not true.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It absolutely is true David Bennett. And if you think it is not true David Bennett get to your feet and tell us why it is not true. I want to hear from the former chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee why he thinks I am wrong on this point. That is what all the submitters came and told us at the select committee. That is what all the advice was when we were at the select committee. It was that these changes and this repeal of the duty to conclude bargaining weakens the position of employees and makes it easier for employers to walk away.So what is the intent of this? Well the intent is for unions and employees not to put up claims in their bargaining that they think are going to be difficult. They are going to try to make the bargaining process as simple as possible for the employer by avoiding the difficult issues but what is the point of collective bargaining if it is not to address the difficult issues in the workplace? It might be about pay. It might be about conditions. It might be about industry standards. It might be about setting up some sort of joint committee to address an ongoing issue in that industry or in that workplace. It could be a whole host of things but the incentive here with this legislation is not to introduce any of those issues into bargaining because the employer will simply say: “This is too hard. We’re walking away.” That is the effect of this legislation and it disempowers workers. It disenfranchises workers. It has got nothing to do with unions actually; it has got everything to do with the bargaining power that working people have in the workplace.It is typical of the National Government is it not? It claims that this is a small but effective change. Well it will be effective all right. It will keep wages down. It will keep unions under control. It will keep workers suppressed. It will be very effective but it is not small. It is not a small change because what it will do is keep wages down. I hear from the opposing benches that wages should move with productivity and we on this side of the Chamber could not agree more. But over the last 20 years productivity has increased—I cannot remember the number off the top of my head. I am hoping someone will tell me but it is significant. It is significant—Hon Members: Heaps.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Heaps—it has improved heaps. But we know that wages have simply not kept up and we know that if wages had kept up with productivity over the last 25 years wages would be on average about $8 or $9 an hour higher than they are right now. Why have they not kept up? Because our industrial relations law has not been strong enough as it is and yet this Government plans to weaken it with these changes in clauses 7 8 and 9. That is why there is such a big pay gap between New Zealand and Australia. Does anybody remember when that was an aim of this Government—to close the pay gap between New Zealand and Australia? One of the main reasons why Australia has better wages than we do in New Zealand is that it has got better legislation and it has got stronger unions that can collectively bargain and that collective bargaining actually raises wages for all workers whether they are in a union or they are not. So that is what these three clauses are all about. They are suppressing wages and suppressing workplace rights.Another rather insidious and odious part of this legislation is the removal of the 30-day rule where someone goes on to the collective agreement automatically in the first 30 days. The thing is that employers say they want flexibility. Well they have got flexibility right now. If they want to pay someone more than what the collective agreement allows for in the first 30 days they can. There is nothing stopping them. What they cannot do is pay someone less than what the collective agreement allows for in the first 30 days. That can be the only possible reason for removing the right to go on to the collective agreement in the first 30 days of employment. It is so that the employer can offer a contract on less favourable terms than the collective agreement. That is the only reason. I have not heard a single substantive argument that proves me wrong and if I am wrong about that then again I invite the members opposite to get to their feet and tell us why I am wrong about that.This again is about supressing wages. It is about weakening the new worker’s position in the workplace. Of course when there are scarce jobs out there they are going to take the conditions that they are given by the employer. They are not going to take the choice of the better contract; they are going to take the weaker position because they know that the employer will just go to the other dozen or so people who applied for that job and offer it to them. Of course we know that for every person who goes out and applies for a job there are at least 10 or 20 other people applying for that same job when they line up. That is why we have queues of thousands outside supermarkets. People who are stuck on benefits actually do want to work and go out there and get a decent job or even a low-paying job or a minimum wage job. People want to work and there is so much competition for those jobs because the labour market is so weak at the moment under this Government that of course people will feel under pressure to take the contract that has worse terms and conditions than what the collective allows for because they know that the employer can just go to the next person if they do not agree to that.What an awful for this Government to do. What an insidious and odious thing to do to workers. This again is not a small change. This is a significant change. Effective? Yes. Will it achieve what the National Government wants it to do? Yes of course it will. Is it small? No sir it is not. It will have a massive impact on the ability of ordinary working people to bargain for a decent contract that has decent pay and decent conditions in the workplace.