Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18181] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in relation to Part 1 of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill was fairly straightforward. It provided firstly for roughly the codification of the rules relating to meal and rest breaks which most thought were already enshrined in law. Secondly it provided for employers to provide breastfeeding breaks and facilities where it is reasonable and practicable. So we have to ask the Minister why at the eleventh hour we have an amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 229 relating to KiwiSaver. 
What has KiwiSaver to do with infant feeding meal breaks and rest breaks? This is a disgrace. It is a total abuse of process. There has been no notice of this amendment there has been no scrutiny of this amendment and there has been no consultation on this amendment. The Minister is fully aware that proposed changes to KiwiSaver have raised concerns amongst many businesses such as Business New Zealand the Employers and Manufacturers Association and many many others. Yet the Minister arrogantly—and I can only say “arrogantly”—persists in pushing through an amendment that at the very least should be subject to consultation and select committee scrutiny. 
This is a disgrace. It is a sad sad day for democracy in New Zealand. But we have had this situation before have we not? We had it with the Electoral Finance Bill we have had it with the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill and now we are having it with believe it or not the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill so that this Minister can sneakily include an amendment relating to KiwiSaver. This is reckless lawmaking at its worst. This is irresponsible lawmaking at its worst. This is stripping away any safeguards whatsoever from the legislative process and it is an utter disgrace. 
The Minister may care to take notice of the concerns expressed by Professor Waldron of the New York University school of law. He was particularly scathing about our lawmaking process. He was particularly outraged by the evolution of procedures for fast-tracking legislation which he described as disgraceful by world standards. An article in the  
New Zealand Lawyer 
 states that at the moment New Zealand’s current legislative process is reckless. In a deserted Chamber bills are rushed through under urgency and members are subservient to the executive. There are constant closure motions and there is no quorum no second Chamber and no checks and balances. The professor asks how we can really take seriously the suggestion that a duty of care is properly being exercised with regard to legislation. That is what the professor said. He said that the effectiveness of the select committee process is undermined by the constant use of Supplementary Order Papers that bring provisions into a bill after the select committee deliberations and that is exactly what we have with the amendments to this bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the member might have just picked the point of order I am going to raise. She is now 3 minutes into her speech and she is yet to address the substance of Part 1 as opposed to the general processes around it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Speaking to the point of order I tell the member that I am talking about the purpose of the bill which has been changed at the last minute by a sneaky little Supplementary Order Paper and that is very relevant to the debate on this part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for that but it did not add to the point of order at all. I ask you to continue on Part 1. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Well what is the relevance the purpose of the bill? It should have been to require facilities and breaks to be provided as far as reasonable and practicable in the circumstances for employees who wish to breastfeed in the workplace or during work periods. The purpose should have been to require employees to be provided with rest breaks and meal breaks. The bill should not have been amended with the purpose of making it a ground for a personal grievance for an employee’s employment to be adversely affected because he or she is a member of a KiwiSaver scheme or a complying superannuation fund. 
That amendment is a disgrace. It is an abuse of the process. It is as Professor Waldron said reckless. He said that the party in power abuses the process to get its measures rushed through quickly and without political embarrassment and that what is required is people who will stand up for the integrity of the process. This amendment is a typical example of that abuse of process. 
This bill— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Now for the bill. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I tell Mr Fairbrother that I have been talking about the bill and about the abuse of process that is so often displayed by this arrogant Labour Government. 
This Government has no concern whatsoever for consultation no concern whatsoever for select committee scrutiny and no concern that perhaps some people out there trying to make a living might like to present a submission on the amendment to this bill. This Government has no concern whatsoever for ordinary New Zealanders who are trying to make a dollar working—just a sneaky little amendment as a Supplementary Order Paper at the last minute that tries to link KiwiSaver to meal breaks. Perhaps the Minister can tell us the relevance of KiwiSaver to meal breaks.