Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity this afternoon to speak on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I don't sit on the select committee that considered this bill but I do feel compelled to take a call. Dan Bidois: You should.ANDREW FALLOON: Thank you Mr Bidois. I do feel compelled this afternoon to take a call because of some of the contributions that have been made by members opposite and particularly some of the extraordinary comments I thought made by Marja Lubeck the first one of which was that unions are the voice of working people"—unions are the voice of working people. Well that might be true Ms Lubeck for 17 percent of workers who are signed up with the unions and who do consider that the unions are best placed to argue for them and to represent them but it's not the case for the other 83 percent of workers. In fact it's far higher when you do go into the private sector as well. The second comment that she made was "Union delegates make life better for everyone."—for everyone. Well I ask Ms Lubeck: does that include the businesses that are effectively shut down when a union goes on strike. Does that mean the commuters who need to find alternative means of transport when the buses go on strike? And does that mean the exporters who are put at severe risk of losing contracts when port workers and others go on strike? So I tell the committee that the one thing actually that is going to suit their interests rather than unions is job growth. Actually if you look at the last few years that's exactly what we've had. New Zealand at the moment has I think the third highest employment rate in the world. In the last two years before this Government came in 10000 new jobs each and every month—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! We are straying a little bit from the substance of this. Thank you.ANDREW FALLOON: Thank you Madam Chair; I was just coming to multi-employer collective agreements (MECAs) now which are part of Part 1 of the bill. The problem with MECAs is as the Minister has accepted that they will allow for the same conditions across the entire country—the same paying conditions to be spread across the country. The problem with that is that it will potentially provide for the same paying conditions for a transport company in Temuka as for a transport company in Takapuna and the same for a cafe in Mayfield as for a cafe in Mission Bay. And the issue with that of course is that those cafes and those transport companies don't have anywhere like the same revenues anywhere like the same cost structures and in the case of the cafes anywhere like the same foot traffic. And so to be requiring them to pay the same regardless of where they're situated regardless of what their revenue is is going to be a huge problem for employers in smaller and regional areas.The next part I wanted to come to is new section 18A in clause 4 and this relates to union delegates being entitled to reasonable paid time to represent employees. Now the problem with this particular passage of the bill is it never defines what "reasonable" is. It talks about a number of things that union delegates can undertake work that they can undertake but it never limits that; it never puts a limit on the work that they can undertake. All they have to do is notify the employer—notify the employer; not ask the employer not request from the employer but notify the employer—what the work is and when they're going to undertake it. The hilarious part of this—I really enjoyed this Minister so well done on that; it gave me a little laugh. The final part of this which is new section 18A(5) in clause 4 of the bill which is brand new talks about "This section does not prevent an employer from providing an employee with enhanced or additional entitlements to spend paid time undertaking union activities on a basis agreed with the employee." So not only does it require employers to pay a union delegate whatever they want—it requires that—it also enables them to pay them even more if they want to. How generous! How very generous of you Minister to include that particular element into the bill!I just wanted to touch on in my last few remaining moments the Minister's comments about the opt-out provision when new employees sign on with an employer. Now the problem I have with that is that what he is saying is that if a new employee signs up they'll have to tick a box if they don't want their personal and private information passed on to a union. If they don't do that as my colleague Nicola Willis has pointed out that information will be passed on to a union even if the employee doesn't want it passed on. Why doesn't the Minister—I asked the Minister; he didn't address this before—make it an opt-in provision where the employee who's signing up can opt to have their information passed to a union rather than effectively forcing employers to pass on an employee's private information?"