Belich Camilla; Kuriger BarbaraCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I don't think I've ever been more disappointed in this House than I am right at this moment. It's almost Christmas and the one Act that would transform our industrial relations system in New Zealand to allow workers to have good pay and conditions fair pay and conditions fair health and safety conditions at work; to allow us to have a competitive economy but not based on people's terms and conditions—Hon Scott Simpson: There weren't any—not a single one.CAMILLA BELICH: Well I think it's a good point that there isn't a single one and wouldn't it have been better to accept some of the amendments that we had put forward on maintaining some of these fair pay agreements?As we've said a number of times these are the most vulnerable workers in New Zealand. We have fair pay agreements—the one for bus drivers is actually quite far progressed and as much as the Minister says it's her intention that everything stops I'm sorry Minister but that is up to the law. If there is an existing right as mentioned in the departmental report under the Legislation Act that allows some people to continue then that is what will remain. It is not a dictatorship where Ministers get to decide what goes and what doesn't. It will be decided under the legislative framework that we have.The people that would have benefited from fair pay agreements as I was saying are the most vulnerable in our country: our bus drivers our hospitality workers our security guards our commercial cleaners—some of the people that clean this very building that we're in—early childhood education teachers and our supermarket workers. Some of these—not all of them—were essential workers during the pandemic we just experienced. They do not have as I'm sure most people in this House would accept terms and conditions that are favourable or fair. Something has to be done.What those of us on this side of the House did is look to the evidence around the world. What do the countries that do have fair pay and conditions for these types of workforces have in common? And the answer is quite simple. They have industry awards very similar to the system that would have been initiated under the fair pay agreements. These are countries we like to compare ourselves to like Australia like Italy like France like Germany—sophisticated economies that have fair pay and conditions for working people.Interestingly even since that work was initiated in New Zealand more and more evidence is coming to light about how a flexible labour market which has so long been something that those various commentators on the economy have called for is actually not the way to have a highly productive fair workforce. I want to note some of the evidence I haven't been able to touch on in the debate so far. It's actually work done by the OECD and institutions like the Economic Policy Institute. I just want to read an important quote which I think signals the way that most economists see the way to a productive economy occurring in 2023. So I want to just quote from the Economic Policy Institute. One of the most recent versions of the OECD Jobs Strategy reports came to a different conclusion on the flexibility of the labour market. It said countries with policies and institutions that promote job quality job quantity and greater inclusiveness perform better than countries where the focus of policy is predominantly on enhancing (or preserving) market flexibility."So fair pay agreements work and they don't just work for the workers who are covered by them; they actually work for the entire economy. That is one of the most disappointing things about what is occurring today: the fact that not only do we lose the ability for these vulnerable workers to participate in fair pay agreements but we did not have a select committee process where we could have gone through some of the evidence that is emerging around how beneficial industry awards and these type of arrangements are. It is incredibly disappointing.I just want to note for the record that we started debating this bill only this afternoon and we are still in the House here at 11.35 at night. Hon Simeon Brown: It's so good.CAMILLA BELICH: It's not good. It's disappointing and it's not in my view a correct use of the urgency procedure or fair—Hon Member: From your experience.CAMILLA BELICH: Well some of us have been here a little longer than others. It's frankly unconscionable that these fair pay agreements are being taken away from these workers just before Christmas.I want to address some of the comments that the Minister has made or many comments that have been made in this House that this is a blunt tool. It is the exact opposite of a blunt tool. The way fair pay agreements are negotiated allows employers and employees to get together—Carl Bates: Even if they don't want to.CAMILLA BELICH: —and design a nuanced arrangement—Carl Bates: Even if they don't want to.CAMILLA BELICH: —that applies to their specific industries. Carl Bates: Even if they don't want to.CAMILLA BELICH: I've heard the member Carl Bates interject repeatedly that people will have to join fair pay agreements even if they don't want to. I ask the member to reflect on his time in the past being an employee if in fact that has been his experience. When you are presented with an employment contract are you given an option of not accepting that employment contract? Most of the time you are not. You are told in most industries when you get an employment agreement that this is the agreement. Take it or leave it. You know negotiate around a few tiny things. The same thing can happen with fair pay agreements as long as those negotiations are in addition are better than the fair pay agreement minimum. It is a flaw—Hon Scott Simpson: This is union gobbledygook. CAMILLA BELICH: —as I've said before and not a—I think it's expressed very clearly that it's a minimum standards agreement and I'm sorry if the member doesn't understand it but we have been covering it for a period of time.I also want to talk about something that I mentioned in the first reading of this fair pay agreements bill and that is the incredible amount of work that so many people have put into getting us here—well to the getting the Act in place and unfortunately now to being here. I also before I do that want to reflect on the legislative process and how sometimes these things do happen and they are incredibly disappointing for people. It's personally very disappointing for me and it's also disappointing for our party to have these repealed. It makes me reflect on an area that I used to work in a lot before I became an MP and that was in the area of equal pay. There was an Act to allow equal pay to occur and it was passed I think in the 1990s and repealed very shortly thereafter by the National Government. The Labour Party was incredibly disappointed by that but as you would have seen we have brought back equal pay. There is now a mechanism accepted by both sides of the House and I acknowledge the work done by those in the National Party in relation to equal pay. It's an idea whose time has come and it's accepted on both sides of the House that people should be paid equal pay for work of equal value. I know that the time will come when fair pay agreements also are in force again under the next Labour Government. And I know that at that time it's very likely that those who are protesting and interjecting and opposing this will see that the type of labour market that we want to have in New Zealand one of high wages one of fair conditions one of industry awards that allow our productivity to increase—and that's actually one of the major findings of the OECD: that it increases productivity. I think we all need to have policies in place in New Zealand that increase our productivity. So that's one of the main things that I'm really disappointed about—that we won't get the opportunity to see what I'm sure would have been proven: that industry awards do lead to greater productivity and will address one of the key problems that we've had in New Zealand over a very very long period of time.I also want to thank the public sector for all of the work that they did in putting this bill into place. Many of the people that worked on this bill are now working to repeal it but it just shows you their professionalism and their integrity—that they can work with any Government no matter what side of the House to do the work that needs to be done.In conclusion I just want to look back to our Labour values. Looking at high wages and fair conditions was something that Michael Joseph Savage talked about. He said that "reduced wages will not help trade or bring about prosperity. When workers have money and sufficient qualities trade industry and production are buoyant. But the moment wages are reduced the very reverse is the case." I do not commend this bill to the House and I suggest that the House rejects this backwards bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to."