Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): The last speaker Andrew Little missed out a word in his last sentence. It is about balance: it's about shifting the balance very much in favour of the unions. And the confusion in that speaker's speech was very apparent in the opening salvo when he talked about union members exercising their right of freedom of association and in the very next breath considering them somehow trapped by their employers. It's a contradiction because the freedom of association to join a union also includes the freedom of association particularly in an economy like ours to choose to leave an employer. But here's what they've been leaving: they've been exercising their rights of freedom of association for years and leaving unions.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member. Could the members at the back of the Chamber please take the conversation out into the lobby. Thank you. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. They have been exercising their right of association or non-association and I know where we're going with this bill and with the next bill that the Minister will be introducing possibly before Christmas but certainly not too long after it which will include the Government's commitments on fair pay agreements and that is back to the stalking horse of compulsory unionism.Now in 1989 I returned from the United Kingdom to spend about five months in Dunedin before returning and I was a temp worker at one of the State-owned enterprises that Richard Prebble was selling. It was Telecom South and I was being employed through an employment agency. I wasn't even an employee of Telecom. The phone rang the day before I started and the employment agent said Now Mike I've some news for you. You've got to join a union." I said "But I'm not an employee of Telecom." And she said "It doesn't matter. If you want to work in the chief post office in Dunedin you have to be a member of a union. It doesn't matter which just join one." Hon Willie Jackson: That's fair enough.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh and Willie Jackson says "That's fair enough." So now we know where we're going with this because for the five months that I was at Telecom I was a member of the Public Service Association and that was the last time. And Mr Jackson is absolutely right: that is where we're heading. If there's any doubt it comes from the New Zealand Labour Party's policy platform that they passed at their national conference in Christchurch in 2013. It was signed off by David Parker as deputy leader of the party and as chair of the policy council. Now remember in the Labour Party when the party speaks the caucus has to comply. It says here "The Platform is binding on the Party including the Caucus. … the manifesto must be consistent with [these] provisions"—and these are the provisions based on the founding principle of democratic socialism. It says that equality of opportunity is not enough for the Labour Party; equality of outcomes is. In respect of employment relations it says "Labour is fundamentally committed to collective rights and responsibilities"—not to freedom of choice; not to freedom of association. The fundamental principle is collective responsibility whether one likes it or not and in their workplace relations they were going to promote legislation that promotes collective bargaining protects minimum standards and guarantees unions a voice.Does that sound familiar—because it's in the preamble to this bill. It's in the very purpose of this bill. The purpose of the bill is not freedom of association freedom of choice; it's collective bargaining at all costs. This is step one. We're going a lot further. I don't even hear a retort. This is chapter and verse. And why do we know this? It's because in 2013 the Labour Party was so weak that they were propped up entirely by the union movement. And this is payback. So when I as Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety talked about—Hon Willie Jackson: We don't hate the unions like you.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —every policy change—well the member suggests I hate the unions. That's not true because I'm fundamentally lazy as an employer and I had a very good working relationship with the nurses' union of which the Minister used to be an employee because it helped me out. It helped me negotiate several hundred agreements in one but if any one of them wanted to go into an individual agreement they were free to do so. Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Still are. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: And indeed the 30-day—well the Minister says they still are and yet in the same breath as "freedom of association" the Minister of Justice talks about the 30-day rule being changed. At the moment the employer has an obligation to say "Here is the collective agreement. Here are the contact details for the union delegate. Here's how to get in touch with them." But now that's not possible. It's not possible for an employee on day one to say "Thanks very much. I don't want to be part of that." For the first 30 days of their employment they have no choice but to be part of the terms and conditions. There's Mr Jackson nodding. I haven't got it wrong. And how is that related to the principle of freedom of association? This is the stalking horse this bit: the rights of union access the responsibility the requirement to conclude collective bargaining is all part of the precondition of a fair pay agreement which is coming to a workplace near you. Hon Willie Jackson: We don't hate the unions.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Now a sector that contains—the member keeps saying it. What I hate Mr Jackson is people being told what to do when to do it. They have the freedom to associate to bargain and if they choose to join a union good on them I say. But they should not be compelled to and that's where we are heading. I want the Minister just to explain because when he talks about the partial strikes which are part of this bill he always refers to things like working to rule and wearing red T-shirts. I want the Minister to nod or shake his head whether he believes that the current industrial action being undertaken by the midwives where in each shift two hours is taken as a strike action would meet the definition of a partial strike because it strikes me—pardon the pun—that it would. The Minister isn't even going to respond so I'll take that as a yes. So forget the T-shirts. Forget the work to rule. We have widespread industrial action in the health sector at the moment and the midwives are taking two hours off several times between 22 November and tomorrow. When this bill is passed who pays for that strike? The consequence of strike action is that it should be a sacrifice for a greater good. There's now the goal of a greater good but no sacrifice. My prediction is that the more than a million days of work lost in 1986 which was the peak of our industrial action in my working life will come back very quickly but it will come back in a surreptitious way. There won't be full strikes. There will be a massive hit on this economy's productivity by a series of partial strikes that the midwives are embarking on right now—and fair enough to them; good on them. But they did that knowing that it would come at a personal cost. In the future it will come at no cost to anybody but the employers. And remember we're talking about flexibility freedom of association freedom of choice. Well the employers will have no choice but to take that and pay for it and that will be the future of industrial action in this country. The sad thing is that so much of this is unnecessary. If we take the flexible rest and meal breaks provisions there were many employers around the country who were breaking the law prior to the change. I've described the hospital I ran the night shift nurses the staff that for their own choice and for school arrangements or parenting responsibilities wanted to forgo a rest or meal break. They're now no longer able to do that. The Dunedin Airport air traffic controller—sole charge—Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Read the bill.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —now not able to be done in law any more once this bill is passed. The Minister says "Read the bill." It's a kind of "Oh trust us. Everything will be fine." And yet the very oxymoron there is the terrible lack of trust in this and it's a lack of trust in an employer group to do the right thing. I know that the overwhelming majority of employers in this country do the responsible thing. There are a few bad eggs and that's why we worked very hard to increase the sanctions on non-compliance with employment and immigration law. I stand very proudly beside the fact that every single member of this House voted in favour of legislation to get rid of zero-hour contracts and good riddance to them. But this is a step far too far. It has no fairness for employers—or employees for that matter who want that freedom of association—far less flexibility and we'll see whether it's a safety issue as well. But I stress: this is the first the first of a series of initiatives that is going to take us far far back to a place we shouldn't be going in a modern and flexible economy."