Henare Tau: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Henare Tau: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:668;Page:15389] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 That is what you get from that side Mr Chair. I remember that the worst employer in my day was the hotel workers union. 
David Bennett 
: That’s right. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is right. I wonder who the secretary of the hotel workers union was. I refer to none other than Mark Gosche. Every time I was called out to a job to assist one of the clerical workers in trouble it was always down the road at the—sorry Mr Chair—Northern Amalgamated Workers Union as it was called in those days. Who was the worst employer? It was always the union. On a Tuesday I would get another call from some poor clerical worker who was under the cosh from the employer. Guess who the employer was? It was Ray Bianchi and his mates. They were all the old-style unionists. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Not the ones like the member? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Sorry? 
Sue Moroney 
: The worst union organiser in the history of the universe. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh big yawn! Anybody would think that with this bill the Government had gone back to 1951 and it was about to smash the unions on the waterfront. This is nothing of the sort. All this does is to tinker with legislation to make it more palatable to both sides more palatable to a person an immigrant who is looking for a job and who wants to show his wares who wants to say to the employer: “Look at me. I can do this job and if you give me a chance I’ll show you.” That is all it says. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the member is bringing you into the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Members on occasions do take the word “you” a bit literally. I did not take it that the member was referring to me; it was a rhetorical question: “give me the job and I’ll show you”. It was not referring to the Chair. The word “you” is not proscribed. It is usable but it is in its context and I did not take offence. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Thank you Mr Chair. The exact point that I am trying to make is about somebody who is looking for a job and who really wants a job in whatever profession or whatever job. It is about putting a hand up and saying: “I can do this job and I want to be able to show the employer what I can do.” 
Darien Fenton 
: Like Pansy? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Now we hear about Pansy. This has nothing to do with Pansy. The 90-day legislation has nothing to do with Pansy because she has been a Minister for 2 years for goodness’ sake. If it were about the 90-day legislation it would have happened a year and a half ago for goodness’ sake. Talk about timing! They are out of time. [ 
Interruption 
] Who told me to sit down? There is only one person who can tell me to sit down and she is at home. 
I also want to talk about union access. You see we have had 9 years of no manners and no courtesies and we are trying to say that if unions want to go into our workplace into our sovereign territory—as my colleague Mr Woodhouse described it—it would be good manners it would be a courtesy to call or write and say “I’ll be there at 11 o’clock on Tuesday. How about it?”. It is manners it is courtesy and that is what this Government is all about too. If that is exactly what happens now why is there the big hullaballoo? If it is what happens now are we not just codifying what is happening now? So why the big hullaballoo? Why the big question mark from Labour members? Or is it that they are still fighting the battles that have been fought won and lost back in the 1950s 1960s and even in the 1970s?