Fenton Darien: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5028] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am really pleased to be able to speak on this bill which has come back to the House. I am pleased also that it will soon provide the protection that many vulnerable workers have waited a long time for. In the debate tonight we have seen the difference between those who come from relatively privileged backgrounds and those who do not. Some people have no idea what life has been like for those workers who are covered by this bill. 
We received a number of very good submissions on the bill. Gordon Copeland was not there he did not hear the cleaners but I listened to them as did members on this side of the House and our colleagues who are supporting the bill. If anyone has any doubt about why the bill needs to become law they should listen to the cleaners. If members wander along the road some time they might see some cleaners in purple jackets saying they are looking for a Clean Start and this bill is part of that. It is about making sure that the invisible army out there cleaning our factories our hospitals our schools our airports and our universities 24 hours a day 7 days a week are able to have a decent job and decent work. We all know our lives are made easier and better by these workers and we know that the expectation of them is high standards and professional cleaning delivery yet their lives and jobs are marginal. It interests me when cleaners get the blame as they did from the previous speaker for example. 
I want to describe to members one cleaner who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. She talked about her work as a cleaner at the university. The area for which she is responsible has 30 rubbish bins seven toilets two showers six handbasins one urinal three carpeted flights of stairs a concert hall a library 12 offices two studios a workshop and six practice rooms. All of that has to be cleaned in 4 hours. 
Three-quarters of cleaners in this country work on a part-time or casual basis. Fifty percent earn less than $10000 per annum and 75 percent earn less than $20000 per annum. This is a shamefully low-paid industry—and free wage bargaining and all of the things the previous speaker spoke about have not delivered better pay and better standards—but the productivity is huge. Cleaners in this country are expected to clean between 850 and 1000 square metres per hour which is much higher than the internationally accepted benchmarks and impossible to achieve without compromises to quality. In North America for example the standard rate is 300 to 400 square metres per hour. 
So New Zealand cleaners are more productive than most in the world but what is their reward? It is loss of jobs often at short notice and a competitive tendering process that can be repeated up to four times a year when contractors seek to win contracts by reducing employment pay and conditions. Even when those cleaners are employed by the incoming contractor they often face “take it or leave it” situations of jobs with less pay and more often than not reduced hours of work. Those whose employment is terminated have no claim to redundancy compensation and often no other job to go to. 
Gordon Copeland talked about the standard of cleaning in hospitals. It is interesting to reflect on that because I probably agree with what he said about it but I do not think it is the fault of the cleaners. During the 1990s and the health reforms in 1993 3000 jobs in cleaning and catering were taken out of hospitals in Auckland alone. Those workers are expected to do huge amounts of work in a lot fewer hours. But the funny thing is that cleaners have enormous pride in the work they do. They are frustrated that they are unable to provide the level of service they would like to because they are constantly urged to work harder and faster. Each time the vicious competitive tendering process takes place they face a new employer who seeks to win the business by cutting wages cutting hours and intensifying the work. 
This bill is not only about improving the job security of cleaners; it is about improving quality and standards across a low-paid industry so that services are tendered for on the basis of service delivery and value for money rather than the race to the bottom that we have seen over many years in the cutthroat world of competitive tendering. Everyone wants to see quality services. Why should not cleaners and other workers covered by this bill not have quality jobs? Why should the jobs of cleaners food service workers caretakers and laundry workers be just throwaway jobs? 
With more secure and steady jobs good workers are more likely to be attracted to those jobs and will remain committed to them. This brings increased stability to a very unstable industry—to tenants clients and business. It brings higher standards less turnover trained workers improved occupational health and safety and a minimisation of the risks to property owners. What is so wrong with that? Let me see. National believes that this bill is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of businesses to manage their operations. What about the unreasonable pressures on the property services industry of vicious underbidding and the never-ending race to provide the cheapest price? When standards drop to substandard the reputation of the industry suffers and it is suffering in our country. That hurts everyone—property owners investors tenants contractors workers and patients. That will end with this bill. The bill will make a huge difference to tens of thousands of low-paid workers many of whom are women Maori Pacific and new migrants. 
I repeat what I said on the first reading of the bill. It is not about preventing contracting out or undermining competitive tendering. It is simply about ensuring that workers have the right to transfer to a new employer while at the same time the new employer has the right to make business decisions in relation to the workforce when the transfer is completed. We on this side of the House made a promise that we would address this inequity in the labour market and provide protection for some of our most vulnerable workers. Unlike some parties Labour is delivering on its promise. We keep our promises. I look forward to this bill becoming law.