Brown Peter: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10669] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There is much in this bill that concerns New Zealand First immensely. The explanatory note states: “To achieve this the Act acknowledges the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships and seeks to balance the interests of employers and employees through the promotion of unions and collective bargaining the obligation to act in good faith”. There will never be equal power-sharing between employees and employers as that seems to outline because basically the employer is responsible for virtually everything. He or she is responsible for the finances of the business the equipment the overall safety the employee well-being for marketing the business and for servicing the clients. It is just ridiculous to suggest that employees should have an equal balance of power in the running of a business. That is not to say that they should not have their concerns met from time to time but to suggest that they should be on an equal power-sharing basis with employers is not practical. 
The explanatory note continues: “The Bill seeks to reduce practical and behavioural barriers to collective bargaining through providing appropriate incentives for collective bargaining as well as provisions to discourage and penalise the deliberate undermining and avoidance of collective bargaining:”. Why should a union have a monopoly on collective bargaining? I asked that question of the Minister of Labour Margaret Wilson yesterday in the House and she said that it is traditional and there is no reason to change it. With due respect to the Minister that is weak. If it is good enough for the Australians to have the ability to bargain collectively without being in a union it is good enough for New Zealanders. If the Australians can do it so should New Zealanders be able to. 
The explanatory note goes on to state: “The Bill establishes a requirement that all employment agreements contain protective provisions describing what steps the employer will take in the event of any sale transfer or initial contracting out of business to protect affected employees’ interests. The details of such provisions are subject to negotiation.” I have some real concerns about that as has New Zealand First. Having said that I think Lynne Pillay made a good point about workers being sacked one night when the company is sold and re-engaged the next day for something less than they had been working for—in other words from time to time advantage has been taken of workers’ vulnerability. 
New Zealand First has long been on the record as having concerns about casual employment in this country. We have fought long and hard—ever since I have been in the House—to have that addressed. I have had experiences with a stevedoring organisation in Tauranga which overnight sacked people who had been there for years. They were told: “Don’t come Monday.” Indeed a good colleague of mine who worked his way up from planning clerk on the wharf at the Mount to operations manager of the company in the Mount and a senior role in the nationwide company was 1 week off 30 years’ service and was told: “Don’t come back.” When he got the telephone call he thought they were ringing him to tell him to come in for the reception they were putting on to celebrate his 30 years. He was told “Sorry don’t need you any more.” He had a reasonable-sized house which he had to sell. He was a grown man but when I spoke to him about that time he was just about in tears. 
There are legitimate concerns about the way some people are being employed in this country particularly at the vulnerable stage of their careers. Some people never rise higher than that. They are vulnerable their whole working lives and they have had treatment by some employers that is not good enough. 
New Zealand First is genuinely and realistically fearful of this bill but we believe there is a case for the vulnerable workers to have a better deal. We know of no other way of giving vulnerable workers the ability to air their concerns than to support this bill to the select committee stage. I cannot see if it remains as it is that we will be able to support it much further than that but we believe that low-paid vulnerable workers have a genuine concern and that they need to have a forum in which to air those views and concerns. 
Simon Power 
: Will you support it? 
PETER BROWN 
: We will support it to the select committee stage. We believe in listening to New Zealanders. That is part of the New Zealand First philosophy. I know that that does not count with the National Party. Its members all know better than Mr and Mrs Average New Zealander. 
Simon Power 
: That’s them not us. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is them over there is it? The member might be right. We have a track record of listening to the concerns of New Zealanders. 
Simon Power 
: Unless they’re immigrants. 
PETER BROWN 
: How can the member say that when I am standing here making this speech and I am New Zealand First’s No. 1 immigrant? I came here a long time ago. I have spent most of my time in this country and am very proud to be a New Zealander but I was born just north of London. Back to the bill: New Zealand First wants to see a fair deal for casual vulnerable workers. We are not talking about the high-flyers the people who can go from job to job and demand whatever they want wherever they go. We are talking about the— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: MPs. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not know whether an MP can go from job to job. Certainly I would give the Minister advice to hang on to that seat while she has it because nobody else will pick her up. We believe that it is timely that the concerns of low-paid casual workers are legitimately and fairly addressed. It is unfortunate that they have to be addressed in this bill. New Zealand First put a few amendments to the Employment Relations Bill when it came in initially but it was voted down by the Greens the Alliance which was in Parliament for a short time and Labour. They were not interested in casual workers at that time. Now they have apparently done some work and say they will address the concerns of these folk. I hope it is genuine but New Zealand First has reservations as to whether it is practical and whether it will work. 
We have major concerns with this bill about the way it will impact on business in the balancing of power between employees and employers. We think it is totally wrong and totally outside of good faith to say that people can have a collective contract only if they are members of a union. We think that is a breach of good faith in itself. We have concerns about low-paid and casual employees and we believe that sending this bill to the select committee will give MPs the chance to hear their cases first hand. At this point in time New Zealand First will support this bill to the select committee but I tell the Government not to count on us for long-term support unless the bill is amended significantly to be fairer and in the better interests of the country as a whole.