Coddington Deborah: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16075] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this bill. The Minister of Labour said before that the ACT party and the National Party had stated that when the Employment Relations Act was introduced it would lead to bigger compliance costs and a downturn in employment. We did say that. The reason that did not happen as the Minister knows very well is that the National Party and the ACT party fixed that bill as it went through the House. Now we see all those draconian clauses that were taken out of the legislation being brought back in this legislation. 
This is patronising legislation. It tells people that they cannot bargain as a collective if they are not in a union. The State is telling people that they are not capable of forming a voluntary collective to bargain for wages and conditions—they have to belong to a union. 
It is also outrageous that this bill is a Trojan Horse for censorship. When we look at the legislation we see that the stating of a simple truth—for instance that a multi-employer collective agreement holds no benefit for employment—by an employer as a matter of opinion or as a matter of fact to an employee is a breach of this bill. It forces employees to conclude a collective agreement and it ensures as I said that employers can be fined for expressing an opinion. That is absolutely outrageous. We cannot let this form of censorship go through the House under the guise of employment law. 
The Minister talked about how this legislation will contribute. When this bill was brought in Margaret Wilson told a meeting that it would contribute to economic growth and that employment legislation had to follow the New Zealand labour market which was increasingly dynamic and under-regulated. Under-regulated! If this is under-regulation if this is the light hand of regulation then I would hate to see what this Government thinks is heavy regulation. Employers can be subject to fines for breaching the duty of good faith—which itself is a term that has gone so far as to be ill-defined nebulous and subjective; in fact it can mean whatever the judges decide it should mean. Also the court can impose a contract on them. So employers who might have been bargaining to pay $10 an hour might end up paying $1000 an hour or whatever amount the court decides to impose on them. It is impossible for employers to win. 
The Minister of Labour made much noise about freeloading. The issue of freeloading is an absolute nonsense. If anything it is the other way round. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard submissions from employers stating that it is the employers who frequently suggest and propose better terms and conditions and that the unions freeload off those. So it is the other way round. If we are to talk about freeloading let us get it right. Freeloading in the way this Government means it is simply a way of introducing compulsory unionism. 
I refer now to clause 30 which ensures that those people whom the Minister from time to time decides are vulnerable employees—we really do not know what that means—will be treated as chattels. They are to be treated as chattels. We are passing legislation that will treat human beings as the chattels of a business. So when a business is sold—[ 
Interruption 
] That is what it is; it is Margaret Wilson’s slavery clause. 
Jill Pettis 
: Ha ha! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The chief Labour whip thinks it is funny that people are treated as slaves. When a business is sold the person who sells the business makes a list of all the chattels. Now the employees will be chattels.