Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12056] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 There is a fundamental reason why National is opposed to the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill and it is contained right there in the title clause. The reason is that the title clause refers to “this Act”. Acts are things that are mandatory where State power is used to force people into arrangements they do not want. 
The members on the other side of course laugh about that—they laugh about it. They just love State power; that is why they are in the Labour Party. They want oppressive State power whenever they can get it. Their recourse of course on every little issue is in collaboration with the Green Party to introduce legislation. If something has to be done to give people the ability to talk to each other—that is what this bill is about—they do it with legislation. Well how about trust? What is wrong with trust? What is wrong with allowing employers and employees to voluntarily speak to each other? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Come back to the title. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: If we did not have an Act that had mandatory State power all we would need is the ability for people to talk to each other on a freely negotiated basis. There would be no State coercion and State power and there would be absolutely no need for this kind of legislation. 
Our objection to this legislation is fundamentally because it imposes obligations by law and with sanctions. That does violence to the integrity of the employment contract which is a freely negotiated arrangement between employer and employee. You know in the modern marketplace there is actually a balance of power between the parties. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the title. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: But this Government and this Green Party think the solution—as is clearly set out in clause 1—is to have an Act. Acts are about forcing people to do things they would otherwise not do. That is the fundamental feature of any legislation. Acts force people to do things they would otherwise not do and they are required to do them only because they will face sanctions—fines penalties and other strictures. All of that means that Labour and the Green Party have to have an Act. And that really shows the fundamental difference between that side of the Chamber and this side of the Chamber does it not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Could I just remind the member that we are talking about a title of an Act. Please come back to the title. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well the title of the Act is— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is all we are talking about. There is plenty of opportunity— 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —about arrangements that are forced on people by legislation. That is actually what the title is about. It is about forcing arrangements on people through mandatory legislation. I have to be as clear as possible on this. The title clause stated: “This Act is the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Act” which sounded like a voluntary concept. But “Hours” has been changed to “Arrangements” and this is the kicker. It is State power and State coercion doing violence to freely negotiated arrangements between employer and employee in the modern employment environment. There actually is some level of equality of bargaining power in the modern contemporary workforce. 
You know we are not in sweatshops any more. We do not wear sackcloth any more. We are in the 21st century. We do not need this legislation. We do not need an Act. We do not need legislation that forces people into agreements they would otherwise not make. National is very clear on this. We tell people to voluntarily negotiate agreements. In truth that works virtually all of the time. We do not need an Act we do not need compulsion we do not need mandatory sanctions and we do not need these forced arrangements where employers have no choice but to agree to propositions put up by parties because if they do not agree there will be sanctions. Employers do not have the option to simply say no walk away and say it does not suit them. That is not a possibility because they are then forced into negotiation mediation and ultimately right through to the Employment Court. I see the promoter of the bill shaking her head against that but that is what is forced in this agreement.