Adams Paul: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Adams Paul: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16138] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future which will not be supporting this bill. I read in the commentary on the bill that this legislation will enable the Act “to better meet its key objectives of promoting fair productive and effective employment relationships between employees employers and unions.” I think that wage increases are always achieved through bargaining and consultation processes between the employer and the employee and in some cases the union. That is just a fact of life. It is either the union with the employer or non-union staff with the employer. 
The employer is the one who ultimately has to pay any wage increase and who is always concerned about the state of his or her staff and their welfare. Most business people would say that their staff are their greatest asset. My greatest concern about this measure is for genuine employers—and this may be more relevant in the case of smaller-sized business than larger businesses where a lot of it is less personal—in a small to medium sized businesses who have two or three union members and seven non-union members. They go to the negotiating table with both categories of employees and agree to a fair package because they want their workers to be rewarded equally. It then becomes ludicrous when they cannot offer them all the same package. If they offer to their non-union employees in individual agreements the same package they negotiated around the table with a union representative they will be penalised under this measure. What will the employers do? Will they have to pay the non-union staff just a little bit more so that the package is not the same? What will the unions do then? They will jump up and down. 
I have no problems with unions. I believe that many of them probably do a very good job but just as a business has to stand on its own two feet to survive so also should a union have to stand on its own two feet to survive. It should not need any Government assistance to do so. The figures that have been put out are interesting. If only 17 percent of employees choose to belong to a union then a very good question to ask is: why is that the case? It would be great if we could return to business conditions in New Zealand where we have a genuine negotiated arrangement between employers and employees. Over the years that has greatly improved not deteriorated. Therefore I agree with my colleagues that this legislation is taking us backwards at a time when business is having to face the challenges of working in a global economy and with the competitiveness that that brings. Things can change in a matter of months or weeks or in the car industry they can change in a matter of days. It is immoral for an employer not to have the right to be able to negotiate with his or her employees on things that are relevant—even perhaps to the survival of that business. No business wants to have a noose around its neck to the extent that it cannot operate and therefore loses staff. 
I agree with the many speakers who have already said that many aspects to this legislation will be very negative for workers. If only 17 percent are choosing to belong to a union why do we not take notice of the fact that the great majority of them are happy and very comfortable in negotiating directly with their employer? What choice do employers have when they want to bring uniformity into their workplaces between union and non-union members? I would say that they have very little. I agree that the bill started out as a way for the Government to pay back its union mates. That stands out very clearly. The bill makes it very difficult for employees to avoid joining a union.