Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15836] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Today a book is being launched. It is about that infamous trade unionist Fintan Patrick Walsh. On this very day this Government this Labour-Green coalition— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Eh? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes that is exactly what the case is. The Labour-Green coalition is launching New Zealand back into that era of the “Black Prince” of unionism because these are the facts. There are 2.1 million people in the workforce and 1.7 million have chosen not to belong to unions. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How many? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The number is 1.7 million or 80 percent of the workforce. Twenty years ago—up until 1991—it was compulsory to belong to a union but when people had a choice they voted and they voted to opt out. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Prior to the dinner break I was making the point that 80 percent of New Zealanders when given the choice have chosen not to be members of a union. They have decided they could better spend the kind of money that goes on union fees—several hundred dollars per year—on themselves and their families. More particularly they will not be bound by the cloth-cap ideology that infects so many members on the other side of the House. 
This bill is clear. I have to say about the Government that it is honest in its intentions. It wants to force people back into unions. That is the only possible explanation for this bill because the evidence before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was compelling. Not one employer wanted this bill. Did we hear demands from workers up and down this country for this bill? The answer is no. They have already voted with their feet; 80 percent have said no to unions. The only people who want this legislation are the unions and the Government has caved in to them. 
Why did the Government do that? It is because they are one and the same. The members of this Government are essentially unionists. That is their background tradition and history. If a union asks the Government to help it out its response is: “How can we do that? How high do we have to jump?” The Government wants to force New Zealanders back into unions. It wants to deny free choice. 
The Government is ignoring all the evidence. The OECD in its economic survey of New Zealand made the very clear point that this legislation would reduce productivity harm the progress of our nation and set back this country. Yet that is precisely what the Government is doing today. It is setting back this country by reducing choice and restricting freedom. 
Let us look at the bill. Under this bill “good faith”—or rather the breaches thereof—will be subject to a fine of $10000. We will soon be the only country to have penal provisions for breaches of what are essentially negotiation positions. Let us be honest: negotiation is a robust process. People set out their positions to the maximum yet the Government’s approach is to say that if they do that they will be fined $10000. It is the absolute antithesis of good faith to be providing fines. 
It will now be virtually impossible for employers to offer to employees an individual contract that is the same as a collective contract. I know the Government says that that is not true but the Government has put in a whole series of pernicious measures that have precisely that effect. Every time that happens the unions will argue that it undermines collective contracts and therefore is a breach of good faith. Even if an employer does not intend to do that it will be sufficient for the union to show that it has the effect of undermining the collective contract. 
What does that lead to? It leads to a fine and that is wrong. If the unions have their way we will see a record of the way in which firms conduct their negotiations. If the unions are successful in showing on a number of occasions a breach of good faith under proposed new section 50J the Employment Relations Authority—which has been absolutely stacked by this Government with unionists—will then set the terms and conditions of an employment contract. So what will we have? We will have unionists dressed up as authority members fixing the terms of contracts—and we can just bet they will favour the unions. That is why this legislation is pernicious. 
Further employers will be forced to stay at the table to negotiate everything on the table. That is another means for multi-employer collective contracts. The employer cannot object in principle which is what proposed new section 33 states. Employers cannot object in principle to a collective contract so they will be forced to sit at the table and negotiate. The Government says that employers will not have to attend the first meeting but in reality they will because if they do not they will be in breach of good faith. The Government has constructed a catch-22 scenario whereby employers will be forced into multi-employer collective contracts. 
We have seen the first shots of this campaign. The Auckland watersiders went on strike. They want a collective across the entire country. They had picketers from Tauranga and Australia. That is a return to the bad old days the days of Fintan Patrick Walsh with a single union contract across all the ports. 
The unions will pick their targets. They will pick the transport industry the ports and the freezing works because they know that is where our economy is vulnerable. Our economy is uniquely vulnerable in that regard. We are more dependent than any other economy on the export of primary products produced from a few large facilities. If we block that export we will block our economy; if we give those powers to the unions we will reduce growth in our country. We have seen it before. That is precisely what happened in the 1950s 1960s and 1970s. This country paid heavily for that with low growth and low productivity and I might add that the Chair knows the truth of that. We have had growth only when we have provided freedom. That is what has happened. The growth has occurred in the last 15 years when there has been freedom so this bill is a return to the bad old days. 
Dr Brash referred to a particular point that the Government has snuck in even in this legislation—a Treaty of Waitangi clause. Parties to public health contracts are required to recognise the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. That is what clause 7 of the code proposed in schedule 1AA states. Does that mean that the Employment Relations Authority—and the all-knowing unionists on that outfit—will now interpret the treaty for the benefit of workplaces up and down the country? Is that the kind of nonsense this Government would deliver to employment relationships in our country? I say frankly that that is ludicrous. The Government must surely realise the absurdity of that. 
I close on this point: National is fundamentally opposed to this legislation. We are of the view that it is totally wrong and we will repeal it when in Government. We will strip out from the Employment Relations Act all the provisions that relate to union preferences because we believe in freedom—freedom for New Zealand workers to make their choices and their arrangements.