Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. The National Party opposes this piece of legislation and we give clear firm notice that at the first possible opportunity a new National-led Government will repeal this legislation and return the New Zealand workplace environment to one where jobs can grow and where there's flexibility to grow an economy to ensure that businesses and employees can thrive and work together in a happy environment. This is an ideological piece of legislation. The key to it is in the introduction to the bill where it says that the objective is to strengthen union influence in the workplace and to strengthen union membership and that's exactly what this bill does. It comes as no surprise that one of the first pieces of legislation that this Government introduced in January of this year very quickly after they gained access to the Beehive thanks to the decision of Winston Peters and his party was to introduce this piece of legislation and it is payback. It is payback to the trade union movement for their historical political and financial connections to the parliamentary Labour Party. This is a bill—Marja Lubeck: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member referred to financial connections from the trade unions. I don't believe that that is in order. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I think it's not even really marginal. I think it's a debating point so I'll let the member continue. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. What actually happens is that the trade unions declare openly their financial connections. They are affiliated financial members and they are involved also in the election of leaders of the Labour Party. So these are connections that are deep long historical and financial and it comes as no surprise. But what's happened today is Minister Iain Lees-Galloway has introduced a number of amendments and so this piece of legislation which is an exercise in ideological mediocrity is now watered down to a degree thanks to what Winston Peters and his party have referred to as a work in progress". Now what we've really found out is that it's a humiliating backdown but not for the Parliament of New Zealand. It's a humiliating backdown for the coalition Government because when Winston Peters said that it was a work in progress everybody thought that what would happen was that his party would bring to influence some kind of a white knight protection for New Zealand businesses small and large against the worst aspects of this bill and that hasn't occurred. What we've got in fact is a situation where no one apart from trade unions is better off from this bill and no one apart from trade unions is better off as a result of the amendments that the Minister has introduced today. It's not the Labour Party that's better off it's not the New Zealand First Party that's better off it's definitely not New Zealand businesses that are better off it's not New Zealand employees or workers that are better off and it's absolutely not the New Zealand economy that is better off. It's only trade unions that benefit from this bill. The most important thing for New Zealand workers is that they have a job. We're fortunate at the moment thanks to very careful prudent economic management over the last nine years to have one of the lowest unemployment rates that we've had in our history and also one of the highest levels of workplace engagement in terms of the number of people employed but this is a bill that will significantly increase costs to businesses and put at risk a wide range of New Zealand's small businesses and enterprises. That ultimately puts jobs at risk and it puts the economy at risk. This bill is part of a suite of legislative changes that the Government wants to introduce and it's just really the beginning of paying their political debt back to the trade union movement. What we have found today is that the changes that New Zealand First have agreed to amount to something akin to a professional boxer who's maybe had one or two too many bouts because when they say "It's a work in progress." what we have found is actually there was very little work and almost no progress. They made big promises about listening to New Zealand business. They made big promises and big commitments about trying to be the supporters of small enterprises and businesses around New Zealand. What's in fact happened is that as a result of pressure that's been put on them by the National Party and our spokesperson and people around the country—our various party people—who have rallied in opposition to this piece of legislation they have felt that they needed to make a few minor tweaks. But what's happened is really just hollow promises. They promised in Opposition that if they came into Government they'd keep the Government honest. Well actually it turns out not to be so because the winners are actually just the trade unions. The worst aspects of this bill are of course still there. Multi-employer collective agreements are still there. The 30-day rule is still there which enables union recruitment to occur in a way that most New Zealanders really don't want to have happen—83 percent of New Zealanders are not members of trade unions. They have voted with their feet over the years and that's because there actually is no value proposition that the unions can currently bring to bear. Why would someone want to join a union? One of the aspects in this bill that still remains is of course the ability to deduct pay for a partial strike—that is still not in the bill. That ability has been removed and of course what have we seen in the last 12 months? We've seen more strikes and industrial action than we have in several decades and there's only one reason for that. That's because the trade unions feel empowered they feel emboldened they are deciding it's their turn and they're using their muscle to disrupt and make New Zealand workplaces aggressive and adversarial. In fact it was only last night that I heard the Minister at another function referring to how adversarial and aggressive workplaces did nothing for anybody. I agree with him on that matter but of course that is what this legislation does. It creates an adversarial aggressive them-versus-us environment in the industrial landscape of New Zealand. The essentially any time union access is still very scary for the vast majority of New Zealand business operators and managers. Yes Supplementary Order Paper 153 that the Minister has introduced provides for a small tweak but still nothing that really puts an infringement upon the access of unions to those workplaces so that they can come and recruit because that's really what it's all about. The simple way of thinking about this bill is really to say "Well follow the money honey." because that's really what it's all about. This is a bill that is designed to increase union membership to increase union influence in the workplace and effectively to grow the market share of the trade union movement—and haven't we seen a lot of that lately? So where's the value proposition? Well simply there is not a value proposition. The bill still creates a greater liability in terms of workplace discrimination if the employee is a member of the union. Now that's not the case if the employee is not a member of the union. So that's where they're trying to create a legislative value proposition for joining a union. This is a Government that still dislikes contractors. They still want to create opportunities to create collective bargaining for independent contractors. Rest and meal breaks are going to be statutorily defined. Now nobody is suggesting that people shouldn't have rest and meal breaks during their work hours—that's exactly not what has been the case in the legislation. But by having a statutory definition—which by the way runs to about three pages in the bill—removes flexibility from the workplace it increases costs and it decreases productivity and nothing in this legislation goes to increasing productivity. The 90-day trials for businesses with fewer than 20 employees are still there and one has to ask well where's the philosophical principle behind that? What makes a business that employs 19 people different from a business that employs 21 people? They've still got in this piece of legislation reinstatement as the primary remedy for unfair dismissal and that's simply a situation that just defies logic. What we will see over the period of time that this piece of legislation is in force—and it won't be very long because as I said at the outset we intend to repeal it at the first possible opportunity—is that businesses will pay more; productivity will be reduced; ultimately job numbers will be reduced; and businesses will adapt and adopt to ensure that they remain competitive profitable and effective in their market sectors. That is a simple reality of business and this is a bill that will encourage businesses to do a whole range of things to ensure that they are protected from militant trade unions in the way that they did when in the 1970s they used to bring this country to its economic knees. So we don't want to return to the 1970s. We oppose this bill."