Genter Julie Anne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGenter Julie Anne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:187. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):Tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Minister and Government members have consistently made claims this evening that this legislation is not eroding the rights of workers or the important role that collective bargaining plays in our economy. Yet if we look at the specific clauses in Part 1 of this bill it is very very clear that that is exactly what this legislation does. Clauses 7 to 10 turn the original intent of good faith collective bargaining completely on its head. It removes the requirement for collective bargaining to be concluded as an example of good faith and it extends the amount of time during which bargaining cannot be done. Clause 9 is the duty to conclude bargaining. This clause allows parties to apply to the authority if things get difficult. It means that workers will not be able to strike for a period of at least 60 days before bargaining can be initiated again and it places workers in a very weak bargaining position.Clause 11 gives employers the ability to opt out of multi-employer collectives which my colleague Jan Logie very eloquently explained is going to result in all sorts of difficulties for workplaces where there simply is not the ability for employees and management to find collective solutions to some of the problems that they are facing. Clauses 15 to 18 remove the right of new employees who have not yet joined a union to be offered the collective agreement if there is one already in place on site. Clauses 28 to 42—we have heard a bit about clause 30—amend Part 6A of the original Act which gives workers in some occupations where contracting companies regularly turn over a measure of job security by ensuring that they can be employed by the new contractor. What this does is it means that in companies with fewer than 19 employees those employees simply will not have the same guarantees that other employees have in larger companies.The sum total of Part 1 of this bill is to erode collective bargaining and to erode the rights of workers. I would like to ask those in this Chamber particularly members on the opposite of the Chamber and those watching at home to think to themselves when they have been the most effective motivated and productive. It is common sense that people work most effectively when they are not stressed when they are not overworked when they are paid a decent wage and do not have to stress about making ends meet. The Government claims that these changes are about making our economy more productive but in fact they are simply benefiting a small number of people. They are not benefiting the economy as a whole.I know there are a lot of great employers out there who realise that people work more productively when they are well looked after but the reality of human nature is that not everyone will. In the absence of collective bargaining and good employment law it is a race to the bottom. It actually disadvantages good employers to not have law that sets a minimum standard. This is what history has shown us. Before the collective action of workers who fought for the protection of wages and working conditions people worked in horrific conditions. That was to the benefit of a small number of industrialists who had mainly inherited their businesses and wealth but it was not to the benefit of the overall economy. It was organised workers who fought for better wages and conditions not the invisible hand that delivered that.I just have to quote Adam Smith here that great father of neoclassical economics. He observed this. He wrote that the interests of manufacturers and merchants “…in any particular branch of trade or manufactures is always in some respects different from and even opposite to [the interest] of the public.” I think this is the common theme of this National Government. In its policy and legislation that we see implemented it is acting in the interests of some employers and of some trades and industries and claiming that this will be better for the economy as a whole when in fact it is the opposite. It is the very opposite. We know if we look at the evidence from overseas that the countries that are richer and more productive than New Zealand actually have more collective bargaining and more unionised workforces not less. They have better employment conditions they have more time off and they have guarantees for workers. We cannot liberalise our economy any more. We already have—