Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): The Employment Relations Amendment Bill which has just been introduced by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will take New Zealand backwards—have absolutely no doubt about that. There is nothing in this bill that will ultimately be good for New Zealand or the workers of New Zealand. About the only thing that I agree with in the speech from the Minister was where at the end he agreed that a good industrial relations framework is critical to a strong and growing economy. I agree with that but you cannot I say to the Minister simply announce that this bill will help workers and insert fairness into the workplace and make it so. You have to look at what the bill actually does and the impact that it's going to have on jobs on costs and on workers in New Zealand.That is what we're seeing time and time again from this Government. They start with a high-level motherhood and apple pie" statement about saving the world and then expect no one to question the detail the plan or what it's actually going to mean. I am going to try and do that because I think this is important. This is a bill and this is a framework and this is an industrial relations plan from this Government that is going to cost jobs in New Zealand. It is going to increase the costs of the goods and services that are supplied and produced in New Zealand. I have no doubt it's going to lead to more industrial action and more strike action the likes of which we haven't seen in this country for many years.I'm going to start with the changes to the 90-day trial period and that's certainly one of the changes that's received a lot of attention in the media. It's one of the easier-to-grasp and sort of sound bite - type issues. Look I welcome the Government backing down and now allowing businesses with 19 or fewer employees to take that. That's a good start but I want to question this—well I want to question several things but first of all if the Government now acknowledges that allowing very small businesses to take a chance on a younger or more vulnerable worker is a good thing why would you cut off that opportunity for 70 percent of the jobs in this country? And look the Government likes to quote the Motu Economic and Public Policy Research Trust report in saying that's the reason it's all—well even the Motu report which by the way we don't accept the methodology of and we absolutely dispute that it's in any way consistent with the findings of the growth of jobs in this country. But even that report acknowledges that the 90-day trial periods have lifted the employment rate in the construction sector by more than 10 percent. Now the construction sector is largely made up of businesses with well more than 19 staff.The other point on the 90-day employment rates that I just cannot make head or tail of is why you would set it up—given that this is a Government who's bringing them back; they can do it any way they like—so that it punishes businesses that choose to employ more part-timers and women who job-share because at the moment if you employed 15 people full-time you'd be exempt but if those same 15 full-time positions were job-shared or made up of a number of young mums or vulnerable workers working part-time they'll be subject to the Act. They'll be subject to not having trial periods and you know those businesses are going to say "That's too hard I'm sorry. I'll only go with the fulltime-equivalent." It's simply not fair.Meal breaks—now I have to challenge the Minister. He misled this House in my opinion by suggesting that currently workers are denied reasonable meal and rest breaks under the Act. That is simply not true and I would also challenge the Government to show this House—we've got lots more speeches to come—any quantitative information that suggests the rest and meal breaks changes are creating a problem and that people are missing out on breaks. In fact I have come across any number of workers who've said to me "Look frankly I would far rather finish my five-hour block quickly do my work in one fell swoop have an apple or a muesli bar at my desk and get home to my kids to meet the school bus. If you make me take a half-hour lunch break and a 15-minute smoko break that just means I either get paid less or I miss the school bus." How is that good for workers?To me this is about the Labour Party infantilising the workforce and the businesses of New Zealand. They don't treat them as adults who can have sensible conversations about how you set up the work day in a way that's fair. No business wants workers who are tired and rundown and not able to do their job—Hon Member: And starving.Hon AMY ADAMS: And starving—that's exactly right. But we do treat them as adults who can actually work out for themselves what makes sense and I challenge again the Government to point to examples that justify this change taking away flexibility from the entire sector simply because it doesn't meet their ideology.And I want to make one other point. We've seen a few comments from businesses saying "Well at least they've backed off the 90-day trial periods for small businesses. It's not much but we'll take it." But how many of those small businesses know that with the other hand the Government has now imposed a whole lot more cost on small businesses who are currently exempt from the business restructuring rules? So on the one hand they might've been able to keep what they've already got but on the other hand they're being taken backwards as more costs now go on small businesses that they don't currently have in restructuring. Where is New Zealand First standing up for small business there? Nowhere to be seen.Under this legislation unions can require businesses to start bargaining at any time they like no matter how long has gone and as we heard from the Minister they can force businesses to take part in multi-employer discussions. So no longer can a business say "Let's have a sensible discussion between me and my workforce and the unions if that's what the workers want about what goes on in this workplace." Actually employers with this bill are going to be cut out of bargaining for their workforce. And you wait till the second part of the changes when they're cut out completely. Already in here businesses will be forced to accept whatever deal is done by other people and I don't think that's right. And let's be really clear: this is not just about "Hey come to the table and see what the deal is." because the bill also says that once bargaining starts—and remember you have no choice about that as a business; you have to take part at any time—businesses may not leave the table until a deal is done.So that's a bit like saying "I'm going to buy your house and guess what? You have to keep negotiating with me until I'm happy with the price. You don't get to choose. I'm buying the house and you may not leave this negotiation until I've decided the price is right." How is that a negotiation? How is that fair? That is simply requiring businesses to sit at the table and lose productivity at their own cost while their business suffers until the union decides they're prepared to conclude their deal. That is not fair that is not reasonable and that is not a negotiation.Now this bill also makes businesses become union recruiters. When you hire a worker now as a business you're going to have to make sure you're explaining to your workers why they should join the union how they go about it and oh by the way you have to put them on the collective contract for 30 days whether they want it or not. Never mind what the worker wants—never mind what the worker wants. You have to put them on those terms negotiated by the union. You have to give them the forms to sign up to the union. Their details—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Please don't bring the Speaker into it.Hon AMY ADAMS: Oh I beg your pardon Mr Assistant Speaker. You are quite right. The employer has to provide the information about the union. The employer has to put the worker on the union terms. The employer has to provide the worker's details to the union. And why should they? Workers in New Zealand and businesses in New Zealand are grown up so deserve the right to decide for themselves whether they want to join the union. If the unions have a value proposition that makes sense the workers will join. Why are you forcing workers to take part? If the unions can't sell their offering to the workers themselves then they should give up and go home just like the Labour Party.Unions can now come and go from business premises whenever they like without notice without consent. Now again you should—Mr Assistant Speaker I apologise. I challenge the Government to show me where it has been a problem that unions haven't been able to get reasonable access to the workplace. We know it hasn't because it's guaranteed in the law. But reasonable access is not enough. They want to be able to come and go as they choose.I wonder how many businesses know that union members now get to have to be paid by the business for doing union work. So the unions are forcing businesses to recruit for them they are forcing businesses to pay for them they're forcing businesses to let them come and go as they like and we now also have businesses being required to pay for partial strike action. So let's be really clear about this. Under the heading of "Industrial action" a workforce that's not happy with their union negotiated terms and decide they want more can say "I'm going to only work part of the day and you have to pay me for all of it."—not you Mr Assistant Speaker; the business. The workforce is entitled to not do their full job. [Interruption] And look they're clapping. They think that's great. The Government thinks that it's great that workers shouldn't have to do their job but they should still get paid for it.Businesses won't invest under these circumstances. Jobs don't just exist. Jobs exist because businesses and New Zealanders work hard they take a chance and they invest. When you force those businesses to pay for the unions to recruit for the unions to give the reunions free reign to their premises and then the unions decide without even including the business necessarily what the terms are why would business in this country grow? They won't. This is a framework that will cost New Zealand jobs. It will harm New Zealand workers and we oppose it."