Bradford Sue: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16073] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I feel honour-bound to speak to the amendment put up by the Hon Peter Dunne tonight which seeks to provide that union access to workplaces may be denied on religious grounds not only when an employer is an individual but also when an employer is for example a family company or a charitable trust running a school where all the people involved are members of that religious order. 
In 2000 when the Employment Relations Bill was before the House the Green Party supported changing the original bill to allow for this kind of religious exemption where an employer is a practising member of a religious society or order whose beliefs genuinely preclude them from membership of any other organisation at all in our society. This exemption of course as other members have mentioned tonight particularly applies to the Exclusive Brethren who I was aware of in our local communities in Rodney and in Northland and who I felt legitimately met this test. The Green Party backed this change at the time firstly on the basis of respecting genuinely held religious beliefs and secondly on the basis that as a huge number of workers were no longer in unions as a result of the Employment Contracts Act it seemed strange that unions would see a need to focus their efforts on Brethren work-sites in particular whereas something like 80 percent or more of the New Zealand workforce were not in a union. 
What appears to have happened is that when the Employment Relations Act was passed it was interpreted in such a way that Brethren employers with fewer than 20 staff were granted the religious exemption. However some time later it seems that the Department of Labour became more precise in its interpretation and withdrew the exemptions in situations where the employer was more than one individual even though they were still all Brethren. Mr Dunne’s amendment aims at reclaiming the ground that the Brethren feel they have lost since 2000. 
The Green Party has considered this matter seriously and we have had to weigh up the balance between our desire to recognise sincere and long-held religious beliefs and beside that our underpinning support for the rights of workers to join a union and collectively bargain to improve wages and conditions. We have decided that in this case we will not be able to support the proposed amendment. Firstly we have taken note of the Brethren claim that they now have a large number of companies—some 800—around New Zealand that make they say a large contribution to GDP—and we say good on them. However they appear to employ a rather larger number of workers than the Green Party had first realised and many of those workers and teachers are not in fact Brethren so we feel we should not do anything more to close off access to work-sites. 
Secondly the well-known case of the employer in Auckland who sent out a memo banning his staff from using languages other than English in the workplace and this was in a very multicultural workplace has I am afraid not helped the Brethren cause. Although my colleagues and I are aware and do acknowledge that the Human Rights Commission stepped in and that a good resolution was reached to the satisfaction of the employer the staff and the commission the incident has left a taint of prejudice and the sense of an employer massively overstepping the mark and it is hard to dispel that feeling. 
Thirdly while we have no problem supporting the rights of individuals to follow their conscience in choosing whether to join a trade union or any other organisation for that matter we say it is another story to in any way widen or strengthen the exemption given that our fundamental kaupapa is to support the right of workers to organise. 
I turn to some of the amendments the Green Party would like to see inserted in the bill. We are very pleased to see that in clause 30 the Government is finally upholding the intentions of clause 66 of the original Employment Relations Bill. I listened with interest to what the previous speaker the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith said. He claimed that a deal had been done with me or with the Green Party in 2000. I am very curious as to what that deal was. There was no deal; we kept fighting the Labour Government on clause 66 of the original bill right to the last moment as anyone in the House at the time will remember. 
Another of our amendments seeks to insert the words “caregiving services” in paragraph (c) of schedule 1A in respect of residential care facilities so that those workers can benefit from the new protections being offered to some groups of particularly vulnerable workers. The Green Party supports the call of the Service Workers and Food Union that caregivers in rest homes should be included too. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 We should start by calling a spade a spade. The Employment Relations Law Reform Bill is simply a State— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: A dog. 
JOHN KEY 
: It is a dog but it is a State-sanctioned union recruitment drive up and down the country. I draw members’ attention to an editorial in the  
New Zealand Herald: 
 “Labour Minister Margaret Wilson says she is as much concerned with the 80 percent of workers not covered by collective contracts as those who are.” She is worried all right. She is worried that they are not part of a union and she wants them in there so that she can have their union dues she can have them pumping up the Labour Party and pumping out advertisements around the country. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 got it right when it stated: “The more you look at the wording of the Employment Law Reform Bill the more worrying it gets. Seemingly innocent clauses from one section when combined equally with mild-looking clauses in another suddenly acquire the potential to produce extremely disturbing consequences.” It goes on and on. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: You have to read them together. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is right. One has to read them together and they go on and on. For days the  
New Zealand Herald 
 looked at this legislation and it could not find a decent thing to say about it. The paper that supported Dick Hubbard could not find a decent thing to say about the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill. It stated further: “Few employers would agree with the Government’s claim that the bill’s provisions support innovation productivity and work-skill development. The reasons for this is not apparent when one discerns the major themes that characterise the proposed changes—increased intervention by the State and labour relations a more prescriptive approach to employment law moves towards more centralised labour systems including the possibility of third-party determination of employment terms and conditions increased union powers and influence and a desire to collectivise the workforce.” 
This bill represents a move back in time for New Zealand. It is not a move that will give higher growth levels to the people of New Zealand. When the Minister took a call he said that he was sick of the tired old rhetoric. He was sick of the National Party coming out with comments and employers telling him it would be bad news because that is what they told him in the year 2000 and it did not work out that way; and that actually everything had worked out all right. That raises quite a few interesting points. The first point is why it did not have the impact. The reason was that the original Employment Relations Bill introduced in 2000 was gutted. All the things we see in the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill were taken out of the original bill and parked for another day because it was brought into the House in the “winter of discontent” back in 2000 and the Government was terrified that it was about to go down the toilet so it ripped that stuff out and parked it for another day. Since then Ross Wilson has been chomping at the bit to get those provisions back into the Parliament. This is just— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The empire striking back. 
JOHN KEY 
: Step by step incrementally this bill will take New Zealand back to a less-flexible labour market. Quite interestingly the OECD actually saw this stuff coming. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear Lianne Dalziel chirping away there like some sort of canary that is stuck in its cage. The OECD saw it coming in its New Zealand country report. It stated: “Labour market flexibility should be preserved. Recent years have seen a clear trend towards greater rigidities and higher labour costs. Further such changes are in the pipeline.” The OECD could see it coming. 
The Minister told the Committee of the whole House not to worry about it because everything has been great we have been going at 3.5 percent and not to worry about the changes to the flexibility in the labour market. Well I have news for Paul Swain. Maybe he does not understand economics. I can understand that because Michael Cullen does not know that one plus two equals three. He does not understand that and if he does not understand basic arithmetic it is no wonder the Labour caucus is having some problems with growth in the New Zealand economy. I shall tell Mr Swain why the New Zealand economy has been growing. It has been growing because the exchange rate was highly competitive for a period in 2000 and 2001. It has nothing to do with this Government. It cannot control it and in fact Michael Cullen wants to control it because he has introduced aspects to now influence the exchange rate but he is too scared to wheel them out because he knows that will not work. Secondly the New Zealand economy grew because of very strong commodity prices.