Prebble Richard: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16134] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 This is one of the more significant pieces of legislation this Government has introduced and it has been drafted in such a way that makes this part one of the largest I have seen. Just before the break the other night I raised the matter of the extraordinary actions under clause 37 where a decision of the Court of Appeal in the Wilson and Horton—that is the  
New Zealand Herald 
—and Oram case is reversed. Some members might remember the case. Mr Oram was a journalist who saw that there had been a major crime and he thought it would make a great front-page story. He saw the name went to the file pulled out a photograph of a person of that name put it on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 
and of course it was the wrong person. He was fired. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 had to immediately pay out thousands of dollars. He had not done any of the checking that a journalist should do before going ahead with the story. Under this legislation the Government is now saying that the  
New Zealand Herald 
 should not have done that. 
If the  
New Zealand Herald 
 had to pay out tens of thousands of dollars to someone who had not done even the elementary checking how on earth can the Government say it is prepared to pass a law stating that a person in that situation cannot be fired? That is the effect of this decision. I would like to hear the Minister—“Swainy and the boys”—explain why it will now be perfectly OK for a person to be so negligent but that the employer cannot fire that person. Under clause 37 it will be even harder to fire people who are so negligent. 
The Minister said that it is perfectly OK that non-union members should be forced to pay a bargaining fee. The reason he said that is because the employer the union and a vote means it is OK. What happened to freedom? He also said that if people do not want to join a union then they do not have to. He failed to mention that the unions do not pay the wages that it is the employer who does. This law makes it illegal to pass on to all of one’s workforce the same wages for the same job. That is basic Kiwi fairness. The Government is saying to employers: “You can’t pay everyone the same—that is if it undermines the collective.” Who decides that? The union can bring the case. Who can the union take the case to? It can take it to the Employment Court appointed by Margaret Wilson so it is all OK. 
This is compulsory unionism without the benefit of people at least getting union membership. Employer after employer appeared before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to say that the union never negotiates anything. Every time there has been a significant advance it is because the employer has made the offer. But if an employer does make a better offer then under this bill it will be illegal to pass it on to people who do not want to join the union unless they pay the union. I call it a blackmail fee. Why does the Government want that? We know that unions are the Labour Party’s biggest source of funds. By increasing the unions’ funds— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Working people! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Minister has got it absolutely right. He is voting for a measure to extract money from working people to support his political campaign. He no doubt honestly believes it is in the best interests of working people. What happened to democracy? What happened to freedom of choice? What happened to the many people—now in the majority I understand in his electorate—who do not intend to vote for that honourable member at the next election? Why should they be forced to pay a bargaining fee and if they do not pay it then by law they cannot be paid the same wages as the person working alongside them. If an employer did that members opposite would be outraged. This is an outrageous clause. It is a disgrace. It is worse than compulsory unionism. The unions used to do very little for their fee but now they do absolutely nothing and they still get paid.