Auchinvole Chris: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2109. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 This bill the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill really does warrant intelligent debate in the House and certainly we will have intelligent speeches from this side of the House. I hope we will hear some from members on the other side of the House and one of the things that they might like to include in their speeches is an answer to why not. Where is the problem? But we will come back to that.  
One of the difficulties that bedevil any discussion on trade unionism on industrial relations is the stereotypes that exist in so many people’s minds. Some of us—and I know I am not the only one—can go back quite a long way in our memories and in our experience of industrial relations. One of the first introductions I had to it was a film called  
I’m All Right Jack 
 which was a delightful romp through the industrial relations of postwar UK. Some saw it as an attack on trade unions; they really did. It showed an attack on the shop steward brilliantly played by Peter Sellers and an attack on the obsessive aspects of unionism at the time. The reality of the film— 
Andrew Little 
: Not in Scotland now. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
:—was a point missed by so many but I am sure Andrew Little got it because gosh he got right up trade unionists’ noses. The point of the film was that it was stereotypical of all the ingredients of industrial relations not just unions—not just.  
Was it fair? Well I can recall stereotypical behaviour at times of industrial stress. I remember a radio programme interview between a wharf unionist in Timaru and a sociologist. When the sociologist was complaining of a lack of democracy in the way union decisions were reached it was disputed by the trade union official. The sociologist said: “But I was there. I was a student working here and you called for a vote and you said: “Scabs and blacklegs”—sorry correction. The unionist called for a vote saying: “Scabs and blacklegs over there. Brothers and comrades over here.” He said that was not a fair unbiased way to call for a decision. There are equal expressions and I can rate them on the other side particularly my experience in rural employment where even answering back an employer was enough— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What about in New Zealand? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: This was in New Zealand. It was enough to get you told “Down the road.” That is a dreadful situation where your position can be treated as lightly as that. It is ghastly stuff. In fact I find myself with something of a surprise agreeing with Trevor Mallard when he said that New Zealand does not have a bad track record of union strikes. I remember the Zanetti report in 1974 when he told the Ruakura conference that New Zealand had a pretty good run with unions and had a particularly good representative in the late Sir Tom Skinner who did not do a bad job.  
As an exporter we were always grateful to the unionists who gave us early warning that wharf strikes were going to come along so that we could get our containers on the boat and away. And they did that regularly. We had a good relationship with them. There have been times of industrial stress over the decades. I recall that the unlimited immigration from the UK brought a whole new flavour to unionism in New Zealand. Every union representative whom you heard speaking had an English accent it seemed. Those were the days— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And this member is talking! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: That is right. Those were the days—you will remember them Trevor— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Sorry. The Hon Trevor Mallard will remember the “Punch-a-Pom-a-Day” campaign or the days when the Hon Norm Kirk said: “Kiwis”—what did he say—“Kiwis have had a gutsful of trade unions.” Is that what he said? I think that is what Norm Kirk said when he was Prime Minister. I think the late Sir Tom Skinner then said to the newspaper and media reporters: “Go and ask the Prime Minister again and I think you’ll find he’s changed his mind.” That man had power. I think those days have sensibly gone. But I agree with the Hon Tau Henare that this bill will in fact be of assistance to thinking trade unions. It will be of assistance to them in that it will make difficult any criticism that they are not conducting themselves in a truly democratic manner and are supporting their members.  
I am very pleased to support my colleague the Hon Tau Henare. I congratulate him on this fine bill and its noble intent because the intent is very straightforward. It is consistent with this Government’s commitment to creating positive work environments for all workers and a platform for workers to speak their minds regardless of the opinions that they hold. This bill codifies best practice. It is a basic clarification but one that ensures best practice on the part of all—the kind that quality unions probably already prescribe to voluntarily and quality unions are glad to do so. But not all of them. Not all unions allow their members the freedom to have their own opinion. I note that if it was not for the—just to get the name right—Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Act 2011 which this Government very proudly supported which the Labour Party disgracefully tried to filibuster— 
Moana Mackey 
: Rubbish! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: —which the Labour Party disgracefully tried to filibuster—then members of particular unions within this country would have had only a limited ability not to have joined a union had they not wished to.  
I recall the Hon Shane Jones voiced support for the intent of the bill but followed the party line and was not allowed to vote with his heart. Workers covered under this bill will have no such problems. In the case of voluntary student unionism as in this case and in many others the National Government and its supporting parties have been the only ones ensuring the freedom to respectfully dissent is codified rather than assumed.  
As I said this bill is straightforward but important. It will alleviate concerns regarding whether a proposed strike action has the support of those who will bear the brunt of its effect. I do not think it is an unreasonable thing to do. Again I ask the question—[ 
Interruption 
] Let us ask the vociferous member Andrew Little what the problem is. I ask him once more what the problem is. He has not been able to reply. We heard from the Hon Tau Henare and from my esteemed colleague David Bennett that the bill is not an attack on unions. I do not think it is an attack on unions. It is a safety net that enhances the process that many unions already have in place.  
My colleagues have quoted a great man whose legacy shaped the world and instead I would like to switch back to the quote from the Hon Trevor Mallard during the second reading on this bill. He said: “… strikes are relatively rare in New Zealand compared with most countries and actually most employers are satisfied with the ballots that occur.” This bill ensures not just that employers and union bosses are satisfied but also that workers communities who are without vital service or a much-needed cash-flow are also there of their own volition. The workers who do not support the whims of handsomely paid union leaders and who need the protection that a secret ballot gives to ensure that they can voice their opinion free of judgment from anyone else will benefit from this bill.  
The bill will provide a protection mechanism for workers who may feel intimidated—and people would feel intimidated—through the voting process and put workers in a position where they know they can and will be heard. The bill supports a transparent democratic process and this Government supports those workers. Where again is the problem?  
I would just like to close by mentioning the I thought somewhat unfair criticism made by Darien Fenton normally a very balanced speaker I would like to suggest. She criticised my colleague the Hon Tau Henare for taking a principled stand. I thought that was out of character for her. The abuse she gave is typical of the type thrown at those whom this bill intends to protect and they are the people who dare to have hearts and minds and are not in step with the well-heeled union drum—the Labour Party drum. They are the people who speak out whether in this Chamber or in a union meeting. I support my colleague and I support this bill. Thank you.