Tremain Chris: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5311] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Helen Clark’s achievement will be measured by a number of things in her career. Once the dust has settled on the current mêlée over the pledge card and the immigration rorts the Prime Minister’s achievement will be measured against the achievements of her Government and its stated goals. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh bring it on. Against your achievements in the 1990s! Nil! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Bring it on! I point out for the benefit of Mr Cosgrove that in 1995 Helen Clark said in an address at the New Zealand Trade Centre: “In my lifetime our living standards have slipped from the third highest in the world to 25th today. We are in danger of slipping into the next range of nations like Estonia and Latvia in the sub-OECD grouping which have never reached European living standards.” That is what the Prime Minister said in 1995 and today what are we doing? We are bringing in the 15th amendment to the Employment Relations Act. That is what we are doing. 
She went on to say in that speech: “We’ve had those living standards but we are losing them and we will continue to unless we can keep our talent at home and create the conditions for rapid growth of new industries.” I want to repeat that because the key point lies at the heart of the goals of this Government. Helen Clark said: “We’ve had those living standards but we are losing them and we will continue to unless we can keep our talent at home and create the conditions for rapid growth of new industries.” 
Six years later echoing this point Michael Cullen made a statement in the 2001 Budget Speech. Dr Cullen said: “We need to set ourselves a goal of being back in the top half of the developed world in terms of per capita GDP—a position we have not occupied since 1970.” Dr Cullen figured—quite correctly I would say—that economic growth was the key to raising the living standards for every man woman and child in this country and that includes the vulnerable workers we are talking about in this debate tonight. 
The problem is that economic growth comes from creating an economic framework a framework that encourages entrepreneurs and risktakers to start grow and continue to grow businesses. Guess what! It is those entrepreneurs those risktakers in this country who actually create jobs and keep people in employment. They actually deliver wages to vulnerable workers. Creating economic growth improving everybody’s lot is not helped by putting roadblocks in the way of successful and profitable businesses. It is definitely not helped by putting roadblocks in the way of businesses that are struggling to be successful and that are not profitable. [ 
Interruption 
] I would have thought that Mr Peter Brown who has been an owner of small businesses would understand and would understand correctly. 
So when we look at the goal of getting to the top half of the OECD what can we say? Well after 6 long years we are no closer. This country has not achieved the goals set out by Dr Cullen in that Budget speech early in 2001. If anything we are worse off. Growth is in decline. In the last year we have seen quarters with growth of 0.1 of a percent and negative 0.1 of a percent. How will that help vulnerable workers get their wages up? It will not. 
Interest rates are on the rise. We have seen five interest rate rises in the last few years. The difference between the New Zealand and Australian rates has increased by 7 percent over the last 6 years. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Let’s talk about unemployment. Oh you don’t want to do that do you? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Inflation is above the Reserve Bank target range and I say to Mr Cosgrove that I cannot see how inflation of 4 percent is going to help vulnerable workers right now. Our balance of payments deficit is the worst in decades. More and more hard-working Kiwis are choosing overseas as an alternative place to work. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Tell me about unemployment. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: This bill is not about unemployment. Unemployment right now is at an excellent level thanks to jobs created by employers. The gentleman across the floor has the cheek to think that the employment position is created by Governments. Let me tell members that the rise in employment in this country is created by small-business people who go out day after day put their money on the line take mortgages on their property invest money in their businesses and create jobs. That is what they do. Employment is not created by Governments and the member should understand that. 
After 6 long years the Government has dampened down its dreams for this nation. As for New Zealand being in the top half of the OECD that dream has gone out the window. The goal of being in the top half of the OECD is not even talked about now. The message now is “economic transformation”. The problem I have is this: what does economic transformation mean? Is it about going forward? Is it about growth? No it is not about getting to a growth position because the Government has given up on that. I am concerned that economic transformation is actually taking us backwards. 
There is a problem: if the Government does not have a goal and if the Government has stopped trying to get us into the top half of the OECD where are we going? If we aim at nothing—guess what—we will be successful every damn time. Here is a quote from last year’s Speech from the Throne: “My government’s overall objective for the next three years is to continue New Zealand’s transformation to a dynamic knowledge-based economy and society … In the last six years my government has sought to lay the foundations for this transformation.” My problem is this: the Prime Minister wishes to continue transformation of the economy but the goal of transformation to the top half of the OECD has gone out the window. Transformation to a Third World backwater is the direction we are closing in on. 
This bill the Employment Relations Amendment Bill typifies the policy framework at the crux of this Government. This new bill is the type of legislation designed to transform our economy but I suggest that its particular policy will not add one iota of growth to this economy. How will this bill make it easier for employers to employ more employees? How will it encourage entrepreneurs to merge and sell businesses? Sometimes those entrepreneurs’ businesses do not actually work and they get into a position where they have to look at alternatives like merging businesses and taking on other companies. I can tell members that legislation like this will make it extremely difficult for those businesses to go forward. In fact what could happen is that we could get situations where businesses are in trouble and they just end up closing down because things are too hard. They will not even look at merging with other businesses. I ask how this legislation will encourage risktakers and I certainly ask how it will add growth to our economy. It will do neither of those. 
This bill is designed to protect the rights of certain categories of employees in restructuring situations. But it goes far wider: Subpart 2—which originally included section 69P—relates to other employees. Speaking on the National side of the House I have some sympathy for vulnerable workers. If the bill kept its original aim and focused on where it started—on cleaners and catering staff—I would be happy with that. But I had a major problem with the way the bill encompassed the entire workforce in Subpart 2. Section 69P had stated: “The object of this subpart is to provide protection to employees to whom subpart 1 does not apply if as a result of a restructuring their work is to be performed by or on behalf of another person and to this end to require their employment agreements to contain employee protection provisions relating to negotiations between the employer and the other person about the transfer of affected employees to the other person.” 
In a nutshell the bill places severe restrictions on any business looking to buy other businesses to merge businesses or to combine operations. It creates a situation where rather than protect employees it could in fact mean that combinations do not occur businesses close and employees lose their jobs. 
That is why the National Party will not be supporting this bill. Rather we support business in this country; we support opportunities to create a policy platform to take this country forward to push us forward and to help vulnerable workers by growing the country.