O'Connor Simon: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:177. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):Look there are a couple of things I need to engage with firstly from that member Stuart Nash. He was saying that it is not about us and them; it is not about the employer versus the employee. Well in fact when we have listened relatively carefully to the speeches from the other side of the Chamber that is exactly what it has been: employer: evil and bad; employee: good. That is actually the antithesis the opposite of what this very bill has been about. In fact those of us on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee will know about the various nuances.The other quick element I need to touch on is natural justice. It is tossed out and thrown around as an idea all the time without an understanding. Using it in the context of clause 4 it is about natural justice not only for the employer the employee concerned but others who may have been a part of that process of handing over the information. The thing about natural justice—Stuart Nash: But it’s fundamentally about the employee who will be made redundant.SIMON O’CONNOR: Absolutely and the member rightly points out that it is fundamentally asking a question about an employee to an employer but the other fundamental element of natural justice is that it can touch on other people and if they are being implicated as part of that discussion you cannot compromise their natural justice. So I would encourage the member—and I know he will have an opinion on this—to go back to read clause 4 and see the nuances within.This is a good bill. There has been a series of questions particularly as we are looking into Part 1 of why this is one of the first Government bills. I have to say I think one of the reasons is the Minister Hon Michael Woodhouse and I say that because he is relatively new in the role but walking to the Chamber here tonight he was completely and utterly up to speed on this. This is not a reflection on my other ministerial colleagues but he knew the intricacies of this bill and that is most welcome. The other reason is and we heard it in in the Speech from the Throne that actually employment is a central theme for this Government—Phil Twyford: What are you implying about Simon Bridges? Very uncalled for. He’s not in the House to defend himself.SIMON O’CONNOR: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just wanted to note that the member is drawing attention to the fact that people may be absent from the Chamber.The CHAIRPERSON (Chester Borrows): Carry on.SIMON O’CONNOR: I am just limbering up on the rules. [Interruption] That is right. It is egregious absolutely. I am shocked and horrified! It is an affront to natural justice! Anyway the second reason is that actually employment is at the heart of what we are talking about. This is a bill that is trying to set that balance.We have heard lots of accusations from the Opposition. Those of us who sat on this committee and worked through this bill are happy with where it came to because there are a lot of nuances involved. You can tell that the other side has not read that because they have taken this as the Chicken Little approach. It is bad it is evil the sky is falling down it is egregious and it is the end of the world as you know it which is clearly not the case.Let us use a few illustrations. The whole thing of the element around the 30 days of the individual contract—at the moment if you want to start a new job you can only take the collective agreement. We are saying: “Actually if you as an employee want to engage with your employer in an individual contract why can you not have the choice?”. The whole point is that the other side do not like individuals having the choice. Only Labour and the Greens know best! I have to say that when I have taken up my employment agreements in the past I would like the choice but Labour and the Greens and the others—they know that if you get someone on that collective agreement right from the start in those 30 days then they are going to be one of their mates. They are going to keep paying their money to the leadership of the Labour Party—ultimately through the unions—day after day week after week and it is not on. Why would you not have that choice?Concluding bargaining—why should bargaining go on and on and on ad infinitum just for the sake of it? This bill redresses that. It says: to act “in good faith”. That is one of the core principles that we have had within our employment agreements. Actually you cannot as an employer just walk away from it because you do not like bargaining. That is explicit—explicit—in Part 1 of this bill. What are the problems there? The bill introduces flexible working arrangements for people. Again if you an employee want to make the choice to have flexible arrangements you can ask for it. You do not need to kowtow and ask the permission of the Opposition.We are hearing too a lot about meal breaks. We heard I thought quite adequately from the Minister of those times when actually taking a prescribed meal break is not prudent. As someone who has worked in the health sector—when you think of the doctors the nurses and the administrators—there are times when walking out halfway through an operation is not prudent. Well actually I think of it even when I worked in a petrol station. Me walking away just because I had to have my prescribed meal break at the busiest time of the day is not prudent. You know what? It is the faith that Kiwis can make their decisions. So again this is a very positive bill.