Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16133] 
Employment Relations Law Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 12 October. 
Part 1 Employment Relations Act 2000  
(continued) 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Could you tell me how much time we have left firstly before the dinner break and secondly for the member who was last speaking when the debate was interrupted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I was just about to say that. We have 3 minutes left. When the Committee was last considering the bill the Hon Richard Prebble was speaking and has 3 minutes 5 seconds remaining if he so wishes. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This is a complex bill and as I noted last night Part 1 has 117 clauses. I want to make a particular point since I notice that Mr Tamihere is in the Chamber which is a rare occasion. I point out that there is a special Supplementary Order Paper that allows Mr Tamihere to vote for a 90-day probationary period for new workers. That Minister goes up and down this country I know saying that that is what is needed in our industrial law. Perhaps later this evening he will have the opportunity to vote for precisely that because I have drafted a provision that deals with that very issue. I would expect that the Minister will be a man of his word will have the courage of his convictions and will vote for that proposition. New Zealand employers want that and that Minister knows it. He should therefore vote for it. 
I want to speak on two further issues in this debate. The first is on the sale of businesses which goes under what might be seen as the benign title of restructuring. Actually that is quite duplicitous. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not think I need to have this assurance but I would still like to have it. The Committee resumed about 3 minutes before 6 o’clock and I would have been able to give you an excellent speech. I hope it will not be held against me that I could not be here then and I will go for a call later. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I look forward to hearing that excellent speech. Before the dinner break Dr Wayne Mapp was speaking and he has 3½ minutes remaining. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Prior to the dinner break I was talking about two particular issues and the first is in relation to the value destruction provisions in this bill. Those provisions known as Part 6A inserted into Part 1 by clause 30 are said to be about restructuring but are more properly called value destruction. This Government has created a mythical concept of so-called vulnerable workers who will have extraordinary powers to receive information about the possible intents and plans of people to sell their businesses. They may well get that information—in fact will get that information—before the businesses go on the market. Those people will have the opportunity by industrial action and the like to diminish and reduce the value of those businesses. The Minister has the power by Order in Council to add anyone he wants into that category without reference back to this Parliament except by way of those statutory regulations. 
That is fundamentally wrong. To give those sorts of powers to these extreme leftists—these hard-left unionists who infest the Government—is wrong. The Minister himself is paying his dues today by supporting this bill. When I hear this slur—I guess it is—about “Swainy and the boys” I know that it is a falsehood because this bill is proof of it. In fact it is him paying his debt to his union mates. 
By creeping erosion the value is being destroyed in New Zealand businesses. People will be advised early and effectively get redundancy. That redundancy will come straight off the top of the value of the business. It will reduce the sale price and because people have early notice they will be able to manipulate it to reduce the value even more than would be the case. That is fundamentally wrong. Why would the Government go out of its way to hurt hard-working business owners who have had to put much more than a 40-hour week into their businesses to build value only to have the Government by its manipulative interventions destroy that value? 
I will seek a fourth call on another issue. It is a fundamental issue and it is the politically correct madness of putting the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi right through all legislation. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Here we go again: knock the Maoris. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Mr Samuels thinks it is a good idea that in employment law we have the principles of the treaty inserted into that legislation. There is a new schedule to that effect. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. When this part opened up I raised a point of order about the length of the debate and at the time the Chair did make some comments on it. This debate started at 8.48 last night. It went for 1 hour 5 minutes. It started at 3 minutes to 6 this evening and obviously it has been going for 13 minutes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: What is the member trying to point out? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The point is that so far the debate has been going for a total of 1 hour 18 minutes. Government members are already seeking the call to close this debate. The bill has 117 clauses and it is only reasonable that it should be thoroughly and properly debated. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member. The Chair is not unaware of what was discussed yesterday. We will see how it goes. Everyone will be treated fairly. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the fact that yesterday debate on all parts of the Holidays Amendment Bill was closed down early by the Chairperson. Indeed when I raised the issue after he had closed down Part 1 that New Zealand First had not had its proportionate amount of calls he told me—and I am certain that he meant well—that we only have to have calls in proportion in the 2-hour debate. I have since looked up the clause in Standing Order 102. I draw your attention to the fact that we have had one call in this debate thus far and we will be seeking plenty. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member’s concerns are noted. I was in the Chair last night and I have to say that members from your party did not seek the call but that is not relevant. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I strongly support the ruling you have made. However I invite you to think about something that might help the debate. If you were to indicate to the House that you will be taking more calls that would be helpful. One reason it would be helpful is that I would like to hear from the Government. Instead of Government members wasting their calls on closure motions if they know from the Chair that the Chair will not accept them then we might have Government members responding to some points. That would lift the standard of debate and I know that is something the Chair is always in favour of. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank all members. I am more than looking forward to the debate. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to make a contribution on Part 1. Although many of the remarks that have been made on the bill to date have had an edge of flippancy to them this is very serious legislation. It is very serious and very draconian for several reasons that I will turn to shortly. But I shall say this in advance of those comments: the only people in New Zealand society who will benefit from this legislation are the lawyers. They will be the only people in New Zealand who will gain any real financial gain from this legislation. 
When one reads through the confused clauses that make up Part 1 and the sloppy drafting the Minister has allowed to get to this point it is almost embarrassingly transparent to see how this legislation has been designed essentially to do only one thing—that is to continue a steady stream of funding to the New Zealand Labour Party via what can only be described as legislation intent on driving this country back to an industrial relations paradigm that is stricter and offers less freedom and choice than many of its predecessors including the Industrial Relations Act of 1987. When a Government is so miserable as to deny a group of people an exemption certificate for compulsory unionism when specifically asked to do so then that is not reflecting the wishes of workers in New Zealand; it is reflecting an inbred prejudice against those workers in New Zealand who choose of their own free will not to belong to a union. In fact we are talking presently about 83 percent of working people in New Zealand. After the introduction of the Employment Relations Act in 2001 only 17 percent of New Zealand workers have chosen to belong to unions. 
Call me old-fashioned but the question has to be asked—why is it the case with the Employment Relations Act in place that only 17 percent of workers in workplaces choose to belong to unions? The answer is simple. The unions do not do the job of representing workers’ issues well decisively and fairly. National contends that the only group of people unions are interested in protecting the rights of are those in the unions themselves not the workers those so-called unions purport to represent. 
The Minister is allowing legislation into this House that effectively says to 87 percent of working New Zealanders: “No we’re not going to let you 87 percent of New Zealand workers choose not to belong to a union. We’re going to bring to this House legislation that essentially picks up all those pieces of the Employment Relations Act that were stripped out under the winter of discontent in 2000 and 2001 and rehash in a new Margaret Wilson - Ross Wilson type of provision with “Swainy and the boys” being sent out the front to market it.” Margaret Wilson would not show her face in any environment other than in a union annual general meeting held at Victoria University Wellington during the week that this House is sitting. What was not realised is that “Swainy and the boys” are as much under the thumb of the unions and Helen Clark as Margaret Wilson was. To be fair to Margaret Wilson at least she had the gumption to front the thing in an honest way. “Swainy and the boys” did not. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 First I want to correct what my honourable colleague Simon Power led into. He started by saying that 83 percent of people were not in unions and before the end of 5 minutes it became 87 percent. I think he was closer in the first instance. There is no reason whatsoever why employers should be nervous of unions and basically they are not. I have not met an employer that is nervous of a union. Maybe some small employers are fairly apprehensive but—[ 
Interruption 
] The member says that I was on the waterfront. I have spent my lifetime dealing with two of the toughest unions in this country—the Seafarers’ Union and the Waterfront Workers Union. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Power’s colleague brought up the waterfront. 
I do not think that anybody is advocating—well I am certainly not advocating—that we give blanket power to unions any more than my National Party colleagues are but I just want to get the whole thing in perspective. I want to come back to the bargaining fee because the Hon Richard Prebble made some interesting points. Again he widened the area as if we should live in fear. 
Many employers have a workforce that is largely made up of union people. I would say that many of those employers—but perhaps not all of them—would welcome the opportunity to deal with one set of people to negotiate for everybody. [ 
Interruption 
] They do not have to. A Supplementary Order Paper in the Minister’s name states that first the employer has to agree with the union. 
 If I were an employer and did not want to have a bargaining fee arrangement then I can say quite categorically that I would not have one. I certainly would not have one if the majority of my workforce was non-union. However if the majority of my staff were union members I would probably give it some consideration. [ 
Interruption 
] Would Mr Mapp please shut up! 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a very well-known principle in this Chamber that when a member is on his or her feet those around him will remain silent. I ask that Dr Wayne Mapp restrain himself in the interests of proper parliamentary debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I was just going to make that point. I thank the member for raising it. 
PETER BROWN 
: I was saying that if I had a largely union-oriented workforce then I would consider a bargaining fee arrangement if most of them were in the union. I would even consider if I were an employer negotiating the fee with the union and possibly paying it myself. Workplace harmony is a very important issue. 
I move on to Part 6A “Continuity of employment if employer’s business restructured” inserted by clause 30. This all sounds very good in theory but it will not work. The provision is flawed. It was flawed at the time the last employment relations legislation was enacted and it was removed I think at the select committee. I believe that the Hon Richard Prebble referred to it yesterday afternoon. It is contentious and it would not work. 
If an employer wanted to sell his or her business to another employer who was faced with a major redundancy bill or alternatively the first employer’s agreement had no redundancy clause in it then the first employer would sell the contract. He would not sell the business. The staff would go and there would be nothing left. How do I know that—and we are talking largely of small businesses such as cleaning organisations? Employers have told me. They will not be captured by this sort of legislation. What the Government is trying to do will backfire not only on the Government itself—it will not feel the pain—but on the individuals it is trying to help. The Government should think twice about this measure because bringing it in will add costs to employment. It will be a downside to employers who want to employ people. They will take on people on a casual or contractual basis rather than give them permanent employment. When a business has to be sold to another business they will look for a loophole—they are very easy to find—and therefore avoid any extra costs and payments. This bill is flawed immensely. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future which will not be supporting this bill. I read in the commentary on the bill that this legislation will enable the Act “to better meet its key objectives of promoting fair productive and effective employment relationships between employees employers and unions.” I think that wage increases are always achieved through bargaining and consultation processes between the employer and the employee and in some cases the union. That is just a fact of life. It is either the union with the employer or non-union staff with the employer. 
The employer is the one who ultimately has to pay any wage increase and who is always concerned about the state of his or her staff and their welfare. Most business people would say that their staff are their greatest asset. My greatest concern about this measure is for genuine employers—and this may be more relevant in the case of smaller-sized business than larger businesses where a lot of it is less personal—in a small to medium sized businesses who have two or three union members and seven non-union members. They go to the negotiating table with both categories of employees and agree to a fair package because they want their workers to be rewarded equally. It then becomes ludicrous when they cannot offer them all the same package. If they offer to their non-union employees in individual agreements the same package they negotiated around the table with a union representative they will be penalised under this measure. What will the employers do? Will they have to pay the non-union staff just a little bit more so that the package is not the same? What will the unions do then? They will jump up and down. 
I have no problems with unions. I believe that many of them probably do a very good job but just as a business has to stand on its own two feet to survive so also should a union have to stand on its own two feet to survive. It should not need any Government assistance to do so. The figures that have been put out are interesting. If only 17 percent of employees choose to belong to a union then a very good question to ask is: why is that the case? It would be great if we could return to business conditions in New Zealand where we have a genuine negotiated arrangement between employers and employees. Over the years that has greatly improved not deteriorated. Therefore I agree with my colleagues that this legislation is taking us backwards at a time when business is having to face the challenges of working in a global economy and with the competitiveness that that brings. Things can change in a matter of months or weeks or in the car industry they can change in a matter of days. It is immoral for an employer not to have the right to be able to negotiate with his or her employees on things that are relevant—even perhaps to the survival of that business. No business wants to have a noose around its neck to the extent that it cannot operate and therefore loses staff. 
I agree with the many speakers who have already said that many aspects to this legislation will be very negative for workers. If only 17 percent are choosing to belong to a union why do we not take notice of the fact that the great majority of them are happy and very comfortable in negotiating directly with their employer? What choice do employers have when they want to bring uniformity into their workplaces between union and non-union members? I would say that they have very little. I agree that the bill started out as a way for the Government to pay back its union mates. That stands out very clearly. The bill makes it very difficult for employees to avoid joining a union. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has three amendments it would like to make to this part of the bill. They are on the Table if anyone is interested. The first and to us the most significant of these amendments is a proposed change to the schedules in relation to the categories of workers who can receive protection when their jobs are restructured or sold out from under them—the old transfer of undertakings clause. 
The Green Party is supporting the Service and Food Workers Union in calling for caregivers in residential care facilities to be added to that list of workers who will get protection once the bill is passed. I can think of no earthly reason why caregivers in rest homes were omitted from the list in the first place as they are surely one of the most exploited and vulnerable groups in the country. I do not think there would be many employers or even politicians in the Chamber here tonight who could disagree with this. These workers earn mainly between $9 and $12 an hour and many of them are actually on the bare minimum wage of $9 or just over it. The work they do is physically and mentally demanding. Many of the workers are older women who are really risking their health and welfare doing this work at pitifully low wages. 
 Rest homes change ownership often so they fit right into the category of the other kinds of vulnerable workers that we are talking about in relation to this bill. When the business is sold these hard-pressed low-paid but essential workers are at risk of losing not only their jobs but also all their service-based entitlements such as additional holidays if they have worked there long enough. I know that the Government is reluctant to add any group of workers at all into the coverage at this stage but the Green Party believes strongly that Labour could and should make an exception just for this one group of workers—caregivers in rest homes. If that is not possible I would urge the Minister and the department to do everything they can to assist the service workers union and other unions involved with the process for getting caregivers added to the schedules as soon as possible. 
The second amendment that we are putting up tonight is to clause 30. We would like to see it changed to allow all employees who transfer to a new employer the right to bargain for redundancy entitlements. This is again in the section dealing with the transfer of undertakings. Unfortunately the bill as drafted excludes vulnerable workers from bargaining for redundancy if they have an employment agreement that expressly excludes redundancy entitlement. The Green Party believes that the bill provides a strong incentive for employers to put in a redundancy exclusion—not a desirable outcome at all—and I doubt that the Government intended that. We need to remember that these clauses relate to some of the most vulnerable groups of workers in the country who are prey to having their jobs and conditions changed. We should be doing everything we can with this bill to protect them. I call on Labour members to reconsider their position on this rather minor amendment and support the rights of these workers. 
Our third amendment is to do with new section 4A inserted by clause 6A. Although we are pleased that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee strengthened this section we would like the Committee and in particular Labour and New Zealand First to consider one further minor change. The current bill states that employers are liable for penalties only where the breach of good faith was “deliberate serious and sustained”—all those things must be met. The Green Party believes there are circumstances where a breach may be so serious that it requires a penalty. We want new section 4A to provide that the action is “serious or sustained” so that either can apply. It could be that the action was minor but sustained over a long period of time thereby eroding good faith and confidence in collective bargaining. The change we propose would allow the Employment Relations Authority to consider penalties in these kinds of situations but they will not be mandatory. I call on the Government to consider supporting this very minor amendment. 
Finally I would just like to turn quickly to the question of bargaining fees. The Green Party does support the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper on bargaining fees and sees it as a very minor addition to the bill unlike the Opposition parties. This is not setting up the American system of closed shops at all as Mr Prebble said last night. All it does is allow workers and employers to negotiate an agreement that includes an arrangement for bargaining fees. It is simply just the right to have it—it can be by negotiation only; it is not something that can be imposed at all. It is something that can be done only after a vote in the workplace. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 As a member who sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I want to say that Part 1 which of course is the bulk of the bill is of considerable concern to the National Party and something that we are totally opposed to. 
I want to start with the clauses in this part that require negotiations to be carried out and concluded. So here we have the Minister legislating to require the unions and employers to continue to meet when they cannot agree. What is the purpose of that provision? It is clearly a purpose from the trade unions’ point of view because they do not want employers to say that that is it they cannot agree so they are walking away from the table. It is in fact the employers who lose money and whose management time is taken up by having to sit at the table with trade union officials and it is employers who have to let staff off to negotiate. 
This provision tilts the table enormously in favour of the trade union movement. If the parties cannot agree then employers know that economically it will cost them because they have to keep fronting up. It does not matter to the unions but it matters to the employers. But what did we hear tonight? At 5.40 this evening we heard Trevor Mallard Minister of State Services and Paul Swain Minister of Labour announce a new bureaucracy attached to the Department of Labour. This was probably the bureaucracy that Ross Wilson was telling the department officials would come when he was in the meeting room with them yesterday. Tonight we were told of the establishment of a new $1 million bureaucracy. The Government is fronting up with $1 million for a semi-autonomous unit attached to the Department of Labour as an advisory group for unions and employers when they cannot agree and have to keep on meeting. 
The Government said that it will legislate to keep the parties in the room and then chuck another $1 million at the Department of Labour and set up a semi-autonomous not totally autonomous unit. So the Minister’s grubby little fingerprints will still be on this unit—a semi-autonomous unit attached to the Department of Labour—so that it can sit there to do I know not what. We have to believe that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions will be all over it because in the press release the Council of Trade Unions President Ross Wilson welcomed the move and we heard nothing from business. In fact did Business New Zealand and the business groups even know it was coming? Have we in the Department of Labour under this Government totally given up any pretext of trying to straddle the fence? It looked like it in the select committee. It looked like it with the advice that we were getting. It certainly looked like it in the lobby last night—it certainly looked like it there. 
Brian Connell 
: It looks like it tonight. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It looks like it tonight as my colleague is saying. It is a shabby deal stitched up to indirectly give the union movement another $1 million of partnership advice for the public sector to grow the bureaucracy while all the time it is aimed at keeping the employers at the table until they cannot afford to stay any longer and they give up. 
I want to say to the Minister that I was in Nelson recently. Hospitality industry people told me that they were outraged that their staff would be able to say that they did not agree they could not agree but that the employers would have to keep fronting up in their time and that they would keep the employers at the table for as long as it took to break them. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I tell the member that that was what the restaurant owners in Nelson were saying. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 We first heard it here—the New Zealand First Party is a pro-union party. Is it any wonder that the word on the street is that a vote for New Zealand First is a vote for the Government? Can they fix it? No they cannot. 
This legislation is about as draconian as it can possibly get. This is a step back to the 1970s. This will do more to impact on our international and our domestic competitiveness than any of the hare-brained schemes that “Swainy and the boys” and his Government mates have dreamt up to date. I see us going back to the huge industrial unrests of that period and I would have thought that any clear-thinking person would want to avoid that. But no not this Government. This is payback time big time. This is reward and recognition for the 24 members of the current Government who served as union officials. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Including the Minister. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Including the Minister in the chair Paul Swain as one of my colleagues has said. No wonder he is out there saying one thing to business but quietly and in a sneaky way he is doing dirty grubby deals in the lobby of this House with the boss of the union movement. In fact he should declare whether Ross Wilson is in the precincts tonight. I would not be surprised if he is. 
Simon Power 
: He has a room in the lobby. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Does he have a room in the lobby? Is he paying rent? He probably has a permanent place in the Minister’s office because he is really the guy who is driving this legislation. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: He’s in the Department of Labour head office. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He probably does have his own office there. This legislation is about compulsory unionism. The Minister can beat it up any way he likes but that is what it is really about. 
Dover Samuels called out before and said it is for those hard-working members and for the hard-working people of New Zealand. Well it has already been pointed out to him that 79 percent of the hard-working people he has referred to do not actually belong to unions at all. I say to the member and to the Minister that if unionism is so damn good why does it need to be made compulsory? Why do they not just let people come to it naturally? The same argument was run with communism in East Germany. If it is so good why did they have to build a wall to keep people out—or was it to keep them in? I suspect it might have been the latter. 
I want to talk specifically about the restructuring provision in Part 6A inserted by clause 30. I have personal experience of having led a management buy-out of a large business here in New Zealand in 1990. This kind of nonsense was in existence then until there was a change of Government. A company that had assets of approximately $12 million only got the value of $5 million because the company was broke and the people who were buying it knew there was a contingent liability on the books for $35 million. They said that if they could not restructure the business the way they wanted then they would not pay fair market value. Do members know what? The Government did that deal because it knew it had no option. The same thing will repeat itself now. 
It is a dumb Minister and a dumb Government that cannot learn from previous mistakes. Here we are repeating the same stuff again. This will have an immense impact on the value of businesses when they are up for sale and purchase. The first thing a purchaser will look at is the terms and conditions that the company has or that the employees enjoy. If the purchaser is buying the business because it is in trouble why on earth would anyone pay top dollar or take the risk in the first place to purchase that business if there is no flexibility to restructure it according to the purchaser’s own needs? It is not rocket science. The Minister should have been able to work that out. If he had not been listening to Ross Wilson and company he would have. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I am very appreciative of getting the call but I note that a number of my colleagues who have not yet spoken will also be seeking calls. 
The particular issue I want to deal with is why a principles of the Treaty of Waitangi provision is in this legislation. The Government has said it is trying to narrow the principles down. We hear Mr Mallard who has authority on the issue constantly proclaiming that the Government wants to narrow down the scope of the treaty yet sneaked into this legislation is a treaty provision. New Zealand First seems to be unaware of it. Its members are hunting for it desperately as we speak—even the dare I say it rude deputy leader of that party. 
I will take members through the sequence. Clause 35 requires codes of good faith. This clause inserts a new part consisting of several provisions. That explains the count of 117 clauses. New section 100D in clause 35 states that there will be a new code of good faith required in public health sector employment agreements. One might think that seems harmless enough. These are contained in schedule 1AA. For the benefit of members I will read out clause 7 in schedule 1AA “Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” which states: “The parties must recognise and support Part 3 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 which in order to recognise the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and with a view to improving health outcomes for Maori provides mechanisms to enable Maori to contribute to decision-making on and to participate in the delivery of health and disability services.” That is required in employment agreements. What relevance does it have in collective agreements or for that matter in individual agreements? I would like the Minister in the chair Paul Swain to answer the question of what particular principle of the treaty is relevant here. What article of the treaty relates to employment agreements? That is what that provision is all about. Does it mean that in the future the nurses union and the district health boards will have reference to principles of the treaty in their employment agreements and their various practices which are enforceable by the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court? 
We know perfectly well so does the country that the Government does not even know what the principles are. It has not been able to explain them. It certainly cannot explain them here. In fact the Government claims that health services are provided on the basis of need not race. It actually says that. But sneaked into this bill is a reference to principles of the treaty. No one knows what it means. I am sure the Minister does not know what it means. Can the Minister tell me what points of guidance the Government will give the judges of the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court—and everyone knows that those judges are expert in the principles of the treaty—to determine how the principles will apply in an employment agreement between the nurses union and a district health board. 
Maybe it would be a cleaning union. It is very important I guess that those so-called vulnerable workers have reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in their agreements to clean the floors of the building. Even I struggle to see how there could possibly be reference to the principles of the treaty in cleaning floors. Maybe it is some kind of joint sovereignty over the floors? 
Hon Member 
: A partnership. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: More than a partnership—joint sovereignty. Maybe a symbolic title a bit like the lakes will be given to the parties in relation to the floors of hospitals. This kind of absurdity has no place in employment legislation. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. When you called the previous speaker you indicated that that was likely to be the last opportunity to speak on this part. I invite you to have a look at the record of speakers of this evening and on the previous evening when this bill was discussed. The Green Party has had only two calls by my colleague Sue Bradford. I have had no opportunity to speak on the bill even though I have come down to the Chamber this evening specifically to deal with a particular clause that I have a particular interest in which is the amendment relating to the Brethren. It is usual in this Committee for members who have not had the opportunity to speak to be given the chance to speak on a particular part. So before we go on I invite you to reconsider your decision. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for bringing that to my notice. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether I could follow on from Mr Tanczos and make the point that when I arrived I think Mr Mapp was speaking. He went through a number of calls and he has just spoken again. Although I respect the fact that he was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and is pretty knowledgable in these areas I too have been seeking the call the whole way through. I wonder whether you would possibly reconsider that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am aware of all those things. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak specifically to the United Future amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 276 to extend the exemption that allows unions to be denied access to a workplace on religious grounds in certain circumstances. Of course this Committee knows that this amendment is particularly about the Brethren who already have an exemption under current and past law and I acknowledge their presence in the gallery tonight. 
More than most members of this House I understand how law can conflict with religion. In fact I am probably the only member of this House who faces victimisation for practising his faith so I have some sympathy for the position of the Brethrens. Although I will not discuss the theology of their position—I was tempted to because I am always keen to engage in a bit of reasoning—and regardless of my interpretation of the Bible we do have some sympathy for their position. 
However on looking at the issue it seems to be that a genuine concern for protecting religious rights in this House would make provision for people to practise their faith without persecution as long as that practice does not infringe the rights of others. So we consider that the law should never require people who have a religious conviction that forbids membership of a union or any other organisation to become unionised. In fact the law should never require anyone to become a member of a union if that person wishes not to be a member regardless of whether that person’s objection is religious or otherwise. 
However the argument that a person who has a religious or otherwise principled objection to unionisation or membership of any organisation apart from his or her church should be allowed to impose this objection on the rights of others by denying union access to a workplace in order to offer employees the chance to join a union is not in my opinion a convincing one. Religious conviction entitles people to practise their faith; it cannot entitle them to deny other people their rights or protections under the law. 
The Green Party will vote against the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 276 to extend the exemption even though we do have some sympathy for the position of the Brethren. We would certainly support the amendment if we felt that it was genuinely protecting people from a threat to their right to practise their religion in so far as that practice did not interfere with the rights of others. The respect for religious rights which United Future New Zealand First ACT and National purport in supporting this Supplementary Order Paper will be demonstrated not by whether they support an anti-unionist clause in this bill but by whether they support religious rights in other areas and contexts where they have no hidden agenda. 
The last point I would make is that it is contradictory to hear the ACT party the National Party and New Zealand First run a campaign declaring “one law for all” in respect of Maori but then to vote for an amendment that creates a different right for some. The hidden agenda of political parties has little connection to the genuine religious conviction of the Brethren—who as I said I acknowledge here today—who have lobbied for this Supplementary Order Paper. We will vote against this amendment. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to respond to that speech from the honourable member from the Green Party. That speech seemed to say that the Greens will vote against the amendment because New Zealand First ACT United Future and National are supporting it. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I never said that. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well that was the thrust of Mr Tanczos’ speech. I say to the honourable member that this sort of clause has been in the Employment Relations Act from the beginning and it has worked very very well. It has caused no harm to anybody—none whatsoever—yet those members want to go against it. I think they should hang their heads in shame. 
Jim Peters 
: It’s just posturing. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is just posturing and making a noise for the sake of making a noise. I turn to my honourable friend behind me whom I was quite rude to and I am not normally rude. I am talking about Dr Wayne Mapp. He was interjecting quite severely and as he is only 2 feet behind me it was not easy to take. But I want to draw the member’s attention to the concern expressed in our minority report. I see that only one party referred to the Treaty of Waitangi provision. 
Jim Peters 
: Only one party? 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes. 
Jim Peters 
: Which one? 
PETER BROWN 
: It was New Zealand First. We have been concerned for quite some time about inclusion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and when it emerged in the new schedule 1AA “Code of good faith for public health sector” to be inserted by clause 67 of the bill we were quite alarmed. We were alarmed enough to raise the question in our minority report. I say to Dr Mapp that he can rest assured; we are well up with the play. 
There is an inherent fear among some of my colleagues about unions and people who operate in unions. Let me just say that most people who are in unions are decent law-abiding New Zealanders. I know many of them and I have had some darned good arguments with many of them—debates over philosophy and debates over practical things—but I do not run fearful of them. I understand their concern when their having paid for a group of people to negotiate conditions on their behalf those conditions are then simply passed on willy-nilly. That is what is known as freeloading or free-riding and I understand those people’s concern. I think every MP here should understand it because from what I have seen of members in this House if one political party steals an initiative from another it causes quite some concern. I just express that point to Dr Mapp who alluded to our not being up with the play on the Treaty of Waitangi clause—so it does touch a nerve. 
I do not see a bargaining agent modification arrangement as any great shakes. I want to make it quite clear that New Zealand First would prefer the right for non-union people to negotiate their own collective agreements. I have said that if not once then a hundred times in this House and we will not walk away from that viewpoint. We believe that a collective employment agreement is the right of anybody and it should not be a monopoly held only by unions. But we know that the Government will not even consider that and we know that some of the parties that prop the Government up will not even look at that so we have this second-best option—both for the working people whom it will embrace and for the employers. I know many employers who do not want to deal with unionised staff then have to deal with individual contracts on top of that. Some of the employers alluded to that at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. They referred to things like “independent collectives” or “covert collectives” which basically means that they negotiate a collective agreement outside the framework of the law. The bargaining agent regime might help them but they have the choice. That was at New Zealand First’s insistence and I am pleased that the Minister of Labour took note of it and brought in another Supplementary Order Paper to amend and clarify that position. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 4(1C)(c) in clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 4(6) in clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 4A in clause 6A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 6A be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of section 4A the words “sustained; or” and substitute the words “sustained; and”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 76 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. For the sake of clarification I want to confirm that this amendment relates to the issuing of a certificate of exemption on grounds particular to different organisations. Is that correct? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes that is correct. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 31(aa) in clause 10 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 32(1)(ca) in clause 11 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 33 in clause 12 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to sections 50A to 50J in clause 15 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert words in the heading to section 59A in clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to omit words from the heading to section 59A in clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 59A(2) to (6) in clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert words in the heading to section 59B in clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to omit words from the heading to section 59B in clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 59B(2) to (6) in clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 65A in clause 26 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 76 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 67 in clause 28 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to Part 6A in clause 30 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to to subsection (1)(c)(ii) of new section 69H in clause 30 be agreed to: 
to omit this subsection. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 161(1) in clause 53 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 275 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to the amendments to sections 69O and 69P in clause 30 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 263 in his name be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 263 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 In comparison with Part 1 which was quite a substantive part this is a very very small part. In fact it is all of about nine lines. This part brings itself into line with clause 32 which has just been passed by the Committee. I can recall having sat here for the entire time that no one spoke on clause 32 and there are no amendments to clause 32. 
 This part is a small amendment to the Health and Safety in Employment Act. It simply states that the Minister may approve occupational health and safety training which I am sure every member of the House supports— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well most sensible members of the House would support that. Clause 97 simply provides that the Minister may approve occupational health and safety training and that it does not have to be done by notice in the  
Gazette 
. It could be notified in the  
Gazette 
 or over the radio or in newspapers or on the Internet. This brings the provision in line with clause 32 which we have already passed. This is a very very small part and notwithstanding some initiative within the Opposition debating team I expect there will be relatively limited discussion on it. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 One of the points that my colleague will no doubt raise as a point of order is what looked like it could be a direction to the Chair. I would like to think that is not the case. 
The Minister I believe has actually misrepresented the part and the reason why he has misrepresented it is that he says it is a simple change and one does not have to notify approvals through the  
Gazette. 
 But what he did not say was what it is actually all about. It is about a whole range of so-called education programmes set out in section 19G which was inserted by this Government into the Health and Safety in Employment Act. Section 19G is headed: “Minister may approve occupational health and safety training”. 
On the face of it that seems perfectly reasonable. It is actually a cover because what the clauses enable is union-based occupational training. Section 19G is referred directly back to section 72 of the Employment Relations Act. That section is all about union education courses. Union education courses are a sop I guess to the unions—and thus to the Labour Party—because what the clause enables is millions of dollars of training to be undertaken at the expense of the employer. In fact there is a table in the Employment Relations Act that sets out the number of hours that unionists are able to take for this training. That is what clause 97 is really all about. 
The Minister may pretend that the clause is just about the removal of a notification provision but actually it is a secrecy provision. No longer does it have to be publicly notified. No longer is it subject to review by the Regulations Review Committee of this House because that would be the implication of it being notified in the  
Gazette 
. It could be just a secret agreement between the Minister and the relevant unions under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. 
I spoke in my last contribution about issues relating to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Are these kinds of training programmes going to make specific reference to the principles of the treaty which will now be a compulsory part of codes of behaviour for employment agreements between public sector unions and district health boards? That is what is going to be the case and this is a way whereby secret training will now be undertaken at the cost of the employer to boost union funds. Firstly it will be done to give the unions more money and secondly funnel that money to the Labour Party which will use it to campaign in the general election. Whilst the Minister may pretend and try to convince the public that it is all quite innocent it is in fact very surreptitious. It is a secrecy provision so that the Labour Party can get up to its nefarious games with the unions to boost its own funding. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Another conspiracy theory! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am not surprised that Mr Benson-Pope a Minister in the Chamber tonight who is actually very slippery—he was trying to stand on the head of a pin in question time today saying that things are not what they are—would be supporting secrecy clauses because secrecy clauses are all about what is called in American politics: “Follow the money”. This clause is all about following the money. There will be secret provisions secret deals between the Minister and unions for trade union education at the cost of employers. Unions get paid for it with special provisions in Department of Labour allocations—$10 million and another million dollars announced today. I wonder how much of that ends up in these special programmes funnelled through to the unions and funnelled through to the Labour Party. It is all part of Labour’s election campaign. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I believe that the Minister owes the Committee much more by way of explanation than he has given us so far. I support my good colleague Dr Wayne Mapp when he said the Minister was quite misleading as to the import of clause 97 particularly in Part 3. It is important that members go back to the principal Act the Health and Safety in Employment Act. As Dr Wayne Mapp has pointed out already there are all sorts of matters in there that make it clear that there is far more to this matter than just the simple omission of the words “by notice in the  
Gazette 
”. I believe that the Minister owes the Committee an explanation of why this measure is necessary. Let me deal with the issue about why it is necessary and then why I am concerned about the dangers of it. 
I ask why this change is necessary because for generations the official way of notification to the people of New Zealand from Ministers has been by way of notice in the  
Gazette 
. One of the beauties of that system is that it saves compliance costs for business because people do not have to look in various places for decisions made by Ministers. They know the one place they can find that information is in the  
Gazette 
. If something is in the  
Gazettee 
 an employer knows that that is it. So my first question is why there is this change. Putting notices in the  
Gazette 
 is a very simple thing for the Government to do and it saves employers compliance costs because they do not then have to go and search in order to find out where something is notified. They do not have to wonder whether they have to search the transcripts of radio news for announcements made by a Minister. I admit that most employers have access to the Internet but not all do. Those who do not would have to have someone go and search the Internet and that person would then wonder whether to go to the Government website the Minister’s website the Department of Labour website or just where else to find the information. My first question is why is there this change? There has to be some reason for it and I think the Committee needs to know the reason because it does not cost the Government a lot to put notices in the  
Gazettee 
 and it will add to employers’ compliance costs as they now seek to verify information. 
I want to go on to why this measure causes me even more concern than that. One notes from clause 97 that section 19G(1) of the principal Act is the bit that is being amended. When I went back to that section to find out exactly what it was all about I found that actually section 19G(3) caused me the most concern. I found from that section that the Minister may delegate his or her power under section 19G(1) to one or more persons. That becomes a concern to an employer if a union member can come along to the employer and say the Minister has approved that member to have delegated authority to specify training courses. Presumably the Minister can delegate that under section 19G(3) to one or more persons. Now I would not mind betting that the Minister intends to delegate some of these powers to unions. What guarantee does an employer have when a union delegate says there is an official course he or she must follow that afternoon? How does the employer verify that? Quite clearly the Minister will not have put a notice anywhere because he has delegated his powers. Where has the union put a notice? How does the employer verify that? 
I believe the Minister owes an explanation to the Committee. On behalf of the Government he should tell us what is up here. What trickery is up here that requires this amendment? It was bad enough before that the powers could be delegated but at least there had to be a notice in the  
Gazette 
. If a union delegate said to an employer that he or she had been delegated the authority to set up a course and that the employer was to let the delegate go that afternoon at least there had to be a notice in the  
Gazette 
 where the employer could check up that it was bona fide for the health and safety employment officer to attend the training programme. It may well be a union training programme but at least there was some assurance to the employer that it was bona fide. This provision removes that protection. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 First of all I very much resent the way the Minister purported to speak for the Committee. He said—and no doubt it is accurate—that no member had spoken to clause 32. But he failed to mention that he had answered the question himself as to how many clauses there were. The Government had put all the provisions into one part. I defy the Minister to say that is not correct. If the debate had been taken clause by clause does he really believe that members would not have spoken to clause 32? I see he is silent now. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Maybe. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Come on Minister! Does he really think that I would not have spoken to clause 32? I would have taken four calls if I had been allowed to do so. 
I also resent the Minister’s suggestion that everyone has gone along with his socialist view that the Government ought to provide for everything. The ACT party does not go along with that view. We do not support safety programmes run by trade unions. The ACT party never has. The Minister knows that. One thing that I note about the trade union movement is that when all else fails it pulls out the safety card; it turns it into a safety issue. In my experience most of those safety issues were bogus. In my experience as an employer I have never agreed to pay danger money. Any time the trade union came along and started playing the safety card I have said that I am not prepared to pay people extra for something that is unsafe. But I have certainly seen unions raise bogus safety issues on many occasions. 
I believe that many of these education courses approved by the Minister will be a monstrous waste of taxpayers’ money employers’ money and employees’ money. I do not care whether the Minister publicises his approval of them on the Internet in the G 
azette 
 or on movie screens. It will still be a waste of money. I believe that this bill is another example. We ought to have a decent system of the rule of law. People should be held responsible for their own actions and the full consequences of them. If we did that we would not need to have the Government acting as granny and the trade union movement acting as auntie to try to do all these safety measures. We never used to have them. 
When we look at recent safety accident rates we see they have gone up. The real reason—and I do not want to go into any detail—is that no-fault accident compensation has made New Zealand more dangerous than Iraq. That is what has happened. That is why we have all these regulations. All we need is good old common law that states that people as adults are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions. If we had that we would not need the Minister having to gazette safety courses—in fact so many of them that he now wants to publicise them on the Internet. But how much money will be taken from the taxpayer? This Government thinks that it is its money. It is not. It belongs to employers and to the public. 
The ACT party will vote against this clause just as we voted if the Minister had noticed against clause 32. We are being completely consistent. We say that this bill has no redeeming features. It is not often we have a bill that has no redeeming features. This bill is a huge step backwards. The Minister can call it health and safety as much as he likes but that does not mean that it will improve the health and safety of New Zealanders. It will just increase their costs. It is just more socialist bureaucracy and more pandering to the trade union movement. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 It is with pleasure I talk on behalf of the National Party on Part 3. Despite the Minister’s rather dismissive view that Parliament would have no interest in this part I will make this prediction: not only does Parliament have an interest in this part tonight but Parliament will have an ongoing interest in it for quite some time. I make the prediction that the whole bill is nothing more than a nationwide recruitment drive for the unions. This is just part of the whole clandestine activity that will take place whereby unions will organise very important health and safety training courses that are secretly approved by the Minister on some sort of communications device. 
If the training courses had to be gazetted then there would be a clear and an easy track for someone to follow. But this will be the great line: “I’m off to a health and safety employment course.” When the employee is asked why he or she is going the employee will reply: “Because I heard it on the radio. It was a party-political broadcast brought to us by the Minister of Labour Paul Swain. I heard it on the radio.” “Swainy and boys” will invite employees to a health and safety training course to listen to how to improve health and safety. That will be great will it not? How many people record the radio when they are listening to it? If an employer says to an employee: “Can you just show me where you actually heard that?” the employee will reply: “I heard on the radio that ‘Swainy and the boys’ are having a cup of tea and a health and safety course. It happens to be at 2 o’clock tomorrow afternoon just before the running of the Melbourne Cup so why don’t we go down and have a listen?” That is the kind of clandestine behaviour that we can expect. 
The Minister said that there would not be much activity. He said that there has not been much discussion of this part and there would not be much discussion of it tonight. I make the prediction that not only will there be discussion tonight but that this part will be the subject of many parliamentary questions on behalf of the Opposition going forward. We want to know how many courses the Minister will send New Zealanders on. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Listen to the radio. 
JOHN KEY 
: We will be listening to the radio looking at the  
New Zealand Gazette 
 and searching the Internet. We will be searching and included in our favourite sites will be: “Health and safety employment courses brought to employees by ‘Swainy and the boys’.” We will look at that sort of activity. 
This is very very concerning behaviour. Earlier tonight my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry came to the Committee and much to my surprise he announced that a press release had been put out sometime earlier this evening I think in conjunction with the Minister stating that $1 million is to be put aside for work in this area—that is $1 million will be available to the unions. I wonder how much of that $1 million will go towards radio advertising gazetting and the running of health and safety training courses. Maybe the Minister may want to take a call to tell the Committee how many courses will be run. The next question the Minister may want to answer is what that will do to the productivity of New Zealand. Not very long ago this Government was telling New Zealanders that we would get back into the top half of the OECD by 2011. We will be in the top half of the OECD for the number of health and safety training courses attended by workers in New Zealand. I have no doubt that we will be in the top half of the OECD for that. If “Swainy and the boys” set up some sort of private company we could be in there very very quickly but we will not be back in the top half of the OECD. 
I bow to Mr Brown’s knowledge. He is the most knowledgable member about the waterfront in New Zealand and our shipping industry. Earlier on he said we should not be frightened of unions. I am a young man; I am younger than I look. I am only 43 years of age and I remember seeing on television on Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve hundreds of cars at Picton that could not get on the inter-island ferries because of the strikes for chocolate biscuits. Now the issue will not be chocolate biscuits; it will be training courses. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4 Human Rights Act 1993 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Employment relations is all about balance. I have learnt that and it is important to get the balance right. Part 4 which relates to the Human Rights Act brings in some balance. Essentially it states that if a person were to complain for example about sexual harassment or racial discrimination then obviously there are two channels that person is able to take: either to go through the human rights channel or through the employment relations channel. It is fair to say that under the Employment Contracts Act—and before I hear outrage from the National Party that this legislation is a disgrace and is all about pro-unionism I will tell members this—people had the right to be able to choose whether they went according to the human rights way or the employment contracts way in order to try to get a resolution of their complaint. It is fair to say that the point at which they were cut off and had to choose the particular channel they wanted to go down was very early and people were confused about whether their complaint would be proceeded with. What happened with regard to the Employment Relations Act is that it is probably fair to say that the balance went too far in the other way. In fact people were almost able to negotiate—that is to take a complaint through the human rights system while at the same time taking it through the Employments Relations Authority. That was probably going too far in the other way. 
This legislation attempts to bring about some balance. Essentially it states that if a person gets to the point where he or she can lay a complaint provides that new section 79A(4) if an employee makes a complaint under the human rights legislation the employee may not exercise or continue to exercise any rights relating to the subject matter of the complaint that the employee may have under the Employment Relations Act. So if a person makes a complaint and he or she decides that complaint is to go down the human rights avenue that cuts off the opportunity to go through the employment relations channel. New section 79A(5) is exactly the opposite of that—that is if an employee chooses the employment relations way to go then he or she cannot continue on with his or her complaint through the human rights channel. 
The measure is about 40 lines in length and not particularly controversial in my view. The issue is something that has been around since the Employment Contracts Act where people had the right to be able to make a complaint. They should be able to make a complaint. However this legislation is about making sure that once people have made a complaint they must choose one channel. Once the complaint is made under employment relations law that is the channel people must go down. They cannot continue to have their complaint looked at in both the employment relations and the human rights channel but must choose whichever one they are in. The legislation simply states that once a person has decided to make the complaint the complaint is heard under that particular channel so that the person cannot have two bites at the cherry. As I have said the issue is about balance. The cut-off point under the Employment Contracts Act was a bit early and the decision point was a bit early. In the Employment Relations Act it was probably a bit late and that allowed too much choice to go on. This legislation attempts to try to bring some balance back and I recommend it to the Committee. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I note that the Minister took an extensive call and raised a number of issues that do need discussion and comment. I would like to think that members on this side of the House would have ample opportunity to discuss those issues because it is a practice that once a Minister takes a call there is ample discussion. I know that a number of my colleagues will be seeking those kinds of opportunities. 
The issue raised by the Minister sounded superficially attractive. He put it forward as an advance I guess on the provisions of the Employment Relations Act. However he claims that the Employment Relations Act went too far and in contrast the Employment Contracts Act was a bit restrictive but he has failed to recognise that the disputes in question are employment disputes. That is the first fundamental point. They are employment disputes. Thus one would expect for the sake of consistency in the way in which decisions are made that that would be the track that one would go down. 
The Government has made much play about the mediation processes authority processes and the expertise of the Employment Court with its four judges all of whom have built up expertise. That is well acknowledged. I would admit that that is one part of the Employment Relations Act that works reasonably effectively. Our dispute with the Employment Relations Act as we have consistently maintained is all of the deeply entrenched union preferences. As a Government we would strip out those preferences. 
 But the dispute resolution procedures are effective and that is widely recognised. Because they are effective they should be the choice. That is what National believes. So rather than still providing this dual-track process as the Minister continues to do we would say that employment disputes should be going through the systems that are well set up for them and in which people have built up expertise. Otherwise we get inconsistency. And surely in matters of the development of the law consistency is what is desired. I have heard numerous contributions from the Minister of Finance who talked about the importance of our courts being consistent—it has been quite controversial in fact—and the role of Parliament relative to the courts. We want consistency. Therefore we want disputes to go through the provisions of the Employment Relations Act mediation authority and ultimately the Employment Court. 
Another point I will mention very briefly is that section 64 of the principal Act is repealed by clause 99. People will ask what that is about. It is actually about employment agreements. It refers back to Part 1. That is typical of this legislation. It is very complex. One has to read Part 4 together with Part 1. Clause 21 in Part 1 has in it some very complex and much more demanding provisions about what employers have to do to provide employment agreements and so on and so forth. It is about the employer’s obligations in respect of new employees who are not members of a union. It loads the dice against people who choose not to be union members. So whilst it looks innocent it is not; and it is wrong that it is in Part 4. The only way we can effectively debate this clause is by referring back to Part 1. 
That shows the huge deficiencies in the way this bill is structured. The Government has deliberately tried to foreclose debate by putting 117 clauses into a single part knowing full well that that would limit the debate. It is fundamentally wrong. It is a practice the Government is developing more and more and it is dangerous for the health of our democracy. Ironically it did not get it right when one thinks about it because this provision should probably have been in Part 1. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Following on from the contribution from my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp I would just like to tell the Committee a little story about somebody who could chose between whether she claimed under the Employment Relations Act or the Human Rights Act. Before I came to Parliament I did do the odd bit of employment work for employers and sometimes for employees—in fact quite often. After the second case I took for one particular employee who was alleging sexual harassment against an employer I decided that she probably would not come back for yet a third go. Each time she ended up with a payment and was able to further her university career. 
The third time she turned up claiming sexual harassment from yet another employer she really did not want to go through the Employment Tribunal where such cases were taken in those days because maybe they might know her too well. By that stage I have to say I was starting to feel I had too much employment work on my hands. So where did she go? She went off to a human rights lawyer who not knowing the history was much more sympathetic. 
That is unfortunately one of the situations we have. I take the Minister’s point that the provision is an improvement over the ability at the moment for people to switch halfway through and decide on where they might get a more sympathetic hearing where they might get more money or where they might not have to front up with better evidence. Unfortunately there is still the provision whereby people can take a couple of cases under one particular Act then at a later stage come back through under another Act against yet another employer and not be found out. Unfortunately this can still happen under the provision the Minister has here. As Dr Mapp pointed out this is about an employment relationship. Why is it not under the employment relationship law? Why does it always have this other human rights provision as well—the dual track which unfortunately still allows people to choose whichever system they think they might be able to get a better deal out of or that they think might be more sympathetic to their cause? 
Of course it is the human rights track that has been the cause of so much angst in the House in relation to prisoners in the management systems. I know that the Government is not enjoying that. The Minister in his other role is probably not enjoying it. It is the human rights provision that the Minister is going to confirm yet again on the poor old employer who has to try to deal with all the compliance costs all the litigation all the difficulties and is sitting there waiting for someone to bring a claim on something. 
That is not to say of course that many claims in this area are not genuine because many are. Having said that there are always the odd ones—in fact quite a few odd ones—that are not particularly genuine and would not stand up to a huge amount of scrutiny. 
We know that employers have got very used to just paying out. There are lots of people who advise employers that it is cheaper just to pay out. It is true. It is good advice in the monetary sense—absolutely—because the time the effort the angst and the money involved in defending these claims is huge. 
Of course there is always the probability of the threat of publicity—basically an extortion situation—if they do not pay up. Unfortunately that will still be relevant here. By having this dual system someone will be able to say: “We’re going to go down this track. We’re going to do this or else we’ll claim publicity or try to do something to embarrass the employer.” So unfortunately we do leave ourselves open to that odd employee—very odd—who happens to think that that is the way to pay for his or her university education. It is a very very sad fact but it is true. If I have struck it then I am sure there are other people who have struck it as well in this area. 
So the Minister could maybe take a call and say why it is that it is necessary to have two different strands. I can see him nodding and I know he is thinking about it. Maybe he is thinking about the prisons. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to say that we have a slightly different view from the National Party on this. No we do not support either course of action. If it were up to the ACT party we would have just employment contracts and if there were something wrong with them people would go to the court. The problem we have here is that the Government and I am afraid successive Governments have been setting up all these commissions and we have a mighty grievance industry. One of the questions that came up in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was one asking the Law Society how many lawyers were involved in this sort of business 14 years ago. The answer it gave me was that there were almost none. It is now a large part of employment law. 
Either in the last 14 years we have suddenly started to discriminate against everyone or alternatively we have highly sensitive young ladies such as the one just mentioned. Of course as an employer I know that that is so. One good story deserves another. I was asked as the director of a small company whether I would come in for a cup of tea when a person who had been on a 3-month contract was about to leave. I was told that she had not done a very good job but the company still wanted to say goodbye to her. I went along and made some nice noises and the following Monday we received a letter from her—she had been on a 3-month contract—saying that it was wrongful dismissal and also threatening because she happened to be Maori to take us off to the Human Rights Commission. 
Judith Collins 
: Why? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Because we should have continued with the 3-month contract. There was never any understanding that it was to be more than 3 months. It is illegal to do this so I will not name the firm. 
 One of the secretaries there was so outraged that she rang the person who had provided the superb reference she had and was told that it was part of a settlement of a previous case. She had three references and so rang each referee to find that each time part of the settlement was that the employer had to write a letter saying what a wonderful woman this was together with the money. 
Shane Ardern 
: I have experienced that. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member says that he has experienced that. I do not know whether members opposite know about this but I guarantee that everyone on this side of the Chamber who hires any number of people knows that under this Government these references are now being produced and by law we are not allowed to ring up because it is contrary to the Privacy Act to see whether it was actually a shotgun reference. We refused to give her a shotgun reference and against the legal advice—I have to say mine as well; I said to settle as it was cheaper—we contested that. She was outraged and could not believe that anyone could oppose her because she had—I understood later—already done that four times. I say to the Minister that this part does not do anything about that problem. That is why I hope we will discuss this because this is the first opportunity we have had to do so. This is a rort. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: The ACT party knows all about rorts. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is a grievance industry and Mr Benson-Pope is quite happy to tell people he does not have lists of projects in front of him. He cannot see that point and that is why he cannot see that what he is doing here is putting out a licence for fraudsters. He is corrupting people. That young woman might have started off as a reasonable person but under Mr Benson-Pope’s law she was told by the Government that she could extort money legally. That is what this legislation does and the Government is saying that it cannot be done twice so it is wonderful! I say that people should not be able to do it once. If people have a real case why not take it to a real court? I say to Mr Mapp that I do not accept that these mediators are doing a great job. The only reason it is a great job is that it is cheaper than going to court. To heck with that! I do not support the legislation. I do not support any of these commissions—I think they are a whole load of rubbish. I can still remember the 1990s when we did not have one of them and I personally think that New Zealand was a better country. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Richard from the rort party. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well I can recognise a rort and I am saying to the member that this is a rort. Is the member saying that these things do not happen? He is not prepared to say that because he cannot because he has never employed anyone with his own money in his whole life. Well we should not hold that against him because neither has anyone else in the Labour Party. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to speak on behalf of National in connection with Part 4 of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill. This is of course legislation that National bitterly opposes and for good reason. Because in this legislation and in particular in Part 4 we see a real exemplar. That exemplar is that politics has completely dominated over principle. If we wanted to see politics in action we saw it the other night where in the precincts of this Chamber the president of the major trade union organisation in New Zealand was closeted with members of Parliament from the Labour Government seeking to subvert their views. That is why I say in connection with Part 4 that politics has dominated over principle. 
Part 4 is we might say a simple enough part. Indeed it has only four sections but what significant sections they are. What Part 4 is about—similarly to Part 3—is consequential amendments to other primary pieces of the legislation. Whereas Part 3 was concerned with the Health and Safety in Employment Act Part 4 as the member opposite wisely notes is concerned with the Human Rights Act. 
 I want to look quickly at some aspects of Part 4 that I think are worthy of particular comment. As others have commented one of the things Part 4 does is repeal section 64 of the Human Rights Act. When one looks at what replaces it one sees that the changes on one view of it may not be all that significant because new section 79A “Choice of procedures” is inserted. That leads me to the second point I wish to make in this call with the intent of taking further calls on other aspects of the part if there is the opportunity. What this Government inappropriately does is draft legislation with a very very high degree of prescription. Because it has taken that prescriptive approach the reality is that gaps occur. 
It is simply not possible to foresee the implications of such highly prescriptive legislation. Let me give an illustration of that. What will the situation be if an employee starts down let us say the human rights pathway in section 79A and sees perhaps for good reason that that outcome will not best advantage his or her cause? One might think that the issue would be governed by subsection (3) but it may well not be. It would be possible to discontinue those proceedings and start down the other line if some greater degree of advantage were to be seen there. 
So I have spoken about how politics has dominated principle and I have spoken about the prescriptive nature of the legislation and given an example. But there are other examples. Why is it necessary to state in section 92BA inserted by clause 101: “Proceedings before the Tribunal are to be commenced by the lodging of an application in the prescribed form.”? That is utterly superfluous. We then have to move to a position whereby there are regulations or rules prescribing forms. That is what I am saying when I assert that the prescriptive nature of the legislation is completely unnecessary. 
I now pick up a point that other members of the National Party have similarly identified which relates to the burdens of process. One would think as a matter of principle that an employment law issue might be dealt with under this legislation—that another Human Rights Act option would not be given. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to Part 4 of the bill. United Future’s concern about this particular aspect of it is that although it is right and correct that employees should be able to take a grievance to the appropriate authority we have noticed over the years that unfortunately when many of those grievances are brought forward the actual issue is not so much the grievance but the possibility of the person getting an amount of money out of it. In some parts of the industry we have 0800 SACKED numbers and the ultimate aim is not to deal with a grievance but to get a monetary return. A lot of the things we bring into legislation such as what is laid out in Part 4 do concern human rights but I think we can overlegislate on many of those types of things. It becomes very complex for both the employer and the employee. I do not know whether in weighing up and looking at the circumstances they will be asking what the best place is they can go to or which of the two alternatives will give them a better financial return from their grievance. 
 So United Future is concerned about this type of legislation and that is why we are voting against this whole bill. As members have heard there are many many areas in this particular legislation that we are concerned about. As sensible as it is to have a grievance process it does concern us when there start to be multiple choices. What will the poor employer have to do? Will the employer have to get advice or to do studies to find out which is the best angle or the best alternative? We have serious concerns about whether this process will work. 
United Future is voting against this legislation in its entirety. [ 
Interruption 
] My colleagues on the other side of the Chamber seem to have been really enlightened by that. I do not know whether they have really taken as long as this in the debating process—I am talking about Part 4—to come to an understanding of what United Future’s position is. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You’re either for or against it! 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I say to Mr Prebble that United Future is definitely against it and it is voting against this legislation. Many clauses in Part 4 do greatly concern us. We are in agreement with the other members of this Parliament who have been speaking against this part. We confirm that their comments have been very serious. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour took to heart the seriousness of their comments on this part but I would like to confirm those comments and say that I think those members’ concerns are very relevant. I would encourage the Minister to take the time to study the amendments and see what good sensible amendments they are. United Future is very concerned about this particular part and we will not be supporting it. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 4 of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill. I note that the Minister of Labour got to his feet and took a call regarding this part and I commend him for that. I struggle to find myself in agreement with anything that the Minister had to say. He stressed in his call that employment relations were all about balance. Well I agree with that—employment relations are all about balance. But then he lost me because nothing in this part is about balance at all. I find myself agreeing with the ACT member in that there is nothing in Part 4 that I agree with. In fact I am strongly opposed to what is being suggested here. 
Of course we are shaped by our experiences. I will relate to the Committee an experience I had with this type of legislation that explains why I am so strongly opposed to it. Back in the early 1990s I was working for a large financial institution in this country. We had a female employee who was working for the bank’s legal department. She was a lawyer of course. 
Judith Collins 
: She couldn’t have been a real one! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I suspect she might not have been too flash. But putting that aside the position as the head of our legal department became available. Those who applied went through an approved selection technique called targeted selection interviewing. The woman in question did not get the position. Even though every candidate had the same treatment and the cream floated to the top she took an action against the institution claiming that she had been discriminated against. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Did she have a form? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well she did not have very good form. That was the problem. 
Progress reported.