Brown Peter: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16137] 
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.