Ross Jami-Lee: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14687. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I moveThat the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill.Before I talk about this bill I just want to take an opportunity to acknowledge the contribution made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters during that last debate. I did not get an opportunity to participate in the fun. My colleagues will probably frown at me over this but whatever you want to say about Winston Peters he at least knows what he believes in he knows what he stands for and he comes here to the House and defends it. So good on him. My colleagues will probably frown at me for that comment but I did not get the opportunity to participate in the fun earlier in the night.On this bill the National Party has a strong tradition of supporting employment relations policies that bring greater fairness freedom and flexibility to the employment relations framework. [Interruption] You can hear the union lackeys across the road shouting and screaming because that is all they are here for. But this is what the National Party believes in. It is in exactly that same vein that I give this speech and support this bill here in the House today. A flexible and fair labour market is critical for building a stronger and more competitive economy and creating jobs. If the Opposition actually cared about workers and cared about jobs then it would be supporting this billbecause it is absolutely pro-worker. A fair and flexible labour market helps to increase wages and encourage innovation. It does not matter how much the Opposition shouts about it; that is the absolute truth.This bill is very simple. It has only one substantive clause. Clause 4 repeals the current section 97 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Section 97 as it stands is a heavy-handed piece of law which creates an imbalance by providing unions with a significant legislative advantage during negotiations. If this bill successfully navigates its way through the parliamentary process it will bring a better balance to employment relations law in New Zealand. It will bring a better balance to ensure that those who wish to work are actually able to do that. Those who wish to offer their labour in the employ of an organisation—simply trying to make ends meet and make a business work—would be able to do so. There are some very real—Andrew Little: What about those who want to get wages and want to negotiate?JAMI-LEE ROSS: Andrew Little over there failed so many times to win a seat. All he is good for is coming here to yell and scream on behalf of the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union which he was here to represent. He did not do a particularly good job when he was the union’s president so he comes here to yell and scream.There are some real reasons why section 97 of the Employment Relations Act is a bad piece of law. Section 97 removed the right for employers to bring in outside labour including volunteers during strikes or lockouts to maintain business continuity. It allowed unions to hold employers to ransom by being able to make unreasonable demands knowing that if they strike an employer would struggle to keep their operations running. This particularly affects the primary production industry because reduced or no production in a factory could mean millions of dollars a day in lost or wasted products. The restrictions of section 97 can lead to considerable lost productivity an increased risk of protracted disputes and considerable impact on the financial position of a business and its employees. It also removed the right for employers to test the market to determine whether a union’s demands are even fair or reasonable. Ultimately though section 97 moved the balance too far in favour of unions and employees. It introduced a law that even competitors in other countries do not have to comply with.Removing the current restrictions placed on employers preventing them from engaging temporary employees will allow an organisation to maintain business continuity and avoid costly drawn-out industrial action. But more important if a willing worker wants to work during a strike this removal of section 97 would give them the freedom to choose to do that if they wanted to. It is a freedom that this House should be supporting. I realise that it might be a foreign concept to our friends in the Labour Party but if a willing worker and a willing employer want to enter into an agreement—an employment relationship—they should be able to do so. At the moment section 97 restricts an employee and an employer from doing that during a strike. The current law does not allow someone to choose to work during a strike unless they were employed prior to the strike commencing.This is not a new concept. This is not something that was dreamed up recently—you know a couple of days ago—or anything like that. Actually allowing people who want to work during a strike was always an option under New Zealand law except for the past 12 years. Although New Zealanders have had industrial relations legislation for over 100 years there has never been an equivalent to section 97 including laws passed by the first the second the third and the fourth Labour Governments. Those four Labour Governments never saw fit to pass such a heavy-handed law. It was not until the fifth Labour Government—heavily influenced by the unions heavily influenced bypeople shouting and screaming like Andrew Little—that such a heavy-handed piece of legislation was passed. It was a substantial change to New Zealand’s labour laws. It was very much a change that was ideological and union-driven. Until 2000 employers always had the right to engage temporary replacement labour during strikes. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!JAMI-LEE ROSS: They do not like hearing the truth Mr Assistant Speaker but that is the fact of the situation. I am sure that Labour will try to spin it a certain way but the reality is that the people most affected by section 97 are those who want to work those who want to offer their services during a strike. They are the ones who should be given the flexibility to choose to work if they want to. Low-paid employees are the people who are the most in need of regular earnings. If a small change to the Employment Relations Act means that the likelihood of strike action or long-drawn-out strikes is reduced then we are doing a huge amount to help those people the lowest-paid workers because they will be able to keep working if they want to.I also think it is worth remembering that the number of union members in this country who benefit from the protections of section 97 is very low. Union membership in the private sector currently sits at about 8 to 9 percent. They are the only workers who benefit from section 97. Given that only a union may negotiate a collective agreement and only during the negotiations for a collective agreement can a strike take place the protections of section 97 are there for only a small minority. The other 90 percent of workers in the private sector who are not union members are restricted and have their rights taken away from them if they want to work during a strike.Andrew Little: Their wages are going down.JAMI-LEE ROSS: That is the problem Opposition members. The problem is that section 97 which you were defending so heavily actually restricts the ability for people who want to work to be able to take that option to do so.Dr Rajen Prasad: That’s a very simple argument.JAMI-LEE ROSS: The arguments put forward by Labour and the left in the lead-up to this debate have been very inaccurate and bordering on scaremongering. Calling it anti-worker calling it the “Scab Bill” as has been the case is just demeaning of hard-working New Zealanders. It does nothing but paint the Opposition as ideological and unreasonable. What is unreasonable about allowing people to choose to work if they want to? Nothing is unreasonable about it.During the debate on the Employment Relations Bill in 2000 a number of members highlighted the problems that they saw would be created by this provision. I think Peter Brown of New Zealand First actually summed it up the best when he said that section 97 “has the potential for a few employees to in some circumstances hold the employer the industry and sometimes the country to ransom until their demands are met.” I think Mr Brown put it so very well when he was debating the legislation. There are real examples of this happening across the country—real examples where workers are not able to work if they want to. I do not want to go into individual disputes because that means we just end up debating the merits of the different negotiations.Andrew Little: Because you haven’t got any examples.JAMI-LEE ROSS: But there are real examples where an employee and an employer want to have people working but simply are not able to do that. There are real examples where negotiations have led to a situation where long-drawn-out strikes have led to a huge amount of lost productivity a huge amount of inaction in a business and that affects thousands and thousands of people. It is not just the people who are on strike. It is not just the shareholders of an organisation who are affected. Anyone who has any sort of relationship with an organisation—whether it be family members or whether itbe other people who get their goods and services through a business—they are all impacted by a long-drawn-out strike. If we can have a change to the legislation that reduces the likelihood of long-drawn-out strikes that means people can work if they want to and that means that businesses can continue to be productive and keep their businesses going if they want to then that can only be good for New Zealand and can only be good for workers. If the Opposition cared about jobs if it cared about the economy it would be supporting this bill.