Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:668;Page:15405] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 At this stage I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the set of amendments in my name that the Committee will work through because we have not had very much reaction from the Government in respect of them. I turn in particular to those to do with union access and the suggestions that have been made there. One of them makes it clear that access cannot be denied if it is required for the conducting of a secret ballot. We have had some legislation that is working its way through the House in the name of Tau Henare—unnecessary legislation it is fair to say—which has a possibility of being passed that requires a secret ballot. The member knows that for the secret ballots that he is now requiring to be held—which are mainly held anyway—there is a need for union access in order to conduct those ballots. What we want to be careful of are employers who unreasonably deny access in order to avoid the ballot in order to avoid a strike. I think what would probably happen in most workplaces would be that employees would walk off the job and have their ballot off the job if that occurred. I think what we need to make clear in the legislation is that people should act reasonably and work their way forward. 
There is another amendment that goes to the question that was raised by my colleague Lynne Pillay. It is our suggestion that the reason for denying access must be given on the same day as access is denied. I do not think that is an unreasonable approach. If someone is saying “No you can’t come in.” then asking why at the same time is not unreasonable. Most employers are bright enough: if it is a genuine reason and if they genuinely hold a particular view as to why now is inappropriate for unions to come in or even later in the day then I think it behoves them to indicate the reason for that to the union officials concerned. 
There are a series of other amendments here. One of them is around communication during collective bargaining. The suggestion here is that we effectively take out clause 9. One of the problems with the approach that this Government has taken under the very poor drafting leadership of the Attorney-General is the massive use of parts. In this case there is one substantive part in what is effectively a consequential part or a very small part. What would previously happen is that individual issues would be identified and one could vote against clauses. A bill as short as this would have under quality drafting with someone with some integrity leading the drafting process been drafted such that it was taken clause by clause because although it is a bill of massive importance it is not a bill of massive size or massive numbers of clauses so it should have been taken clause by clause. 
That would have been an opportunity for members to vote No just on clause 9. So the objective here is to take that clause out of the bill and in that way maintain the status quo around collective bargaining. The change proposed in the bill appears to be driven by a misunderstanding of the current legal positions. Again with the quality of legal drafting that we have from the Attorney-General with his very poor leadership I am not surprised that there is a misunderstanding in this area. 
Some other amendments go to the non-denial of access on harassment or discrimination matters and there could be a matter where a union official needs to get into a workplace immediately because there is a current case of discrimination or harassment. Just looking around I see a couple of members opposite who have done constituency work in their time. Most people who have done constituency work know that every now and again one gets a case where one has some absolutely outrageous harassment of individuals. To be fair it is generally in the case of small employers and I want to say that it is too often the case that new New Zealanders are involved either as the people being harassed or the people who are doing the harassing. 
But some things that occur within workplaces are just absolutely unacceptable in our society. Some of these reach court but a lot do not because quite often in sexual harassment cases the woman—and it is just about always a woman—who is harassed takes a decision that she does not want to put herself through what is effectively a second trial. The matters often do not go to the police. But the immediate solution the way of protecting the woman concerned is very often through the intervention of a union official who comes in and supports and helps to isolate and get some barriers up and makes it clear to the employer that harassment cannot continue. I ask why a woman who is being harassed often sexually harassed by an employer should have to wait until the day after tomorrow. If the employer does not agree it could be 2 days before he gives a reason for not agreeing for someone to come in. 
In modern society that situation is unacceptable. However it is consistent with the lack of rights of and respect for individuals that come from this Government. I think it is fair to say that Jim Bolger was not the best Minister of Labour but he believed in the dignity of work and the rights of workers and in human rights generally. Now there is really no one in the Government who protects human rights. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act more or less might as well be gone given the approach that is taken. There is not a Minister who is prepared to within Cabinet or within Parliament stand up for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and for the rights of individual Kiwis. We have come to this and it is so sad: the Attorney-General is the Minister in the chair as we legislate away the rights of someone who is being sexually abused and sexually harassed to call in a union official. The Attorney-General of New Zealand who is meant to stand up for those rights is sitting here absolutely numb in his mouth. It is an improvement on his general condition but he is sitting there. 
I say to the ACT Party that it is about time it took a call on this matter too. That party has generally stood up for individual rights in New Zealand—the individual right to make a phone call and ask someone to visit. What do we have here? We have the ACT Party sitting. There is not a mumble not a murmur not a word from the ACT Party about the individual rights of a worker to call on their representative. We do not agree on lots of things to do with industrial legislation but I thought one of the things ACT would have the backbone to stand up for was the right of an individual to make a phone call and to have a meeting. What do we have? Not a word from ACT. It is sitting there a supplicant to the National Party.