Smith Lockwood: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16072] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 If this was not such a serious piece of legislation I could almost feel sorry for the Minister in the chair the Hon Paul Swain because he got the hospital pass. Helen Clark had to get rid of Margaret Wilson out of this role because whenever she turned up the blood pressure of every managing director went up a few notches. So the Minister in the chair got the hospital pass. He does not believe in this stuff. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Yes he does; that’s the problem. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I do not think he does for 1 minute. He does not believe in it. He and the right faction in Labour do not believe in all this junk. But he got rolled. I know he went to Cabinet to try to get some of this changed. 
John Key 
: “Swainy and the boys”! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Yes “Swainy and the boys”. They rolled him. As there are members of the Exclusive Brethren here in the gallery tonight I want to make it clear that National likewise respects their conscientious objection to some of the provisions in this legislation and will also support the amendment to provide for that deeply held belief. 
I want to focus on clause 30 in particular—the bit about the continuity of employment if an employer’s business is restructured. We have just heard the Minister in the chair say that in 2000 when the Employment Relations Bill was first in front of this Parliament there was a hue and cry and outrage about how it was going to be the end of the world. However he did not tell the Committee just now that one of the reasons the outrage died a little was that one of the most controversial clauses in the Employment Relations Bill—clause 66 on the transfer of employment on the restructuring of businesses was dropped by the Government under extremely controversial circumstances. It damn near brought the Labour Government down. 
I was at the select committee when that clause was abandoned. Willie Jackson had to be nobbled and a deal was done with Sue Bradford to shut her up. We know what went on then. I can even tell the Committee what day it was: 6 July 2000. It was 4.30 in the afternoon when Willie Jackson was nobbled when a deal had to be done with Sue Bradford and when the Government backed down on the continuity of employment issue. Now the Government’s union mates have come back and said: “Hang on this isn’t good enough. We want our pound of flesh on this issue.” Labour has rolled over and kowtowed to the union movement and now clause 30 of this bill is inserting new part 6A into the Employment Relations Act. 
I ask the Minister this: how many employers who are not huge employers have full-time legal experts to handle their employment relations? How many employers will be able to conduct their businesses without specialist advice on this law? I do not believe that modest employers in New Zealand will be able to sort out the detail of this bill on their own. There is no way that they can and they will have to seek specialist advice so often. That will add compliance costs to the running of businesses—big-time compliance costs. I know from employers in my electorate that at the moment they struggle to comply with the Employment Relations Act. Most do not comply with it. This legislation adds huge complexity to it. I would like the Minister to say whether he seriously believes that small to medium sized employers will be able to conduct their businesses without specialist advice and without having to pay for specialist advice on these employment law matters. They are hugely complex. If people want to sell their businesses what will they have to do to make sure they comply with this law? First they will have to seek specialist advice on all the steps employers have to take under New Part 6A—that is sections 69(A) 69(B) 69(C) 69(D) 69(E) 69(F) and so on. 
On this continuity of employment provision that the union movement has insisted Labour brings back into the legislation—a provision that Labour once had the good sense to dump because it knew it was bad law—I ask the Minister what studies the Government has done on the estimates of compliance costs. It is wrong to impose this huge additional law on our employers without some estimate of what complying with it will cost businesses. I am a registered employer and I cannot comply with it. How can I expect other ordinary employers to comply with it?