Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5303] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This bill is indeed Labour’s pay-off to its union funders. We have been hearing in this House—and in the last couple of hours in fact—a lot of accusations traded to and fro. Labour members seem to think that they can run this argument that National sells its policies to big business. That is the essence of their argument. Yet here today we are debating in the House real legislation that is a direct pay-off to Labour’s union mates. There is a word for that: some might say it is hypocrisy though I appreciate that that is a word I am not supposed to use. 
This is a classic case of legislation for money. If members opposite are offended by that they have only to look at their links with the unions. The Labour Party actually puts members into the House at the unions’ direction. Let us go through a few of the names. Darien Fenton was put in here by the Service and Food Workers Union last year. Sue Moroney was put in by the Nurses Organisation last year. Mark Gosche was an organiser in the union movement. Rick Barker was another organiser in the Service Workers Union. Ross Robertson was in a rather strange union—a freezing workers union. Paul Swain and the hapless Mr Phillip Field were put in by the union movement. 
Actually Mr Field needs to be worried—the people who put one in can take one out. What have we been reading in the paper today? Mr Little said his union would replace Mr Field. Did members note that it was not the Labour Party that said it would replace Mr Field; it was the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union. That is how close the relationship is. The union did not go through the pretence of saying that it thinks the Labour Party should replace Mr Field—no no it stripped away the pretence. What Mr Little actually said quoting him directly was: “We will replace him.” It is as simple as that. 
The Labour Party is in fact the trade union arm in Parliament. That is why we get legislation that represents solely the interests of trade unions. It is worth reflecting on the prayer we say in the House because that prayer says we should act without fear nor favour for anyone and for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Is this bill for the benefit of all New Zealanders? The answer is absolutely not. 
I did listen to the previous speaker the Minister of Labour—although I would have to say it was pretty boring—and the bill apart from being just a straight pay-off is also economically bankrupt. I want to take the House through that proposition. The Minister of Labour in essence says that we cannot have productivity gains in this industry because people have to be offered the same terms and conditions. She also said that it has been a terrible thing that people have been expected to clean more premises more quickly and more efficiently. We have to ask ourselves whether this is the same Minister and the same Government that keep talking about increasing productivity. Does she understand what productivity is actually about? Productivity is about doing more work in the same time. I know that Mr Assistant Speaker will understand this because it is an interest of his. It is not a question of slave wage conditions or anything like that. 
Increases in productivity are about three fundamental things. The first is extra capital going into the business which means more sophisticated more advanced equipment. It means better management practices. In truth in many cases it will be clear from an examination of a work practice or a worksite that if workers did it a different way they would be able to do maybe 30 percent more work. Usually the people best able to see that are new players in the business because that is where the innovative ideas and imagination come from. So productivity increases are also about more effective management techniques. Finally the third component to that is a more highly skilled workforce. That again means more skills and more efficiency—doing more work in the same time. 
If we say that it is a terrible thing that people are required to do more work in the same time it is kind of like saying: “Let’s go back to the pick and shovel to build our roads and let’s see how long that will take.” It is remarkable. I look around Auckland and I acknowledge that quite a few roads are being built. There are actually not a lot of people doing that. Some of the reasons why are more machinery and more advanced management systems. If we look at the old photographs we see that worksites are completely covered with people and the work probably took longer. 
The Government’s approach to this is fundamentally flawed because it is standing in the way of innovation. It is forcing new firms to take on people on the same terms same conditions and same work practices as previously. That is what “conditions” actually means—the same work practices as previously. One cannot get more cleaning done as in this instance if that is the approach. During the submission period a number of submitters complained about the fact that they now had to clean more rooms and so forth than previously. They went back over 5 years 10 years 15 years and so forth. I say to those submitters—and I said it at the time—in truth work changes. We cannot expect to do today what we did 20 years ago. We cannot expect to have the same work practices. That is exactly what the reforms of the last 20 years were all about. It was all about getting a more efficient faster-growing economy with higher productivity. 
I now want to turn to the issue of the smaller employer and I am sure that other members will see this point. National through Mr David Bennett put forward an amendment to this provision and we expected that New Zealand First would vote for it because it always says that it is the friend of small business. 
Paula Bennett 
: They’re a lackey. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well there it is. My colleague speaks the truth of this today. The leadership of that party are showing themselves to be lackeys. That is not a good space for New Zealand First to be in and it does not want to stay there if its members want to be back here in 2008. 
Labour and New Zealand First have denied the opportunity for small businesses with 10 employees or fewer to provide employment to their families by tendering for work. It is completely impractical for a small employer whose team is intended to do the work to take on all of the staff of the previous team. If small employers are loaded up with redundancy costs they are cut out from having the ability even to tender for the work. That is fundamentally flawed. It is obviously true across the board but it is particularly true of small business. 
National will be voting against this bill. We think it is economically flawed for the reasons I have indicated. More seriously though we are fundamentally opposed to legislation that is a naked pay-off to special interests. This Parliament is not supposed to be under the control of outside interests but that looks to be exactly the case in this situation. For that reason the bill is fundamentally wrong.