Sowry Roger: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Sowry Roger: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15840] 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take deep offence at that member’s comment and I require it to be withdrawn and apologised for. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has taken offence under Standing Order 116. He is entitled to do so. The member will withdraw. 
Dianne Yates 
: I said he was ignorant. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will withdraw. 
Dianne Yates 
: I withdraw. I said he was ignorant. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not refer to the comment she made. She must stand and withdraw the comment. 
Dianne Yates 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that if I called the honourable member an “old cow” you would require me to withdraw. The member used a phrase “ignorant pig”. I find that—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: No she didn’t—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer members to Standing Order 84(3). 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Unless the senior Government whip is going to take her pills she should be quiet. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is out of order. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I heard the member; I took deep offence at what she said. I require her to withdraw and apologise. 
Dianne Yates 
: I will withdraw if the member thought I said that but I did not say it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The issue has now been dealt with. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I was sitting—[ 
Interruption 
] Can we have silence during a point of order? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is this a point of order? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Yes it is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
:The issue has already been dealt with. I thought the member was seeking the call. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I am seeking a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The issue has already been dealt with. The member has withdrawn and there the matter rests. 
JILL PETTIS 
: That member Roger Sowry does not need to worry about—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member for Wellington Central called a comment across the House that I take offence at. I require it to be withdrawn. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I never heard anything but I was somewhat distracted at the time. If the member made an offensive comment the member will know that she has done that. Offence has been taken under Standing Order 116. I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I withdraw. 
JILL PETTIS 
: That member Roger Sowry does not have to worry about going near any freezing works because he is already dog tucker. He has been rejected four times by the electorate of Otaki that he once represented and Darren Hughes on our side of the House has got that seat sewn up. He will probably hold it for as long as Jonathan Hunt has represented his seat in this House. 
The speeches from the National Party tonight have been like the year 2000 revisited when the Employment Relations Bill was introduced by this Labour-led Government with all those dire predictions of doom and gloom and the earth going to end as we knew it and with National members running around like Chicken Little saying the sky was going to fall in. None of it has come to pass at all and in fact their own leader who pops in here from time to time—40 minutes today probably on overtime— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If it is in order to refer to the fact—and the member should get her facts right—of the over 1½ hours the National Leader was here she should talk about the half hour the Prime Minister spent here. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I remind members that under Speaker’s ruling 23/7 it is inappropriate to refer to the absence of members. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I was not referring to the member’s absence; I was referring to his presence—but never mind. I think this is delightful. I love these kinds of debates because boy does it separate us from them! I love it when we have debates about industrial relations because I am so proud to be a member of the Labour Party and the Labour Government. At times like this I just love it! 
I enjoy going to workplaces and talking about the industrial relations policies that have enabled people to be paid a decent wage. Who do those members over there think negotiated their wage increases for them? Did they do it themselves when they were 18 19 or even 30 and not in a position of power on the workplace floor? Do they think that their charm and good looks—and I am being extremely generous here when I say that but I am prepared to be generous—got them their wage increases? I do not think so. It is trade unions that have negotiated and won wage increases for the average New Zealander. I bet not one of those people over there said to their bosses when a pay increase had been won: “Oh sir take it back; I don’t want it.” How many of those members over there have ever put up their hand to an employer and said: “Oh please sir I don’t want it.”? Tito tito—that is all I can say. 
Any claims by those members over there that these amendments are about compulsory unionism shows that they had better enrol for a literacy course because they have clearly never read the amendment bill—never read it at all. All the scare tactics—actually they are pretty pathetic and weak—are not as good as they used to be from the National Government. 
Just as a little aside I say that if my grandfather who I am proud to say was a “red fed” was reincarnated and saw the National Party over there today and compared it to the National Party that he fought against to the marrow of his bones every day of his adult life he would not believe what was happening. He would say to me his granddaughter: “You’re not telling the truth. It can’t be the National Party.” because he fought every single living moment of his day for workers’ rights. 
The National Party was a strong powerful force when I was growing up. In fact most of my childhood was spent under National Government figures and we were scared of them. When we look at how powerful the National Party was during my childhood and my youth and then look at it today we see that it is just a pathetic shell. The claims that National are making today about this Employment Relations Law Reform Bill have absolutely no substance at all. National members would not have a clue about workers’ history in this country because they are not in the least bit interested. 
To say that this legislation will affect productivity and the economy of this country is to absolutely ignore the current situation. Members should read their papers. We get them delivered free to our offices every morning. They should read what the reports from the World Bank say about how New Zealand’s labour laws are more flexible than those of comparable countries. 
 They should read what the report:  
New Zealand - Australia Economic Interdependence 
 found. It found that Australian firms just across the ditch saw New Zealand as more flexible and innovative than Australia and it is stated in other reports that New Zealand is the easiest country in the world in which to do business. 
The vast majority of employers in this country are fair and want a good working arrangement for their staff. We have a labour and a skills shortage in this country because that lot over there failed to plan failed to train and failed to upskill workers. They know that but they will not admit it. We cannot afford as a country to go back to the 1990s and those draconian dinosaur-like policies that they would like—but fortunately will not have the opportunity—to foist upon this country. This is a good progressive bill and the House should support it.