Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18192. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take another call on the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. The comments of Mr Brown were interesting. He said that the bill was not contentious and in a sense he was right. The bill was not contentious but it certainly is now in relation to KiwiSaver. I still think that the Supplementary Order Paper in relation to KiwiSaver is sneaky and I want to address that point for a moment.  
National will be opposing the KiwiSaver amendment to the bill. We will be voting for the bill because we do believe in fairness in the workplace and we do believe that workers are entitled to meal breaks and rest breaks. We think it is good employment practice also to provide breastfeeding facilities and breaks where reasonable and practicable. National does believe in fairness in the workplace.  
Employers should be able to treat employees fairly regardless of their private and personal savings decisions. Why should it be unlawful to offer employees different salary packages because they are or are not members of KiwiSaver? Why should one employee be treated less favourably than another merely because that employee has made a different private savings decision? It is a ridiculous approach for introducing important legislation to the House.  
The original bill has gone through a proper consultation process. Interested parties have had a chance to work through the issues it has raised. It has come out of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee with amendments and now we have this last minute Supplementary Order Paper that gives the general public absolutely no opportunity to consider this change to the KiwiSaver scheme or to make submissions on it. This KiwiSaver amendment is actually another case of bad faith from this Government. This Government touts good faith all the time yet this is a perfect example of bad faith. The Government specifically allowed for employers to include employee KiwiSaver contributions as part of its total remuneration in the original KiwiSaver. Now it is reversing its position.  
This amendment will introduce complex and costly uncertainties into the planning of employers. They cannot be sure how much their wage bill is going to be in any given year and leaving well alone would at least allow some certainty to employers who in general have made a good fist of the introduction of KiwiSaver. Their good faith should be reciprocated.  
It is worth noting that it is actually unlawful now anyway for an employer to do what the Minister alleges—that is to deduct the employer contribution from employees without first giving them a pay increase of at least that amount. It is unlawful now. Why do we need this amendment? Currently section 101B of the KiwiSaver Act makes it quite clear that after 13 December 2007 the question of whether compulsory employer contributions are in addition to current remuneration or can be offset in part against pay rises is subject to mutual agreement between employers and employees. Good faith is a requirement. This Government has exhibited bad faith.  
That provision was specifically inserted at the time by Government members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. At the time Michael Cullen said: “The Government expects that the phase-in of compulsory matching employer contributions will be taken into account in wage and salary bargaining.” That is what he said. The Government was therefore quite comfortable that there would be trade offs between pay rises and KiwiSaver contributions and now without consultation without allowing the submission process and without allowing the select process the Government has U-turned and reversed its position.  
This Government claims that this move will genuinely benefit people who are in the KiwiSaver scheme but if one looks at it the other way one sees that it will harm people who are not in KiwiSaver. People who can afford to save will benefit. People who cannot afford to save and enter into the KiwiSaver scheme will not be able to benefit.  
Employment laws should be based on what is fair. There should be a balance of what is fair in the circumstances to both employees and employers. Employment laws need to help both employers and employees control their own destinies as far as possible. This Supplementary Order Paper does not do that and as the Hon Peter Dunne has aptly stated the irony of this amendment is that it will disadvantage lower-paid workers and elderly workers—exactly the people whom Labour claims to represent. National will be opposing this Supplementary Order Paper but we reiterate that we are voting in favour of the fairness of the meal breaks portion of the bill.