Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10579] 
6.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she stand by her statement that the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill she introduced last week represents “a good balance of practical and realistic measures that will strengthen the Act and further promote positive employment relationships”; if so why? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes—practical because it builds on the successes of the Act such as the Mediation Service and realistic because it recognises that employment relationships are about people working together to achieve common goals. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Given that the proposed changes overturn much of the current case law covering good-faith bargaining redundancies and dismissals how does she believe the bill will add value to employment relationships? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I do not accept the member’s contention that they overturn case law. In fact I refer him to the Baguley case and also to the INL case where the court has suggested clarifications that have been made in the legislation. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Employment Relations Act of 2000 succeeded in meeting its objectives? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: In large part it has achieved its objectives especially in promoting a cost-efficient peaceful resolution of disputes. It did however— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With all due respect to the questioner this question relates in only the vaguest way to the question first answered. The question that is set down as a primary question which the Opposition wants information on is about the amendment bill soon to come before the House. How can a diatribe on the agreed or otherwise success of the Employment Relations Act be included here? Surely it is a debating matter. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The principal question refers to strengthening the Act. The Act referred to is the Employment Relations Act. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My ruling on the point of order is that it is about how the principal Act is to be strengthened. The supplementary question was wide but it was within the scope of the original question. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I was saying in large part the Employment Relations Act did succeed in achieving its objectives. However it did not—and this addresses the amendment bill—address the issue of vulnerable employees which comprises the substantive changes in the employment relations amendment legislation. 
Peter Brown 
: If the Minister wants the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill to provide “a good balance of practical and realistic measures” which will “promote positive employment relationships” why does she not support a group of individuals—as opposed to a union—having the right to negotiate a collective agreement as is the case in Australia; is it because she believes New Zealanders are inferior? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Never and I think that is obvious—except on the rugby field of course. 
Opposition Members 
: Oh! 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Netball is another question of course. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We win the women’s rugby. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes we certainly win women’s rugby and netball. But the point is that the honourable member raises issues as to the organisation of employees and workplaces. Traditionally that has been done in the form of the legal notion of a union and there seems no point in changing that at this stage. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister assure nurses and other health workers that the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill will not prevent nursing and medical staff from taking industrial action next year in support of fair pay; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The purpose of the provision relating to the health sector was to ensure that patient and public safety is maintained. That was the objective during a strike or a lockout. It was not to prevent the strike or lockout itself but to look after patient safety. 
Paul Adams 
: How will the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill promote positive employment relationships when in certain circumstances employers taking over a business will have to inherit workers they do not want? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government considers that skilled employees are in fact an asset of the business and just as plant capital and goodwill are seen as assets so should employees be seen as assets. So we do not see that in this instance it will be a detriment. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How can the Minister describe the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill as “a good balance of practical and realistic measures” when 90 percent of private sector employees are not in a union and will be discriminated against because under the bill collective bargaining which can be done only by a union requires an employer to reach a settlement but with an individual contract which 90 percent of New Zealanders are in there is no such requirement—where is the balance in that? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The balance is that individuals have a choice as to whether they have a collective agreement or an individual agreement. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Will the Government be providing direction on the meaning of “fair and reasonable” in relation to dismissals including redundancies or is it now the Government’s intention that the courts be left to substitute their business judgment for that of business managers? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government has heard the request of employers not to have prescriptive legislation but to ensure it applies to their particular circumstances and that is what that provision is directed to take account of. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Is it the Government’s intention that employees be permitted to gather at any time with their union representative without fear of disciplinary action or deductions from pay thus enabling the potential disruption of business without reasonable cause; if not what limitations will be placed on those meetings under this new legislation? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The amendment does not change the existing provisions in the legislation. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is clearly an answer the Minister may wish to reconsider because there is a clause in the legislation that does exactly that—changes it. I see now that the Minister is acknowledging that. I wonder whether she will reconsider her answer. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It does not change the legislation. It clarifies that if a delegate—[ 
Interruption 
] I have said all along that this is an amendment about clarification and the clarification is that if a union official drops in to address an issue for an individual employee that visit is not considered to be one of the legitimate stopwork meetings in terms of the Act. Some employers have interpreted it that way. Therefore we needed clarification. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the Minister’s clarification of her original answer I wonder now whether she could address the question which was quite clear. It was: is it the Government’s intention that employees be permitted to gather at any time with their union representative without fear of disciplinary action or deductions from pay thus enabling the potential disruption of business without reasonable cause; if not what are the limitations? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Obviously not.