Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16157] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I note that the Minister took an extensive call and raised a number of issues that do need discussion and comment. I would like to think that members on this side of the House would have ample opportunity to discuss those issues because it is a practice that once a Minister takes a call there is ample discussion. I know that a number of my colleagues will be seeking those kinds of opportunities. 
The issue raised by the Minister sounded superficially attractive. He put it forward as an advance I guess on the provisions of the Employment Relations Act. However he claims that the Employment Relations Act went too far and in contrast the Employment Contracts Act was a bit restrictive but he has failed to recognise that the disputes in question are employment disputes. That is the first fundamental point. They are employment disputes. Thus one would expect for the sake of consistency in the way in which decisions are made that that would be the track that one would go down. 
The Government has made much play about the mediation processes authority processes and the expertise of the Employment Court with its four judges all of whom have built up expertise. That is well acknowledged. I would admit that that is one part of the Employment Relations Act that works reasonably effectively. Our dispute with the Employment Relations Act as we have consistently maintained is all of the deeply entrenched union preferences. As a Government we would strip out those preferences. 
 But the dispute resolution procedures are effective and that is widely recognised. Because they are effective they should be the choice. That is what National believes. So rather than still providing this dual-track process as the Minister continues to do we would say that employment disputes should be going through the systems that are well set up for them and in which people have built up expertise. Otherwise we get inconsistency. And surely in matters of the development of the law consistency is what is desired. I have heard numerous contributions from the Minister of Finance who talked about the importance of our courts being consistent—it has been quite controversial in fact—and the role of Parliament relative to the courts. We want consistency. Therefore we want disputes to go through the provisions of the Employment Relations Act mediation authority and ultimately the Employment Court. 
Another point I will mention very briefly is that section 64 of the principal Act is repealed by clause 99. People will ask what that is about. It is actually about employment agreements. It refers back to Part 1. That is typical of this legislation. It is very complex. One has to read Part 4 together with Part 1. Clause 21 in Part 1 has in it some very complex and much more demanding provisions about what employers have to do to provide employment agreements and so on and so forth. It is about the employer’s obligations in respect of new employees who are not members of a union. It loads the dice against people who choose not to be union members. So whilst it looks innocent it is not; and it is wrong that it is in Part 4. The only way we can effectively debate this clause is by referring back to Part 1. 
That shows the huge deficiencies in the way this bill is structured. The Government has deliberately tried to foreclose debate by putting 117 clauses into a single part knowing full well that that would limit the debate. It is fundamentally wrong. It is a practice the Government is developing more and more and it is dangerous for the health of our democracy. Ironically it did not get it right when one thinks about it because this provision should probably have been in Part 1.