Street Maryan: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Street Maryan: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:668;Page:15400] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the Committee stage of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). Albeit I am addressing myself to clauses in Part 1 I will go back to some basic points on industrial relations. 
At the end of 2008 this country voted for a change of Government. People voted for a change of Government on the basis that some of the best things that the previous Labour Government did in this country in our 9 years in office would be retained by the incoming National Government according to the party’s promises on the hustings. In this legislation and in every move on industrial law that National has made since it came into office we have a concerted attack a concerted chipping away at the rights of the worker. Even more than that it has been undermining the way of organising and running a society. 
I will take a moment to move back from some of the specifics of Part 1 to talk about some of the principles behind an approach to industrial relations. The previous Labour Government was intent on developing promoting and sustaining a tripartite approach to industrial relations—and not just industrial relations but promoting and underpinning an inclusive approach to all of the significant social questions and economic questions before the country. We engaged with Business New Zealand we engaged with small businesses and in fact we set up the Small Business Advisory Group. We engaged with the Council of Trade Unions and those unions that are not affiliated with the Council of Trade Unions but predominantly with the Council of Trade Unions as the peak body representing the largest number of workers in this country. We began to build and develop a very stable and very sound structure and basis for an inclusive society. 
That is the kind of industrial relations that I aspire to and that I practised in my time as an industrial relations practitioner both as a union official and as an employer representative—an employment relations manager. 
That kind of approach to industrial relations is the only kind of approach that will provide stability and stability is important for workers. Stability is important because workers need the security of a job. They need to know that their job is secure and they need to know that the conditions they are working under on which they budget from week to week will remain the same or improve. The conditions should not be diminished or cut away so that suddenly people find themselves with less money every fortnight to pay the mortgage than they had before rather than more money as we would all like the situation to be. Stability is important for employers. Employers need to know they have a stable regime and a stable regulatory structure around them in order to plan their operations. 
This debate is not about being anti-employer; I think Mr Woodhouse was keen to paint Labour that way earlier in the debate. It is certainly about being pro-worker. But more than anything it is about wanting in New Zealand an industrial relations framework that provides the greatest stability for the greatest number and for the greatest good. This legislation does not do that. This legislation diminishes chips away and erodes workers’ conditions and workers’ rights in a way that we have not seen since the 1990s. We hoped we had put the years of the 1990s behind us. It is due to the short-sightedness malevolence or perhaps ignorance of the Minister of Labour that there is no understanding of the impact of this steady erosion of workers’ rights. Perhaps it is simply an ideological difference that is to be pursued at all costs which prevents this Minister from seeing the big picture around industrial relations. 
This kind of legislative change is not needed in order for industrial relations to proceed smoothly cooperatively and in a negotiated way to the benefit of all players. I would like the National Party to identify where the drivers for these moves are coming from. Where are these drivers coming from? Business New Zealand has said that it does not need a number of measures in this legislation; it is OK without them. Business New Zealand has said that it is OK without the requirement of medical notes or some kind of note from mother for absences. It is OK with that. It has good systems going and it does not need this kind of intervention. Business New Zealand has said that the extension of the 90-day trial period to all workplaces in New Zealand is not necessary in its industries because it has a reasonably good arrangement with its unions. It does not have a problem with giving unions access to workers because it has a good cooperative relationship. It is not always smooth but it has a fundamentally respectful relationship with the unions that represent its workers. It has no problem with giving unions that access. 
So where have these drivers come from? This is an ideological bombardment from the National Party which is reverting to type. But I suggest that even some of its most strident supporters do not require some of this legislation. I ask National to look again at what it is doing with this erosion of workers’ rights. It is destabilising industrial relations. It will only cause a swing back when Labour comes back into Government. When we do that— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That ain’t going to happen in a hurry. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: —next year I say to Mr Henare—the employers will not be grateful to National for having this flip-flop situation which was characteristic of the 1970s the 1980s and the 1990s. We were growing out of that kind of childishness and I wish National would grow out of it also. 
Our vision on this side of the Chamber is for a much more stable a much more cooperative and a much more respectful balance in industrial relations than this legislation provides. This legislation provokes unrest it provokes industrial action it provokes stoppages it provokes downtime it provokes a loss of income and it provokes a diminishing of margins for employers. The National Government has only itself to blame if it thinks that some of the people it takes to be National supporters will thank the Government for this. 
This is no way to run a country. This is no way to run the most important powerhouse of this country. In this legislation the Government is simply saying that cooperative grown-up respectful relationships between employers and unions and between industry and peak bodies like the Council of Trade Unions are not required are not necessary and are out of date. National will rue that day. 
This bill will provoke unrest. It has already been seen to provoke unrest and that is no way to run a country. If this Government had half a plan about the economic future of this country this legislation would not be before us now because it simply takes us backwards. It does not advance anybody. It certainly does not advance workers. It diminishes workers’ rights and improves nobody.