Mitchell Clayton: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Clayton: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 30 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:448. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First):Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. On behalf of New Zealand First I would like to rise and speak against this Employment Relations Amendment Bill in its third reading. But I have to say before I get under way that it is great to be on the benches on this side fighting with passion and seeing the passion that is coming from this side opposing this bill. It is great to be alongside common-sense - thinking people.I start by acknowledging the honourable Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety Michael Woodhouse for his comments in the Committee last Wednesday evening 22 October after we came back from our nightly scheduled meal break. I felt that the Minister’s comments in relation to his own personal experience in dealing with his staff in the past were to say the least commendable particularly as he outlined the importance of good employer-employee relations and open communications. I would like to add to the honourable Minister’s comments by saying that I too along with the majority of employers around New Zealand have an excellent employer-employee relationship with staff which is achieved by understanding the needs of workers. These employment needs include job stability and good wages all wrapped up in a safe and harmonious workplace. On the other hand it is also important for employees to understand the needs and requirements of employers which include workers being honest flexible productive and above all skilled. When both needs are balanced business and industry will be able to flourish in this country.However history has shown us that without solid robust legislation employees can be taken advantage of by employers trying to get more than their fair and reasonable entitlement. The Employment Relations Act is designed to protect the very people affected by the worst of those employers who would seek to take advantage of workers. A good example of this kind of employee exploitation was seen most recently in a story that was uncovered by New Zealand First which saw kiwifruit workers in Tauranga being paid lower than the minimum wage not being given regular breaks and expected and forced to work in appalling conditions. These employers used and abused their employees and had little or no regard for their legal and moral obligation to ensure their workers were looked after. This legislation would be going a long way towards aiding and abetting those rogue employers. We need to work towards good solid legislation that gives a balanced perspective protecting workers and giving the employers the tools to ensure good working relationships are maintained. This balance needs to make sure that workers’ rights are protected whilst ensuring that employers are not being restricted by inflexible employment legislation. “Balance” is the key word here.This newly introduced Employment Relations Amendment Bill will go a long way towards undermining the rights of workers. In 2010 National stated that statutory rest and meal breaks were added to the Employment Relations Act under the previous administration and came into effect on 1 April 2009. National supported that legislation then as it gave statutory recognition to breaks reflecting standard practice across New Zealand. Now National is trying to reassure us that all workers will remain entitled to reasonable rest and meal breaks under this bill. We remain unconvinced of that. Supposed safeguards included in the proposed changes ignore the reality that in many workplaces those affected are unaware of or unable to assert their rights and will open themselves up to be marginalised in the workplace. In fact the Post Primary Teachers’ Association submission to the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill in December 2009 is of interest. It stated: “Prior to the introduction of the current legislation on meal and rest breaks the provision of such breaks for our members was largely dependent upon the good will of employers. Practice was variable. The lack of time available for rest and meal breaks was a frequent concern for many members. In a worst case example all of the staff in a north island school were required by the employer to be on duty at every break. Six of those teachers were diabetics who were having problems managing their health without adequate meal breaks and other employees were under significant stress from the regime.”The Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety recently commented that lack of job security reduces the willingness of workers to even raise health and safety concerns about breaks being restricted or not being available. We join the considerable concerns shown in the submission process that will impact on employees’ health and safety particularly when we consider some of New Zealand’s more hazardous occupations such as forestry work—which has been outlined earlier—and those of truck drivers port workers and meat processors to name but a few. Why we would allow employers and employees to be able to negotiate away their meal breaks is beyond me. Think of the huge risk that tired and weary truck drivers would pose on our roads. Think of the exponential increase in workplace accidents this would have on our forestry industry which is a trade that already has one of the highest accident and injury rates in this country. Imagine tired and hungry meat processors with their minds on their stomachs and not on their tools. All of these industries and many more will have increases in workplace accidents under this bill.We have no doubt this bill will negatively affect vulnerable workers families and their communities. There has not been a strong demand by employers or employees to introduce this new legislation so why is this Government seeking to fix something that is not broken? Why would this Government not take into account the public submission strongly opposing this bill? More recently we have just heard that over 51000 submissions have been brought forward in less than a week not to mention that the Minister considered 1750 unique submissions. Ninety-four percent of them were opposed and only 2 percent supported it. On top of this the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received 11908 form submissions all of which were opposed to the bill. No wonder we are having a low turnout in our voting. The bill was primarily supported by employer representative groups and individual employers. It was opposed strongly by individuals community groups unions and employee representative groups.I cannot understand this Government’s motivation to fast track this bill at all. I have to say that if this amendment was common sense and was designed for the betterment of all New Zealanders and not just the employers it would get the full support of New Zealand First but it does not. In fact it is far from common sense. That is the irony of common sense—it is not very common particularly in relation to this Employment Relations Amendment Bill. This bill takes away core values that hold our workforce together. It exposes the more vulnerable and has the potential to exploit our much needed and valued workers—employees who are the backbone of any successful business.New Zealand First is firmly committed to addressing the concerns of low-paid vulnerable workers. New Zealand First opposes this Employment Relations Amendment Bill on the grounds that it is unnecessary. It will undermine wage-fixing principles under New Zealand law and create conflict between employers and employees. I quote John Boyd Orr: “When the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century brought a rapid increase in wealth the demand of workers for a fair share of the wealth they were creating was conceded only after riots and strikes.” Is this what we want for the future of this country? We have a proud history of leading working conditions in this country and this bill would be a backwards step. I repeat: we believe that this bill is an unnecessary piece of legislation. It has the potential to create a hostile environment and actually negatively affect both workers and New Zealand businesses. We must oppose this bill. Thank you very much.