Sowry Roger: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Sowry Roger: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10667] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 That was a bit half-hearted I thought from the Minister. She is clearly under instructions to try to make sure that she does not advocate this bill too strongly. After all this is the Minister who had to pull these exact same provisions out of the Employment Relations Bill just 3 years ago. This is all the stuff that she tried to put into law during the winter of discontent and she had to pull it all out. But the unions have come knocking at the door and the Minister has done what she does best which is capitulate and say to them: “Yes I will have another go.” 
I want to say first of all that National totally opposes this bill. We will work with groups around New Zealand to motivate them to ensure that they fight this bill very very hard. I predict today that we will win and the Minister will lose. That is my prediction on what will occur because I know that the business community is very very angry at the lack of consultation on this legislation. I know that small businesses are only just coming to terms with the sort of answer that the Minister gave in the House today which is basically that if a small-business owner is going to sell the business and the buyer does not want to buy the staff that small-business owner is better off going into voluntary liquidation. That is why a lawyer said to me yesterday that this bill is good for him. There will be more voluntary liquidations. This bill will write goodwill off thousands of businesses all over New Zealand. A business that had some goodwill in it will see that goodwill written off because of this legislation. 
I want to talk about a few particulars in the bill and start with the issue of good faith. The bill now defines much more broadly the issue of good faith and the good old Labour Party not only defines good faith in a broader way but also socks the employer some fines. The employer who does not meet good faith now will face a $10000 fine. That is good faith is it not! But that is nothing new. This is the Government that whacked the fines in on the Holidays Bill and on the occupational safety and health legislation. Every chance it gets it winds up the fines for employers because it thinks that employers are rich fat people—and pretty nasty as well—who can afford to pay the fines. I see Dave Hereora and Lynne Pillay nodding away. That is their view—the good old trade union view of how the bosses are. 
 Now any failure by any employer to consult with the union when dealing with its unionised staff in a workplace will inevitably be an issue of breach of good faith. It is as simple as that. For example rest home operators dealing with staff who are members of the Service and Food Workers Union put an offer on the table to their elected delegates who accept it and sign up. The operators have not talked to the union officials; they have only talked to the delegates and that becomes a breach of good faith. That is outrageous. That plays into the union’s hands and leads to a centralised bargaining situation which is what the Government wants. That is exactly where this legislation is heading. 
The transfer of undertakings clause is where all employment agreements are required to address what process will be followed if a business is sold or work contracted out. For example the owners of corner dairies who hire staff members will have to put into their employment agreements the process they will follow including when they will disclose to those staff members that they will sell the business. 
Dave Hereora 
: Wonderful. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: “Wonderful” say the Labour members. That means that they have no idea about the way business operates. It means that all employers will have to stipulate in all employment agreements the commercial terms they will follow in the event that they want to sell part of their business. That is an extra cost that every employer will now have to bear. 
I bet Labour members will not spend the summer holidays wandering around small retailers saying to them: “How many staff do you have? Next time you negotiate with them you will have to tell them how you will deal with them when you sell the business. That includes what the contractual obligations are between you and them and disclosing financial information to their union about the sale or transfer or contracting out of the business.” That is what I intend to do in summer. 
Dave Hereora 
: Marvellous. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Dave Hereora says “Marvellous”. I look forward to going into businesses that have three four and five staff—retailers—and telling them that this is what they will now have to do. 
Then we have the status of this new group of vulnerable employees. These are people who just so happen to belong to the Service and Food Workers Union. That is the union that most of the Labour caucus come from. Hands up—I think there are three or four in the House today—those who came from the Service and Food Workers Union! That is why that group of workers gets special treatment in this legislation. That group of workers have to be paid redundancy if the business is sold. 
Let me tell members what happens. Someone owns a footwear manufacturing business and the staff working on the machines are low paid. It is hard work—something that Labour people have never done. If the business is sold do they get redundancy? No they do not. But the cleaner who comes in and pushes the broom around does. The lady or man who runs the tuck-shop does but the person who might be on lower wages who is the cutter of the leather does not. So it is not done on wage or status in the workplace it is done on which union one belongs to and whether one has enough mates in the Labour caucus. What a load of nonsense that is. In that same footwear warehouse—not the retail Warehouse—the guy who looks after the nuggets gets nothing but the person who works in the tuck-shop gets the redundancy. There is no equity there. It is all about who one’s mates are. It is nonsense. 
I want to finish with the drive to get all employers into multi-employment contracts. That is what this is about. This bill tilts the playing field so that employers will get dragged into multi-employment contracts. Labour members love that. They love to think that employers will all have to follow what the large employer does. There is nothing for new small employers in this bill.