Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 21 March 2012. Volume:678;Page:1195. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 29 February. 
New clause 5A Requirement for society’s rules to include secret ballots for strikes ( 
continued 
)  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee to reconsider clause 2 to replace the reference in subclause (1AA) to section 6A with a reference to section 4A. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 As I was saying before I was interrupted this bill is unnecessary because it is— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Sorry—I am just processing what we have just done. Leave was sought to go back and consider another clause and we should do that now. Then when that is dealt with we will come back to the clause that we are currently on. We are returning to consideration of clause 2. 
Clause 2  Commencement ( 
reconsidered 
)  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tau Henare to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to replace section 6A in subclause (1AA) with section 4A. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as further amended agreed to. 
New clause 5A Requirement for society’s rules to include secret ballots for strikes ( 
continued 
)  
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 I was talking about the necessity for this bill the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. The reality is that most unions of any substance and any size already have as one of the requirements in their rules the fact that any strike action needs to be supported by a secret ballot. The Maritime Union has it the rest home workers who belong to the Service and Food Workers Union have it and the meat workers employed by Talley’s AFFCO have it in their agreements. Most of those meat workers of course are being locked out. Some are taking strike action and they take strike action as a result of a secret ballot. 
The proposal to have the clause that requires unions’ rules to provide for a secret ballot is the most sensible way forward. We—that is this Parliament—do not want to get into the Incorporated Societies Act and dictate to societies and organisations that are incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act and have them being told what to do. This Parliament could not do that. We have hundreds of thousands of interest groups and societies—do not let this be a precedent and a start for this Parliament deciding how private organisations collective organisations of individuals should run themselves and conduct themselves. That is a matter for them. For trade unions which have been in this business for well over 100 years that is the way they have conducted themselves. 
The bill as originally drafted is unnecessary. Unions and their members who belong voluntarily to these organisations are quite capable of deciding their rules themselves. Let it be a requirement for registration as a union that the union’s rules are proper appropriate and fit for purpose and that may well include the need to have a ballot to take strike action. But members should also understand that our industrial legislation has always provided a countervailing balance and it has always been the principle for New Zealand industrial legislation. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander so if it is a requirement that workers are required to conduct a secret ballot when they take a strike so too for the employer when they take the egregious action of locking out workers depriving them of their income against their will; so too the employer should be bound by obligations of procedural fairness. That is provided for as well in Labour’s proposals. 
This bill is unnecessary; we continue to see it as unnecessary. Unions are quite happily getting on with what limited rights they have these days anyway. That will change of course on the change of Government and workers will be free once again to express their views and act appropriately and properly in the workplace as they once did. But in the meantime this will add nothing. It is not as if either for the member who is promoting this bill or for the party he comes from there are not some bigger issues to deal with in this day and age. It is not just about getting married so he can take trips to Uganda either. It is really serious stuff important things that we need to be doing. 
Trying to interfere with voluntary trade unions simply is not going to lift productivity and it is not going to provide the better future that has been promised either here or in Finland. We say that the member’s bill is unnecessary but our proposals provide a sensible way forward for unions for when they are registered. Thank you. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 It is just not about the cheap shot from the former leader of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions or wherever and whomever he represented— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The EPMU. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union the “elephant union”—well whatever. It is not about a cheap shot about me getting married and a cheap shot at my wife because that is what it was. That is the sort of thing that I expect. We have been hearing it all day: the cheap dirty shot. I will tell you this; I will let you in on a little secret. I went to the acting Opposition whip tonight and asked whether they would stand in the way of us going back to clause 2 and she said “No not a problem. As long as you don’t play dirty that’s fine.” What happens? The first speaker— 
Kris Faafoi 
: Stop putting words into her mouth. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is very hard to put words into anybody’s mouth over there. I mean I would have to have a million of them because their mouths are so big. Look the fact of the matter is that this is about democracy. He talks about freedom—the workers’ freedom. Well I tell you what. Workers will be free if they are not bullied by the likes of Andrew Little—bullied into taking industrial action. Here is a question for the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union and every other union. How many of their organisers take the pay cut—do not take wages—while their members are on strike? What about Garry Parsloe? He took the wage all right while his so-called comrades were out on strike. 
Andrew Little 
: I learnt everything on you from Michelle Boag. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh here we go. I have seen many a union organiser take the money take the organiser’s car and drive around in it while their mates and their members are on strike. Do you know which is the worst one? Which is the worst union? The Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union. Its organisers drive around in a big car with a sign on the door and it is the same with the Service and Food Workers Union. The one in Te Atatu Peninsula is always parked outside Countdown looking for a few members. It cannot get any. 
Let us talk about the bullyboy tactics of that member when he was in charge of that two-bit outfit. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right oh yeah. They shivered in their boots all right. Do you know why workers shiver in their boots? Because they do not want to take the action that they have been told to take by guys like Andrew Little. That is why. The only people who lose in a strike are workers. They are ones who do not get paid. These guys get paid—do not forget it. This is my plea to New Zealand: do not forget that workers are the ones who lose wages not the union organisers. And you know what here is something else. 
Andrew Little 
: Here it comes. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is right. If you shut up I will tell you. The Labour Party is full of union organisers and failed teachers. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I wanted to speak to my amendment to insert new clause 5B and inject some sense back into the debate after that tirade from the member Tau Henare. But before I do I just want to record my pleasure that good sense has prevailed in the ports and that Ports of Auckland has agreed to go back to collective bargaining and not to contract out the workers or make them redundant so I am very very pleased about that. I think we will see a return to productive employment and I hope productive employment relationships which is indeed what Labour’s legislation was always about. It was always about good faith about productive employment relationships and about mediation as a first call in disputes. But gradually what we have seen from this Government of course is interference in that and that is what this bill is too. 
My amendment to insert new clause 5B is to make sure that indeed if this bill goes through there is not more interference in the right of workers to have a secret ballot which is what the member insists must happen. He insists it is about democracy but actually what we have at the moment thanks to this Government is an impediment to access to a workplace. Under this Government workers and unions have to get permission from the employer to enter the workplace. It is getting harder and harder. 
In fact Talley’s AFFCO as everybody knows is locked out. We are not talking about strikes here and we are not talking about secret ballots of Talley’s shareholders we are talking about illegally locked out workers. There are stories coming out about how the union was illegally denied access time and time again to its workers in the meat plants. By the time the union got to them of course management had been in their ears had threatened them and had put them on an individual contract. 
So my amendment is to make sure that that situation is avoided because if the member and the Government insist that there must be a secret ballot of workers before the strike is in then as my colleague Andrew Little says most unions carry that out already but they should do it in their own way according to their own rules and according to their own democratic processes. However if the member insists on it the union should not need to obtain consent for access to a workplace in order to hold a secret ballot because if the employer can stand in the way of a union obtaining access for the purposes of holding a secret ballot how on earth is the member’s objective of requiring a secret ballot before a strike going to be met? How is it going to happen? How is that the purpose? 
He says it is all about democracy crying all the rubbish that he talks about from his 30 years ago when he was the worst union organiser in New Zealand’s history—all the rubbish from that. However accepting all of that I am sure that the member in the chair Tau Henare does not want to see the provisions of his bill impeded by employers who can deny access to unions who come in in order to carry out the requirements of his bill. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes and it will be very interesting to see what happens if an employer chooses to deny access for the purposes of holding a secret ballot. 
Does that mean that the workers can just carry on and have a strike because they have been denied access to a secret ballot? Does it mean the employer has broken the law in terms of allowing a secret ballot to be held? Does it mean the union has broken the law because it has not been able to hold a secret ballot? These are things that I do not think the member has thought through. 
As I said in previous discussions on this bill we genuinely tried to assist the member to meet his objectives by doing it in a very very simple form. That was in the previous amendment to insert new clause 5A which was about simply putting in unions’ rules a requirement that there must be a process for holding a secret ballot. But what his bill will do is make sure that there can be interference by employers which there already is in places like Talley’s. It will make sure that there will be interference not only in the process of secret ballots and challenges in the courts tying up the courts and compliance costs on unions like the Oceania Group workers who are just trying to make sure that their workers their members who are on $13.61 an hour—11c an hour above the minimum wage; shocking— 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased tonight to speak on behalf of Denise Roche our industrial relations spokesperson. The Green Party opposes this Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill in its entirety. In standing to speak for the Greens on this bill I would like to recognise the work that has been done by my colleagues Keith Locke and Dave Clendon. When this bill went through its first reading the Greens supported it but Keith Locke did outline concerns with the bill and Dave Clendon outlined them again last time this bill was in the House. Those concerns have not been addressed and now we have more concerns about the bill so we will be opposing it. To be honest I cannot believe this House has wasted so much time and resources—staff time politicians’ time time in the House and at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when more useful debates could have been had—over an amendment bill that in effect is a solution looking for a problem. 
I am not sure what on earth possessed my esteemed colleague Tau Henare to develop such a bill when it is so completely and utterly unnecessary. It is some time since my esteemed colleague was a union official for the Clerical Workers Union and undoubtedly times have moved on in the last two decades. Modern unions are now democratic. Members rather than union officials make the decisions around settling negotiations and also about how the whole union is run. From having been a member of a union for many many years I can vouch for this. Unions— 
Scott Simpson 
: Ah a conflict of interest. 
JAN LOGIE 
: I am not an organiser—a member. Unions are incorporated societies. They are required to act in an openly transparent and democratic fashion. Many unions already have rules that include the requirement for secret ballots on industrial disputes. What is the point in legislating to ensure a current practice becomes a current practice? 
The decision to take industrial action is not one that unions or their members ever take lightly. For the union if the strike is not widely supported or if there is anything dodgy about the vote on it it is likely to lose members. Unlike the industrial relations environment that existed when my esteemed colleague Tau Henare was a union organiser in the early 1980s union membership is now voluntary. Frankly in an environment of shrinking union membership in the private sector particularly no union with sane leadership is going to take the risk of acting undemocratically. From the workers’ perspective the decision to strike is also never made lightly. Strike action means loss of pay and in an increasingly desperate job market—thanks to this Government—it is a huge risk to take strike action because of the potential ongoing damage to the employment relationship. Strike action is an action of last resort and aside from health and safety reasons it is used only when negotiations around the collective employment agreements have not been settled. 
I join Labour in expressing my satisfaction in seeing the Ports of Auckland go back into negotiations which we have seen at the end of a process of striking. It is really the only weapon in the struggle that can sometimes result from the imbalance of power between workers and the boss and it is never undertaken on a whim or with a dodgy vote. Some of my colleagues recently spent the weekend at the picket with the Maritime Union members and their families at the Ports of Auckland. You know they have been negotiating since September last year. Despite offering to make significant changes to provide more flexibility including a 12-hour shift option for some workers they have been stalled by management’s demands for more and more and more flexibility. These workers all 300 or so of them had a vote. 
Recently I joined the striking workers at Elderslea Rest Home in Upper Hutt. You know I know it takes a lot to get nurses and rest home workers to strike because they care for their elderly clients and they do not want to jeopardise their well-being. Fifteen hundred of them went off the job at Oceania rest homes all over the country. These workers are asking for a cost of living pay claim of around 3 percent with back-pay. The company which is controlled by Australian equity firm Macquarie Global Infrastructure Funds and currently is spending millions on new facilities is offering them 1 percent over 3 years and wants to cut overtime. These workers have been negotiating for 8 months and 600 of those workers are on $13.61 an hour just above the minimum wage caring for some of our most vulnerable people. This is not about workers being greedy or unions being unscrupulous. It is about a decent living wage and it is also about employer bullying. It is about employers seeking to bust the unions and achieve full flexibility also known as casualisation of the workforce. 
I note that this bill does not address the issue of whether the employer should have a secret ballot or even a transparent voting process before they decide to lock out workers. It is fine for the workers but not for the bosses. Seven-hundred and sixty-two AFFCO meatworkers in provincial towns—in Moerewa Manawatu AFFCO Imlay in Wanganui Horotiu and Wairoa—have been locked out of their jobs. Like the Ports of Auckland workers they have been fending off the bosses’ claims for more and more flexibility around rostering. The meatworkers and Talley’s AFFCO management have been negotiating their employment agreement for 18 months. The lockout is an employer tactic to get them to agree. Why is there no bill requiring companies to hold a secret ballot before locking out workers? We will not be voting for this bill. This bill does nothing to address bad-faith bargaining. In fact it is dangerous. It opens a loophole for employers to litigate unions over ballots. This bill does not serve unions which are the only collective voice for many people it does not serve industrial democracy and it does not serve workers. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 I am sure that the member’s motives with the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill are honourable and that his objectives which I perceive as to ensure democracy in unions voting to strike or not to strike are genuine. But if so I am not convinced that the bill will assist that and indeed the reverse may well be the case. 
New Zealand First would wish to be even-handed in these matters not necessarily wishing to promote the interests of either the unions or the employers and their organisations. However New Zealand First will oppose the bill in its entirety simply because we are not quite sure notwithstanding what the member has said— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It doesn’t surprise me. In the pocket of the Labour Party. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: —and what he is saying now what the problem is to fix and indeed how this bill would fix it. Our conclusion is that the bill is deeply flawed in concept and in purpose. 
When you think about the bill and the way it goes about whatever its objective is you need to consider what the interests of democracy require first of all when voting needs to be in secret such as in parliamentary elections and second when voting should not be secret such as in Parliament itself. In this case union members are voting as a group on a decision to strike—something that affects them all and that they do as a group in a collegial sort of way. Because it is not a private decision unlike a vote in a parliamentary election and because it is a group decision this requires collegiality. It requires group discussion in which it is proper and constructive for members to know why and whether another member is voting one way or the other. I think that is actually a very constructive thing to happen. There is no need for secrecy in that kind of situation. In fact the reverse is the case; it is better if it is not secret. That is better for democracy; that is better for group action. 
No reason is given by the member or by any member opposite why a secret ballot is necessary for a democratic decision to strike. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee report simply refers to the consistency with the principal Act. That is hardly a reason and certainly not one that New Zealand First would recognise as such. 
It is not necessarily always in the interests of democracy for voting to be secret especially in private and voluntary organisations where secret ballots can lead to vote fixing and auditing is impracticable. Moreover it is not the business of the Government to dictate the manner in which private and voluntary organisations should conduct their internal affairs. This is not yet a police State notwithstanding National’s steps towards it. Otherwise would this Government not require secret ballots for boards of directors and shareholder meetings in private companies? What another member said is quite correct: what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But here we see not an even-handed approach; here we see a prejudicial one. A democratic society requires that unions be free like all other private and voluntary organisations to run their own affairs to allow their members to make their own rules of governance not Big Brother and not some tyrannical Government. 
In summary first there is no need for secret ballots for a democratically run organisation where group or collegial decision-making is needed. Secondly a decision whether or not to make ballots secret belongs to the members of the organisation and not to those members opposite and not to any Government in this country. That is a private matter. It is not a Government matter. If the National Party thinks it should be making decisions on behalf of private organisations in this country it had better look back to its principles because as far as I can see it is not following them. Thirdly the principles that are applicable in the case of union members’ voting methods are these: freedom of members to make their own rules; voluntary membership which we certainly agree with; collegiality in decision making and voting; collective responsibility; and openness and transparency as between the members voting. None of those principles are reflected in this bill. The bill will achieve next to nothing except another step in excessive government and excessive regulation—something that I thought this Government was opposed to but sadly it is not. New Zealand First will certainly oppose this bill and every part of it. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause after clause 4: 
5AWhen society entitled to be registered as union 
Section 14(1) is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (d): 
“(e)the society’s rules include a requirement that a secret ballot of its members who are employed by the same or different employers (as the case may be) and who would become a party to the strike be held before any strike is undertaken.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
New clause 5A not agreed to. 
New clause 5B Section 20A amended 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause after clause 4: 
5BSection 20A amended 
Section 20A is amended by inserting the following subsection after subsection (4): 
“(5)Notwithstanding subsection (1) a union does not need to obtain the consent of an employer or a representative of the employer to enter a workplace in order to carry out a secret ballot to determine whether strike action is taken.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
New clause 5B not agreed to. 
Clause 6 Meaning of strike 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Clause 6 agreed to. 
Clause 7 New sections 82A to 82C inserted 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 The Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill is a very important piece of legislation. It requires close consideration. I will collect my thoughts to speak about this important topic. We can take this light-heartedly but this is actually very important for the 350000 workers in this country who belong to unions and for the many thousands of workers who are in dispute with their employers at the moment sometimes—on most occasions—totally unnecessarily. It is very pleasing to see that the port workers in the Ports of Auckland and their employer have today reached a tentative settlement before an Employment Court judge by which they can return to work. The employer will abandon its silly plans to contract out disempower them and drive down their wages. 
That is a great victory but those workers went through an extraordinary struggle to get to that point—against all the opprobrium the criticism the comments from the right and the comments from the mainstream editorials that have been deeply opposed to what those workers have stood for. But those workers stood up for what they believed in. They stood up against an extraordinary power and extraordinarily powerful interests. They did it. They voted for strike action they saw it through and they have defeated one of the most iniquitous and insidious attacks on workers’ rights. 
Once again the waterside workers of this country have broken through have set an example for the rest of the New Zealand workforce and they hold their banner high. They do that because they are free to do that. They are free to belong to their union. They are free to make their decisions and their choices. They have done that and they have achieved justice. I am confident they will achieve the ultimate end and they will keep those jobs—and they will be well-paid jobs and efficient jobs. It will be an efficient effective and flexible workforce like they have at the moment. But most important they will retain their dignity and their pride. That is what every worker wants. It is actually what every employer wants. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! We are debating clause 6 which has the title “Meaning of strike”. The member can make the sorts of comments he is making but he has to tie them in to the meaning of clause 6. This is not an open debate. The member should be debating clause 6. 
Simon O’Connor 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I believe it is clause 7 we are looking at at the moment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Oh yes—clause 7. I do apologise. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: I thought it was clause 7. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It was my mistake. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: I thought I was debating clause 7. My comments were completely relevant to clause 7. Having said that we on this side of the Chamber are sitting in jubilation and elation because it has been a great day for the working people of New Zealand. The most brutal struggle for working people has seen the workers victorious. They have stood united; they remain undefeated. That is why it is easy to get confused between clause 6 and clause 7. I am at sixes and sevens tonight—that is indisputable—but now we are focused on clause 7. We are very clear about what it is and it is very important. 
Today demonstrates above all the importance of workers who are free to make their choice and most important free to run their union as they see fit. They make their decisions. That is what voluntary unionism is about. It is a very powerful force. That is why National Governments hate it because they hate working people taking control of their situation. They hate the idea that when working people get together they form their own wisdom and sometimes they stand up. 
The important thing about voluntary unions is that workers are free to come and go and the port workers have stayed they have stuck at it and they have stuck with their union. They have stuck with each other and that is what it is about. That is why this clause is so unnecessary. That is why we just do not need it. You just do not need to add compliance requirement upon compliance requirement for there to be a secret ballot. Ask those workers how they feel about the decisions they took. Ask them how they feel about their union. They are sticking together. They are very proud. Then go and ask the meatworkers who are fighting an even more brutal struggle against Talley’s. Talley’s—totally unnecessarily after barely 10 hours of negotiations—locked those workers out. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I just want to clear up a few things for New Zealand First. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: You’ll be lucky. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes I might be lucky but given the speeches in the Chamber tonight from New Zealand First I think it does need some help. This is not about allowing organisations out there to flout what I consider to be a democratic process. If a person in any situation—whether it is right or wrong—wishes to make a decision to withdraw his or her labour then surely to goodness— 
Andrew Little 
: They should do it on their own Tau—that’s right. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No—surely to goodness you would allow that person the comfort of making the decision without fear or favour regardless of— 
Andrew Little 
: They have it already. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is the pure and simple reason of democracy which we afford everybody else in this country at an election— 
Andrew Little 
: And they get it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well of course they do. So why is it any different for a person withdrawing their labour? 
Andrew Little 
: The tie’s only light blue Tau—you can still come back. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh OK. I am not getting into any of this rubbish about the best union organiser or the worst union organiser. Let us get down to some tintacks. It is about democracy. 
Andrew Little 
: That’s right. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Finally somebody from that side says that that is right; it is about democracy. Why is it that the union is so fearful of giving somebody a secret ballot? Why is it? 
Andrew Little 
: Because it’s already there Tau. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh it is already there. Well it is not already there. It is not already there because there are some unions that do not have it—that do not have it. All we are doing is codifying what the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union already has for its members. So if it is good enough for them why is it not good enough to have in a piece of legislation that if you are going to go on strike you have a secret ballot? If you win you win; if you do not you do not. 
We are not talking about whether a strike is the right thing to do; we are talking about the ability of somebody to withdraw their labour. It is their labour; it is not the union’s labour. It is their labour it is not the union’s labour. It is their labour. Make no mistake—make no mistake—the bleating about the situation at the Ports of Auckland. This is what happened tonight. They have got back into negotiations. That is it. The wharfies did not win. The Ports of Auckland did not win. The people of Auckland now see that both organisations are sitting down and negotiating like everybody expected to—like everybody expected to. Because at the end of the day the belligerent union the guys who run around in their cars and get paid while everybody else is on strike and is losing their pay— 
Andrew Little 
: The members on the picket line. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh they do not like it. They just do not like it. The fact of the matter is this is about individual freedom—individual freedom to cover your hand while you are making a decision. That is what it is all about. I must say that Andrew Little has had one secret ballot in his life and he lost that one up the country. So there we go. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Well it seems like it is left for me to inject some sense back into the debate around clause 7. I have an amendment on this clause and I am really really happy to talk about the thing that the member Tau Henare keeps insisting on which is democracy. On the one hand he wants to impose National Party democracy on a bunch of workers who choose to withdraw their labour—that is right; they choose to withdraw their labour—but he does not want to balance up the scorecard. So the situation is that workers will be required to have a secret ballot by the member’s bill. That provision will be able to be enforced by employers in a court of law which is interference in democracy and democratic processes actually. But on the other hand it is not balanced. It is biased against one party in the collective employment agreement relationship. 
So my amendment to clause 7 is to add a new section which would require shareholders to hold a secret ballot before they imposed a lockout. What is a lockout? It is the opposite to a strike. It is where an employer can say to its workers its employees—like it has done in the situation of Talley’s and 1000 of its meatworkers—“We are not going to allow you to come to work. We are not going to pay you to come to work until you are starved into submission—until you agree to our demands.” So it is the opposite. There is a balancing part of the Employment Relations Act: there is the right to strike and there is the right to lock out. What this member wants to do is give privilege to one side—in other words the employers. So he is saying on the one hand that workers must have a secret ballot. As my colleague and others have already said most of them do and they do it through their processes—through their processes. As democratic unions it is up to them to decide how to do it. However if the member insists on doing this he should even up the balance. 
His Minister of Labour likes to talk about balance in the employment relationship—having balance between employers and employees. My amendment would provide that. It would provide that if Mr Talley and the Talley family decided they were going to lock out their 1000 workers they would have to have a secret ballot of their shareholders before that lockout could take place. What is wrong with that? I ask the member in the chair the Hon Tau Henare what is wrong with that? What is wrong with having a balance? If he keeps insisting it is about democracy why is democracy on one side but not on the other? Why is he not considering this very very reasonable amendment that I am proposing? 
The other thing I wanted to say about the port workers situation is that actually what we have seen tonight is yeah sure they are back in negotiations but do you know why? It is because a court has decided under the Employment Relations Act—which Labour brought in and this Government has continued to interfere with and which is based on good-faith bargaining and fair dealing— 
Andrew Little 
: Mutual relationships. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —and mutual relationships of trust and mediation as the first port of call—that the port company has not met those provisions. So thank goodness for the former Labour Government and the Employment Relations Act and may the Minister of Labour and this Government not get their grubby hands further on the Employment Relations Act as they are planning to do. They are planning to weaken collective bargaining even further. They are planning to make it harder for workers. 
This provision by this member will make it harder for members to carry out a strike. I do not see what the problem is in balancing up the equation. As I have said we would rather not have this measure at all but if the member insists that there must be a secret ballot and if a law has to be there to require it and it can be enforced in a court of law shareholders should have the same rights—the same democratic rights—to vote on whether their company should lock out workers like the Talley’s workers. Up and down the country in all the small towns throughout New Zealand in the Moerewas in the Wairoas and in the towns where the whole town is dependent on the meatworkers those workers are standing outside. They do not have a choice about a secret ballot. They have been locked out. They are being starved into submission. Their employer is completely disregarding the provisions in the Employment Relations Act. It is really unfair and I appeal to the member in the chair to show that he is really serious about democracy and fairness as he keeps insisting he is by supporting this amendment. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 Andrew Little told us that workers are free to join a union. He told us that they are free to stay in a union. But what workers are not free to do is vote in a ballot free from intimidation free from standover tactics and free from the bully-boys who are scared that the union’s desires may be found to be wanting. 
This Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill is a good bill. This clause 7 is a good clause and I am surprised that the Labour Party is not supporting it. I am surprised that it is not supporting it because it is supposed to stand for the small guy. It is supposed to stand for the little guy on the line doing the hard yards—the little guy whose job and whose pay cheque are at stake when they go on strike. Labour should be supporting this if it supports the little guy but really it is more concerned about the union. It is more concerned about the union being shown up by its own members. 
We have heard a little bit about the port tonight. What has not been said are some of the— 
Simon Bridges 
: Too much drinking of port. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: Mr Bridges! What we have not heard about the port is some of the things that have been in the paper that have been done by union members. We have had people on independent employment agreements who have been intimidated by union members. We have had people trying to get to work being stopped by union members and being stopped by union officials. We have had people on cranes trying to do their job but some of the union members have been trying to obstruct that from happening. 
I would have to say that if I was one of those workers wanting to cast a ballot that is different from what the union officials want and I had those types of people standing over me telling me that it is wrong to vote against their desire for a strike then I would be scared to vote against it. But if they had a secret strike provision where they could make their own democratic choice around the strike they could do so without fear of having comeback on them. 
I have got a bit of a confession. It is a deep dark secret that I have been bottling up for many years. I once joined a union. I am a bit ashamed to say it; I am a bit ashamed to say it. But it took me only a few months to work out what was wrong with that decision because every week part of my pay cheque went out of my pocket and it did not go anywhere useful for me as a worker. So what I did was I decided to stay away from the union and I went on to an independent agreement. But if I was ever sitting there in a meeting having to vote on a strike then I would want to know that I am not going to have union officials and union members breathing down my neck telling me I could not decide against a strike. 
This is a good provision. It will bring democracy to the little guys—the little guys whom the Labour Party is supposed to be supporting. It does not support the little guy any more. It just supports the unions. It supports the union officials like Andrew Little and Darien Fenton and it should be supporting this. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to add the following subsection to new section 82A: 
(5)For the avoidance of doubt the legality of a ballot can only be challenged by a member of the union holding it.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! This House has by tradition not had comments under voting for two reasons. It is hard enough to pick up exactly the diction of some people when they are voting. That is one. Two is that no person will vote in this House under any sort of duress—none whatsoever. If there are going to be interventions during voting people will take an early shower. Let us make that quite clear. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to add the following new sections: 
82DRequirement for shareholders to hold secret ballot before lockout 
(1)Before a lockout as defined in section 82E related to collective bargaining may proceed under this Act— 
(a)the question must be submitted to a secret ballot of the owners of the legal entity that is the employer party to the lockout; and 
(b)the result of the secret ballot must be in favour of the lockout. 
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) the result of a secret ballot is determined by a simple majority of the shareholders who are entitled to vote and who do vote. 
(3)As soon as is reasonably practicable after the conclusion of the secret ballot under subsection (1) all shareholders who were entitled to vote must be notified of the result of the ballot. 
82ETerms of question for secret ballot of shareholders 
The question to be voted on in a secret ballot for the purposes of section 82D is whether the shareholder of the legal entity that is the employer party to the lockout is in favour of the lockout. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We move to Darien Fenton’s typescript amendment to omit clause 7. This is out of order as the bill is considered clause by clause and members can vote that clause 7 will not stand part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Clause 7 agreed to. 
Clause 8 Unlawful strike or lockouts 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that Darien Fenton’s typescript amendment to omit clause 8 is out of order. No member is seeking the call. Darien Fenton’s typescript amendment is out of order for the same reasons as her amendments regarding clause 7. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 8 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Clause 8 agreed to. 
New clause 9 Transitional provision 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Tau Henare to proposed new clause 9 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 195 in his name be agreed to: 
to replace in subclause (1) “section 6A” with “section 4A”;  
to replace in subclause (3)(a) “section 6A” with “section 4A”; and 
to replace in subclause (3)(b) “section 6A” with “section 4A” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Amendments to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 195 in the name of the Hon Tau Henare to insert new clause 9 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
New clause 9 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.