Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It's a pleasure to take a call on Part 1 of this bill because of all of the things that this Government is doing to slow the economy and to reduce opportunities for New Zealanders to get ahead it's these changes in Part 1 of this bill that should most concern New Zealanders. Before I get into the detail of whether it be the union access rules or whether it be the changes to the multi-employer collective agreements I do want to dispute a key point that was made by Clare Curran and say that in the term of the last decade we saw wages rise by over $12000 on average. What we also saw in that report from the Ministry of Social Development is that every one of the deciles over the last 10 years has improved in their income-earning capacity and what I would challenge members opposite—Hon Clare Curran: What is he disputing?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well I say to the member opposite that if we want to increase the incomes of New Zealanders and not have it all eroded away by inflation—real increases in income as occurred over the last decade—the Government has simply has not made the case for change. That is that actually the increases in incomes that have occurred in the New Zealand economy over the last decade have been some of the strongest in the OECD that what we're doing as a country is successful and what this bill and this part proposes is slamming the brakes on the key elements of what makes New Zealand successful and competitive.I particularly want to object to and test the Government on the provisions of clause 9 where the Government is quite blatantly screwing the scrum in favour of multi-employer collective agreements. What it is trying to do in clause 9 is actually force employers into multi-agreements. Let's not kid ourselves that this is about protecting the downtrodden. This is about gaining advantage for Labour's union mates.Can I just give an example. For the first time in more than 30 years we've had this year strikes on the port of Nelson—right at the time when our apple crop was going at the port when it was at its most vulnerable period. We had people that are earning over $100000 a year—not the poor and the downtrodden; those that are able to exercise maximum disruption—screwing the scrum. And what will this clause 9 do? This clause 9 will drive our port companies to move back to multi-employer collective agreements across that key transport sector. Why is that bad for New Zealand? Because New Zealand lives and dies by the success of its exporting industries.The truth is that we have some of the most competitive and efficient ports in New Zealand. That's enabled our exports to grow. That's been at the core of New Zealand's economic success and what the Minister here is doing in clause 9 may play well to a few of his trade union mates but it actually makes New Zealand collectively poorer and it does so by handing back the old powers that seed disruption. It's why this year we have seen a level of industrial disruption that I haven't seen in 25 to 30 years. That is taking us backwards.So my simple test for members opposite is: why do we want to screw the scrum in favour of multi-employer collective agreements? Why is it that we don't want the forces of competition to work effectively for our economy? Actually those that cause strike action maximise the wages for those that may be at the port where they can disrupt but they overlook the wages and the competitiveness of everybody downstream from the port that's working in the orchards working in the other components of the sector. I just have not heard a cohesive argument an intelligent argument from Government members as to why they want to drive New Zealand towards more multi-employer collective agreements when actually in all parts of the economy we need to maximise competition. We want companies being innovative including being innovative in their employment arrangements to ensure that New Zealand remains competitive and grows its competitive edge which is being undermined—undermined—by these provisions in Part 1 as they relate to multi-employer collective agreements.