Sowry Roger: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Sowry Roger: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15838] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 National is totally opposed to the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill. It is interesting to see the Labour Party tonight. The member for Hamilton East Dianne Yates spoke for about 90 seconds on the bill. We know that she does not have her heart in it. David Bennett will win Hamilton East because we know that the member for Hamilton East has lost the political fire in her belly. We saw that in the quite pathetic speech she gave tonight. It is understandable that the member was overlooked for Cabinet and now the voters of Hamilton East are about to overlook her for David Bennett. 
A whole range of businesses appeared before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to speak about this legislation. I will run through just some of them because I do not have time in 10 minutes to go through them all. I will talk about what businesses said in the select committee because Labour members have tried to change history to make it look as though businesses support the current employment law. They do not and they certainly do not support this bill. 
I will start with the tourism industry because I see that the Associate Minister of Tourism Dover Samuels is in the House today. I bet he has not been sitting with people in the tourism industry and saying that this bill is good. I was at a tourism meeting in his electorate in the far north just a few weeks ago and I can say that the people in the industry there are 100 percent opposed to this bill. I told them to go and see Dover Samuels and they laughed—just as Richmond Ltd representatives laughed at the prospect of talking to Rick Barker. Heinz-Wattie Ltd told the select committee that if it had known that this bill was to be passed it would not have brought the plant from Australia across to New Zealand. Fisher and Paykel told the committee that this bill would lead it to look at manufacturing off shore. 
A whole list of industries come before the select committee and opposed the bill. Spotless Services a cleaning company and one of the largest employers in New Zealand is totally opposed to it. Fletcher Building Progressive Enterprises Foodstuffs Sealord’s Top Town Cinema Westpac Auckland International Airport Armourguard—if one can name a company that company appeared before the select committee and opposed the legislation. But it was not just those companies that opposed it; the largest company in New Zealand Carter Holt Harvey was totally opposed to it. The New Zealand Refining Co. in Dover Samuel’s constituency was totally opposed to it. A whole range of other companies that the Crown owns and that we never hear from because they are full of Labour-appointed board members who cower to the Labour Government came out of their shells to appear before the select committee to say that they do not want this bill. Crown-owned Solid Energy fronted up and said that the legislation would be bad for the company. It does not want it passed. That was highly unusual. Crown-owned Air New Zealand appeared before the select committee and said that this bill would put it at a disadvantage. 
All those companies complained that the Government was not listening to business. The Government has decided in conjunction with the Greens that basically its mandate was to say: “To hell with business; we will proceed to pass this legislation because we need the union funds for next year’s campaign”. That is all that this bill is about. Effectively it will bring in compulsory union membership. 
Jill Pettis 
: Don’t be ridiculous. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member for Whanganui knows that if employers in her electorate front up and pay to a non-union staff member the same wage as they pay to a union member they can end up before the Employment Tribunal. She also knows that the unions will use that to enforce compulsory union membership. The meat companies operating in her area told us that in the select committee. We asked them what their local member said and they said that she does not care. We know that. I think they are being charitable. I think that she does not understand but they said she does not care. 
Lakeland Health the Government’s own Crown health enterprise fronted up to the select committee and said: “This legislation will not work for us.” Lakeland Health said that it had two unions on site and that it could not pass the wage from one union on to the other. The staff are doing the same job. Nurses and cleaners are involved. Some nurses belong to one union and some to another. Some cleaners belong to the same union as a group of nurses. The unions will not sit at the table together and negotiate with Lakeland Health. This legislation means that Lakeland Health cannot pass on the same terms and conditions across its enterprise. So how can Lakeland Health work it? I think Mr Hereora was at the committee that day— 
Dave Hereora 
: It’s tough. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: He says it is tough but I ask him what Lakeland Health should do. 
Dave Hereora 
: Treat its workers fairly. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: How can it pay the same to both? 
Dave Hereora 
: It should treat its workers fairly. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Members will see that Mr Hereora does not have an answer. He does not know. I liked what he said in the select committee best of all. He sat in the committee and said nothing—not a word. But it was not for just a few hours that he sat there saying nothing; he sat there for day after day after day not saying a word. 
The best example we have to show why we oppose this bill involves a collective that runs a childcare centre in Manukau. It has to deal with the New Zealand Educational Institute. The New Zealand Educational Institute using the provisions of this bill fronted up to the childcare centre and said that the collective was required to negotiate with the union in 2 weeks’ time in Wellington. So the collective in Mangere began fund-raising to send someone to Wellington to negotiate because the union would not negotiate with it in Auckland. Is that good law? Do Labour members support that? They sit there in silence. 
The member for Hamilton East gave a half-hearted speech. This bill is all about pay-off compulsory unionism more union fees and more funds for the Labour Party coffers. It is not about growth new jobs productivity or any of those things. Mr Hereora sat in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said nothing not just for hours but for days because he has come to Parliament to say nothing. He has not come for his own views; he has been sent here by the union as its doormat for this legislation to be passed through Parliament. 
This bill will damage this country beyond belief and it will be repealed by the next National Government. The test of this legislation is that there is no Labour member who will stand up in a workplace and defend it—not one. 
Dianne Yates 
: Yes there is. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Oh Dianne Yates will do it. Will she go to Gallaghers and defend it? 
Dianne Yates 
: Yes. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Right we will set the date—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh she will do it if the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union invites her and not the employer. That shows how weak and pathetic she is. That shows why she has gone.