Brown Peter: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15827] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I start by explaining quite categorically that New Zealand First is not anti-union. Nor are we worried about the existence of unions; they do not scare us as they appear to do to some of my colleagues on this side of the House. In fact we will go a little bit further and say that in many areas of industrial relations the climate is better for having unions. But that is not to say and I make this quite clear that we will support this bill. We will not and I will tell the honourable members over there precisely why. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What about the workers? 
PETER BROWN 
: Exactly what about the workers! The member should read part of the opening sentence of the third paragraph of the original bill that went to the select committee which states: “To achieve this the Act acknowledges the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships and seeks to balance the interests of employers and employees through the promotion of unions and collective bargaining”. That scares a number of employers in this country witless. It really scares them. I tell honourable Government members that with power comes responsibility or to put it more correctly responsibility brings power. 
The employer has far more responsibilities than the union or the union official or the employee. First the employer is responsible for the location of the very business where it is situated the site it is on and how it is structured. The employer is responsible for the organisation how it functions and what it is trying to do etc. The employer is responsible for the management and the administration team that is in place to make a successful business. The employer is responsible for financing the business and takes the financial risk. So far the employee has had no involvement in any of those categories. 
The employer is responsible for the equipment maintenance of the equipment and all the costs that go with maintaining proper equipment. The employer is responsible for health and safety. I know that employees have a role in that but the buck stops finally with the employer. The employer is responsible for the development and marketing of the business and for industrial harmony. The employee does not have a say in any of those and if he or she has a say it is a relatively minor say. The employer is responsible for staff morale. The employer and the company suffer if morale is not high or not adequate. 
I find it and New Zealand First finds it disturbing that this legislation sets out to promote the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships and seeks to balance the interests of employers and employees. That we find alarming as do many employers in this country particularly small to middle-sized employers. 
We come from the position that the Employment Relations Act is working pretty well. Many employers told us: “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” If we heard that once we heard it more than a dozen times at the select committee. New Zealand First voted against the Employment Relations Bill when it went through the House. We were very concerned but at the select committee we modified the first bill and got it into a semblance of acceptability. One area in that bill and I make note of it is the mediation system which is working very very well. A very positive move was to introduce the mediation system in the Employment Relations Act as against what occurred under the Employment Contracts Act. 
 So there are aspects of the Act that are working exceedingly well. Having said all of that and having made clear that New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill I say that there is one aspect that causes us concern and that we will want to look at in some detail. I am talking about free-riding or freeloading which is a concern felt by unionised working people. I know many union officials and very moderate people at that who are absolutely brassed off when the conditions they have negotiated are passed on to somebody else— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Who has not paid a fee. 
PETER BROWN 
: —who has not paid a fee. That was a real issue for the select committee to wrestle with. New Zealand First is of a mind that members should look closely at the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper which addresses the bargaining fee arrangement. [ 
Interruption 
] My National Party colleague is talking in the background and I cannot quite hear what he is saying but I gather he is not agreeing with me. That issue alone is worth examining and New Zealand First will be looking at it in some detail in the Committee stage. We understand the concern about freeloading or free-riding or whatever we want call it.. We will look at that positively. On a personal note I have examined the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper and I believe that at least two clauses should be added. I see the Minister is taking notes. First I believe that employers should have some say about whether they will allow a bargaining-fee arrangement. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: If the employer decides no that’s it. 
PETER BROWN 
: The bill does not make that clear so it should be tidied up. Secondly before a secret ballot is taken there should be some outline guidance or structure as to what the bargaining fee will be. We do not want a situation where at the last minute employers say that everybody voted for it and then people find out it will cost an arm and a leg. I know of employers—and I see the Minister is taking a good deal of note—who probably will be prepared to pay that bargaining fee themselves by negotiating with a union and paying a fee so that it is all clean-cut. Obviously I cannot commit them to it but I know that some employers think along those lines. New Zealand First might well be putting forward an amendment but if the Minister is taking note of the points raised by us and wants to produce his own Supplementary Order Paper that takes those into account then we will be more than pleased. 
We believe that the remainder of the bill could lead to and is an attempt to lead to more people becoming unionised. We know that basically 20 percent of the workforce in this country is in a union and 80 percent of the workforce is not. We believe there is an underhand attempt in this bill if I might be so bold to get people to become more union orientated and join a union. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s the whole point of the legislation. 
PETER BROWN 
: I suspect that it is. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: They can opt out. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes they can. We would like—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Mapp will get his turn in due course I suppose. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I hope so. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well I do not. But never mind he will. That is why we are worried about supporting this bill any further than looking at that bargaining-fee arrangement. We would prefer and I want thison the record that collective agreements were not the monopoly of unions. In Australia non-union people can combine and have a collective agreement and given that New Zealanders are not inferior in any way shape or form to Australians this bill is an ideal opportunity to open up collective agreements to non-union people and any others who want to have a collective. We believe that that is the long-term solution and contrary to what Mr Mapp said we believe that the bargaining fee if adopted will be an opening to allow for collectives to be negotiated by non-union people in the longer term. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: True. But it’s not on the Supplementary Order Paper. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is agreeing with me now I think. Apart from the bargaining-fee arrangement which we will take a genuinely sincere look at—and the Minister was taking notes of my points—we will be opposing the bill.