Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11631] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is ironic is it not that in one evening we are debating two bills promoted by the Green Party? I know perfectly well that both bills are well intentioned. The Green Party wants to do these things for the good of people. It wants to extend the power of the law to make things easier for people. The bills are—typically but not exclusively—for young people and for women in the workforce who would prefer to have more flexible working hours. I do not question the Green Party’s good intentions. That is not the point of the National Party criticism. Our concern fundamentally is that this situation is like the drip drip drip of compliance costs on the stone. No one drip makes us particularly wet and no one drip makes things awkward or wears away the stone but if we just add these legislative components bit by bit piece by piece— 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Drip by drip. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
:—drip by drip then pretty soon there will be a whole flood of legislation to deal with a whole impenetrable wall of legislation that just cripples and hurts this country. 
The truth is that this country is over-governed. I know that that remark may seem a little trite and I know that the left will say that such a remark is the usual answer from the right and that it is always going to come up with that kind of hoary old chestnut but the facts actually confirm the view that we put forward. 
I can point—as I did earlier in the day—not just to growth but to productivity. The Government crows about growth in this economy. We hear its members day by day saying that the farmers are doing exceptionally well and so forth and that we are not doing so bad with growth at 2 percent. Who can actually be proud of 2 percent growth in an economy? Why would Government members get up day by day and trumpet 2 percent growth as if it were some marvellous achievement? It is extraordinary that the best we can do in terms of growth is 2 percent even though we have virtually full employment—and I acknowledge that we have virtually full employment. When we have full employment we must be able to do better than 2 percent growth. 
Surely that situation causes the Government and its allies the Green Party to ask some questions. Why is it when we have virtually full employment when we have virtually the most buoyant commodity prices for a generation—arguably actually for two generations—that the best we can do is 2 percent? Why can Government members not answer such a simple question? I will make a suggestion to the left—and I use that term broadly; it includes Labour and the Greens because I have heard the two parties talk about the prospect of a Labour-Green coalition in the future. Actually that is a pretty horrific thought is it not? If that is the sort of spectre we face I would have to say that instead of something like 600 people leaving New Zealand per week we will probably see 1000 or 1500 people leaving per week. 
To come back to my point I have to ask whether those Government members have ever considered the totality of the compliance costs they impose on the economy because wealthier economies more successful economies—places that are actually proving more attractive to New Zealanders—do not have this kind of legislation. Australia our closest competitor does not have this legislation. Australia does not have the legislation that was passed earlier today. That is our competition. You know that is so blindingly obvious I would have thought. It is all very well for Ms Kedgley to refer to Scandinavia and Europe but we are not actually in competition with Scandinavia. Those countries are not our major international threat economically; Australia is. Australia may be our pals in so many other ways but in this area we have to—we absolutely have to—ensure that our economy is competitive compared with that of Australia. Unless we do so it is absolutely inevitable that more people will leave our country and go to Australia because they can. It is not a difficult choice. So many New Zealanders are making that precise choice and for the Green Party to protest about it indicates that its members are putting their heads in the sand in that respect. 
What is worse in respect of this legislation is that the Green Party came along with legislation that picked up the worst features of the European legislation. I would have to say that Europe is not a model that this country should want to follow because Europe is actually in decline. When we look at the global competitive stakes we see that the countries that are doing well economically—be they democratic administrations or republican administrations—are the United States Canada and Australia. Those are the countries we relate to. Australia in particular is the country that we have to benchmark ourselves against. So far this Government and the Green Party have totally failed in that benchmarking test. 
The income gap between our country New Zealand and Australia has grown substantially—in fact by about 30 percent—in the last 6 years in after - income tax terms. Surely that should give pause for thought for members on the other side of the House. Surely it should make Government and Green members think that maybe they need to give this legislation a miss that maybe we do not really need it and that maybe the voluntary system works sufficiently well. OK it will not work perfectly. Nothing will ever work perfectly but maybe it works well enough because there are bigger issues at stake. One of those bigger issues at stake is our overall competitiveness with Australia. 
I say to the Government that it has had 8 years in office and in that 8 years it has failed that competitive test. That is the simple truth of it is it not? The Government has fundamentally failed that test. I remember back in 1999 and 2000 when the Prime Minister would proudly strut into the House and proclaim to the nation that she expected our country to get into the top half of the OECD. She genuinely believed it. I repeat: she genuinely believed it. She does not say that anymore because she knows it is not deliverable. The one thing I would generally say about her is that on one level at least she tries to be true to herself. When she sees she is failing at something she stops talking about it. She knows we will not be able to get into the top half of the OECD. She knows we will not be competitive with Australia. So she has stopped talking about it. 
Well New Zealanders have not forgotten. They know they have a choice: they can simply cross the Tasman and get another job. I predict that some members opposite who will be retiring will do precisely that. Some of them I know for a fact—but I will not name them in here because that would be inappropriate—will be going to Australia to live. They have made their choice that the grass is greener on the other side of the hill. What does that say about Helen when some in her own team say: “Actually Helen you’ve failed.”? They say she has failed in the most basic test in terms of which country people would prefer to live in—Australia or New Zealand. Those people are making the choice to go to Australia. 
I have to say to this Government that it should put some real thought into this sort of legislation. It should not go in for this policy of drip drip drip against the stone building up that dam because ultimately I have to say that policy will wash Labour away in 2008.