Turner Judy: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1485] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I do so understanding that the bill’s intention is to provide protection to vulnerable employees in all change-of-employer situations including succession to contract and contracting in and contracting out of work. I understand that “vulnerable workers” is a term that mainly applies to those who work as cleaners and that the aim of the bill is to ensure that benefits are continued regardless of the changing employment arrangements around the worker. We understand that the bill is being put forward by the Service and Food Workers Union and we also understand that the trigger for it as referred to by other speakers was a particular case involving Dunedin kindergartens that was before the Employment Court in Dunedin— 
Gibbs 
and others 
 v  
Crest Commercial Cleaning 
Ltd 
 was the name of the case. 
United Future has decided not to support the bill for several reasons. We have several concerns and apprehensions about it and I will quickly explain them. Firstly we are unconvinced of the need for this legislation. Most large companies with cleaners have multi-employer contracts with unions with provisions that already cover succession to contract and contracting in and contracting out scenarios. 
Our second concern is that the employment of an employee who elects to transfer to a new employer would be treated by the amendment as continuous. It is a little unclear at this stage what “continuous” means and what sort of period of time is covered by the continuous employment provision. 
Third we fear that the bill will force out minor players by imposing on them the same rules that larger companies have to contend with. Larger companies tend to be able to absorb these kinds of rules and regulations more easily than smaller ones. We are concerned that far from protecting vulnerable workers the bill could do the reverse and push them out of employment. A number of the smaller players are often small family businesses and interestingly enough quite a large number of them are owned by Pacific Island families. Our legislation in this area should be aimed at making it easier for new immigrants to work and to set up their own businesses when they feel ready not to make that harder than it is at present. We feel that the bill has the potential to keep new players out of the cleaning industry. 
The very nature of competition between businesses is that one can out-price but one can also outperform competitors. My experience of employing cleaners is that most people who take out a contract for cleaners rather than being completely constrained by what it will cost are more interested in the quality of the work that is to be done. I myself since coming to Parliament have employed a cleaner—and I would like to say that I pay my cleaner well above the minimum wage and I hope I am a good employer. To say cleaners are somehow undervalued could not be further from the truth in my experience. When I go home on a Friday at the end of a hard day the most wonderful thing is to walk into my home and see what has been done on my behalf and I do not begrudge a cent of what I pay. But what I value is the quality of the work that has been done. I do think that when a contractor has not been performing to the standard that was expected and when that has been communicated and the staff have not complied with that advice then the contractor should be able to move on and if necessary in order to make the necessary changes bring in new staff who will work to the standard that has been set. 
United Future will not support the first reading of the bill.