Pillay Lynne: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:676;Page:21558] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 Along with my colleagues I rise to take a call on the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. As Carol Beaumont was saying just before me the whole purpose of the bill is at odds with the principal Act. This bill amends the Employment Relations Act. For those of us who were union officials or workers in 1991 we remember the Employment Contracts Act and the havoc that caused. In fact if I am really honest it was the Employment Contracts Act that inspired me or drove me to become interested in politics and to stand for Parliament. 
But I will go back to clause 3 because I know you would like me to do that Mr Chairperson. It amends the principal Act. The very purpose of the change to the Employment Contracts Act—to change the name in itself—says a lot. It changed from a contract which is a business deal effectively into a relationship. Calling it the Employment Relations Act was actually recognising that that is what employment relationships are about. I keep saying “relationship” but between employers and workers it is really important that it is based on a meaningful relationship where there is mutual trust mutual respect and fair treatment. 
The very purpose of this amendment bill is to amend an Act based on relationships where there is transparency and honesty and to go instead to a Draconian old-fashioned way— 
Darien Fenton 
: Very old-fashioned. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: A very old-fashioned way of requiring— 
Darien Fenton 
: No idea. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —no idea whatsoever—a rather long undulated process for doing what unions already do. It is also a costly process. The reality is that frankly workers on the rare time—well it is not so rare now that the National Government is in—did go on strike and union officials like me treated it very seriously. One is asking workers to cut a day’s or whatever’s pay. That is not something that any union official takes lightly in these harsh economic times. So of course there is a secret ballot. 
This presumption from Tau Henare—who is actually without being too mean about it a little teensy bit of a bully—is that that is the way union officials operate as well. 
Todd McClay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take offence at that. He is not a little bit of a bully. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No look the member whom that was a reflection against had the opportunity and he did not take it. But I did tell the member to come back. We are on clause 3. I would like her to focus the rest of the time on clause 3. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I actually will focus on clause 3. I thought that was what I was really doing. 
I was talking about amending the Employment Relations Act which is based on relationships and bringing in a Draconian old-fashioned—I am sure that is acceptable to the member—way of dealing with the relationships. That is at odds with the principles of the Act. It is interesting because if we look at the amendments to the Employment Relations Act I feel quite a bit of pride that the amendments that were made under Labour actually improved the Act—they improved it. Then we saw something like the “90-Day Fire at Will Act” which was actually an amendment to the Employment Relations Act—am I right there? 
Darien Fenton 
: Yes it was. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: So I am still on track here. That amendment is at odds with the very principal Act that is being amended. That is my point. 
I am very interested for the member who has put this bill before the House to take a call on this and perhaps reassure the Committee or try to convince us in some way or another just what it is all about. It just does not make sense. If the member is willing to take a call I think we could go into much more detail about the Act that is being amended. Perhaps the member would like to take a call and explain what the Employment Relations Act means to him. Perhaps members on the other side of the House instead of flippantly taking closure motions will actually stand up and take a call.