Sowry Roger: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16068] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I rise to back the National Party’s total opposition to this legislation. The Minister paints it using rose-tinted glasses and he knows it. 
Hon Member 
: Gilded the lily! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Well he has more than gilded the lily. I want to take up a couple of points. The Minister started off with great virtue saying that a bargaining fee has to be agreed to only at the invitation of the select committee—that why he said first of all that he brought the Supplementary Order Paper to the Table. Actually I did not invite the Minister to do that. No one from National did. No one from ACT did. Actually I say to the Minister his own members did. The Labour Party did. So why is the Minister so terrified to stand up and say: “Labour decided to do this.”? Why does he not say that in the Committee? Why does he try to hide behind the select committee? 
The next thing the Minister said was that no one should be scared of the bargaining fee because of the rules—both sides have to agree with it. Anyone who does not want to pay the bargaining fee does not have to. I ask the Minister whether that is right. Are those good rules? 
Hon Paul Swain 
: They’re sensible rules. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Minister says they are sensible rules. Why do we not have the same rules for multi-employment collective agreements? Why do we not say that if people do not agree to enter into a multi-employment collective agreement they do not have to? Why do we say that it is all right for bargaining fees—we have to agree they are good sensible rules—but for a multi-employment collective agreement we will compel people? Why do we do that? Why do we not have the same rules for bargaining? 
It is no good the Minister standing up here in the Chamber and saying: “It’s terrible to have freeloading.” I say to the Minster that workers would not have to freeload if they were allowed to negotiate collectives outside of the union. Why do we not allow that? Why do we have a bill that the Minister has passed that forces as my colleague Bill English said members to freeload and then have the Minister get up and say: “It is outrageous that they are freeloading. We’re going to force them to pay a union fee. But it is not compulsory unionism.” Oh no that is not compulsory unionism! Of course it is. Everybody knows it. The trade unions know it which is why they are here tonight shepherding the bill through from the gallery. They know what is going on and they are here to make sure that the Minister delivers because this bill is all about the Minister getting through legislation that will compel people into unions. The union will click the ticket and the Minister will pick up the small change for the Labour Party’s re-election fund. 
 That is what this is all about. This is not about productivity increases. This is not about growing the economy. This is not about becoming more competitive and this is not about the Minister trying to paint himself as business friendly. The Minister has long ago given up on that. The Minister “Swainy and the boys” got rolled and I bet we do not see Mr Tamihere down here. I bet he is not driving at speed back here tonight to give a speech on this bill although this is where he should be because he is Minister for Small Business and they are all going to pay the price for this particularly shoddy legislation. 
It is an indictment on this Government that not one business group supported this bill. Even the Labour Party’s friends such as the new mayor of Auckland were party to the submission made by Business Council for Sustainable Development which totally opposed the bill. The Warehouse—the company the Minister usually cuddles up to in private to be fair did not front up like a lot of other companies on its own. It used an umbrella group because it did not want to be seen to be criticising the Prime Minister in person. The Warehouse used the Business Council for Sustainable Development so it could at least say to its business mates: “Well we did oppose it.” It opposed the bill through another organisation though.