Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11838] 
9.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Who are the “others” apart from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions he was referring to when he stated in the House last week that he had received a range of reports from “officials and others” stating that the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill will help achieve the Government’s stated goal of returning New Zealand to the top half of the OECD per capita income tables? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 As I advised the House last week I have seen a range of reports that say good workplace relationships assist in productivity and job growth. Commentators such as Rod Oram note that the Employment Relations Act has made good progress with the Government’s objectives of promoting a more cooperative less adversarial workplace thereby fostering skills development and innovation which will help in developing businesses and their workforces. The World Bank emphasises that countries with highly coordinated collective bargaining tend to have lower unemployment and shorter strikes than uncoordinated ones do. All these factors should lead to sustained economic growth. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Can the Minister state to the House who the “others” are who have specifically told him that passing the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill will achieve higher growth? I note that the examples he gave were about employment relations in general and not the bill. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As I have advised the member the purpose the objective of the employment relations legislation and the reform bill is to promote good workplace practice. It follows on from that that if we have good workplace practices we have high productivity and then growth. Rod Oram for example and the World Bank all talk about the importance of good workplace practices when it comes to promoting job and economic growth. 
Helen Duncan 
: Has the Minister received any reports from leading companies about New Zealand’s industrial relations framework compared with that of Australia? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I have seen a report of an interview with Ralph Waters chief executive of Fletcher Building who often tells people that while he worked in Australia he probably spent 20 to 30 percent of his time on industrial relations issues. He stated that he did not think that he spent 20 or 30 seconds on industrial relations while working in New Zealand. That puts the employment relations regime of Australia and New Zealand into perspective. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Does the Minister believe that Rod Oram and the World Bank have stated to him that by passing the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill we will achieve greater growth? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No I am not saying that. What they are saying is that to have productivity and growth it is important to have good workplace relationships which is the objective and purpose of the bill. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Now that the Minister has admitted after three questions that Rod Oram and the World Bank were not the “others” that he referred to in Parliament last week can he now answer the primary question and tell the House who are the “others” other than the Council of Trade Unions who told him that the passing of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill will lead to New Zealand climbing up the OECD ladder in terms of growth? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As I said to that member the objective of the legislation does state that it is about improving workplace practices thereby leading to growth. It is the relationship between this legislation and growth that is critical. Numbers of commentators have said that if there is to be economic growth and workplace productivity there need to be good workplace relations. That is what this legislation is aiming to pursue. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Members in this House are required to rely on the word of a Minister. Last Wednesday in response to an oral question the Minister stated that he had received reports from officials and “others” stating that the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill would help achieve growth. When asked who those “others” were he responded in a supplementary answer that the Council of Trade Unions was one of those. Now in response to four questions he has been unable to outline anyone else who was part of that “others” group. Mr Speaker I ask you whether there can be a situation whereby a Minister has given an answer in the House stating that he has had reports from “others” and then the following week refused to answer a question on who those reports had come from. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The questions last week were about what reports I had received relating to the Government’s objective of economic growth. I said that we had received a range of reports linking the importance of good workplace practices with economic growth. I have now given a couple of examples outside of the Council of Trade Unions who say that good employment relations are important in achieving economic growth. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 145/1 which states: “The House and public opinion arbitrate on the quality of an answer to a question. It is not the Speaker’s role.” 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I agree that it is not your role to arbitrate on whether an answer given by a Minister is satisfactory. However your role is to make sure that the answer given is accurate. The Minister by way of point of order did not portray what happened last week accurately. The question last week was on what reports he had received on a specific bill not on whether he had received reports. The first question was whether the Minister had received reports. The Minister stated in this House—and we are required to believe him—that he had received reports from officials and “others” on the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill. When asked in a supplementary question who the “others” were—the plural—he stated that it was the Council of Trade Unions. This week when questioned on who the “others” are the Minister has failed to give any “others” on that particular bill which is what the question relates to. When asking the question I am required to submit the detail of last week’s answers. We have done that. Mr Speaker I am asking you to rule on whether the Minister can get away with saying that he has received reports when clearly he has not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker is not responsible for accuracy. That is over to members. I do not think the Speaker should put words into a Minister’s mouth. The Speaker cannot do that or judge the quality or accuracy of an answer. Accuracy is something that requires a judgment and that is up to Parliament and to the public at large. I am concerned with whether the Minister addressed the question. He did.