O'Connor Damien: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Damien: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:184. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman):I would like to take this opportunity in my first speech of the 51st Parliament to congratulate the Government. I congratulate it on its consistency because it has consistently advocated for flexibility and choice for its mates not for others. I will go back to 1992. I was not here then. I was here a year later. The Government advocated for choice and flexibility for mining companies so they did not have to adhere to the mines regulations. It then moved on in the 1990s to offer choice and flexibility for those building houses so we had building deregulation. Then we had choice and flexibility in the electricity sector. As I look at Part 1 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill what this legislation is going to do is change the balance and give choice and flexibility to the mates of the National Party—as my colleague says those who have the interest of capital over labour—and leave nothing for the working New Zealander.When I look through Part 1 I ask the question: what is trying to be solved here? What are we trying to do or what is the Government trying to do? I go to the regulatory impact statement. It says in there from the Government itself: “There is limited evidence on the size and underlying causes of the problems being assessed. While the Department is able to access data on concluded employment agreements the Department does not have data on how much bargaining has been initiated and not concluded or on how long on average bargaining takes.” The point is that the Government does not actually know what it is trying to solve here other than an ideological approach that says we will try to crush the unions and any organisation of labour and offer absolute flexibility to the free-market ideologues. There have been a few of them over there. These are people who advocate for free and open markets—the dairy industry. Mr Bennett over there would be one of them. He actually supplies a company that is forced to take milk from any dairy farmer who wishes to supply it. This is not choice and flexibility for Fonterra.Let us go and look at a few other organisations. Complete choice and flexibility would mean that any manufacturer could do what they like. They do not have to be part of an organisation. In fact what we have—David Bennett: Mr Chair are we getting on to the bill? What’s the story?Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: If Mr Bennett would like to know the reference Part 1 makes reference to the ability for employers to opt out or not conclude any negotiations. What we have in law are protections for people to ensure fairness in most parts of our society. We stand for that here. On that side of the Chamber though the members stand for choice and flexibility for their mates. However they also represent organisations that understand that collective efforts offer greater good—collective efforts offer greater good. Who understands that? Unions do I guess. So too does Business New Zealand because they come together to advocate for what they want. The Manufacturers and Exporters Association the Hospitality Association the Tourism Industry Association and Federated Farmers of New Zealand come together to advocate for one another for fairness in terms of Resource Management Act reform contractual arrangements with sharemilkers and contractual arrangements with companies. They need protections to ensure their operations are fair and balanced. So too do workers. So too do workers. This Government has consistently trodden on the efforts of workers and the unions to represent them in the belief that choice and flexibility deliver better outcomes. It is absolute hypocrisy—absolute hypocrisy—that it can advocate and allow unity on one side and then try to destroy and break down—