Little Andrew; Williams PotoHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a great pleasure to take a call on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and I congratulate my colleague the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway for the fine work he has done and our coalition partner New Zealand First and our confidence and supply partner the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand for getting the bill to this point.It is very sad listening to the member Scott Simpson who's just resumed his seat and to hear his speech because that anti-union rhetoric—the idea that workers in New Zealand should not exercise their freedom of association and their freedom of choice—doesn't take us back to the 1970s; it takes us back to the days of Sid Holland and the 1950s and the dreadful scare campaign that the National Party of the 1950s ran about workers belonging to unions. And that's where the National Party today is sadly. They are stuck in a time warp of the 1950s. They do not get that in this day and age workers are capable of making a decision themselves about how they want to advocate for themselves how they want to join with their workmates and their colleagues how they want to contribute to productivity growth and productivity improvement with their employer and how they want to engage with their employer on those things that are going to enhance the business.You always can tell actually where the National Party is at when they trot out the scare campaign over the right of union access to workplaces. Let's be very clear where that argument comes from: it comes from a view that their workplace owned by the employer is solely the private preserve of the employer. It's not just the workplace and the land and the buildings and the equipment that the employer gets to privately own; it's the workers who cross its threshold to work there every day. When the National Party trots out an argument that the right of union access to talk to their union members in a workplace where they have them is somehow wrong what they're actually saying is the employer owns the workers—the employer owns the workers—and the employer should control what information those workers get access to; the employers should control the decisions they get to take. That is how morally bankrupt the National Party today is when it comes to understanding modern workers. New Zealand workers are better than that and the rest of us have more respect for New Zealand workers and their ability to make decisions for themselves than the National Party has and has ever had.The modern challenge of economics and economic management today is not just about economic growth and development and that is vital. That's why this Government has set out an ambitious path. It's why the Provincial Growth Fund stewarded by the Hon Shane Jones is absolutely vital to get that economic impetus into the regions and to get enhanced economic growth across New Zealand.But here's the other thing: there is no point in trying to enlist the support of working New Zealanders into economic growth and development without saying to New Zealand workers You are going to share in the gains. And you're not just going to share in the gains; you're going to contribute to and participate in those gains in a very meaningful way. We are going to protect your rights in the workplace so that productivity enhancements can be negotiated with the employer and made in the workplace and everybody gets to gain." In the end employment law and industrial relations is all about the balance of power in the workplace and there is an inherent imbalance in the employment relationship. It's another thing that the National Party of the 1950s and 2018 still does not get: that the basic employment relationship—that statutory law does not change. The implied common law duties inherent in the employment relationship define the imbalance in that relationship: the implied duty of obedience; the implied duty of confidence and fidelity. They are all things that are there to sustain and support the employer and which need to be balanced by good statutory law and that's what this law does. This allows workers to organise and to have their rights to organise and to associate with each other protected because it can be easily eroded.The member who spoke Scott Simpson talked about the outrage that it is that employers will have to allow the representatives of workers who have freely chosen to belong to a union to come on-site and the outrage that is apparently felt by some employers that a worker representative elected by the workers in the workplace might actually be allowed to have some time—and protected time—to do the work of representing those workers. Actually if you talk to employers who are used to dealing with unions—and there are many of them—they will tell you that's actually a good thing. That's a natural product of workers who are free to choose to belong to a union electing their representatives and having that representative be a go-between between those workers and the employer and then call on the aid and the help of the union organiser from off site when that is needed. But good employment relationships don't get hung up on that stuff. Good employers who want the best for their workers respect the choices that their workers make including the freedom to choose to belong to a union and don't get hung up on that like the National Party. They say "That's good. That's a reflection of the maturing of the workforce that I don't have to worry about that stuff. If my workers choose to belong to a union then I owe it to them to respect that choice and I'll engage with that union. And look sometimes there will be good days and then we might have a bit of rough and tumble but actually if they are there to advocate for the best for those workers I will engage on that basis because I want the best for those workers too and I will engage with their representatives."That's what the modern 21st century employment relationship looks like for those who choose to belong to a union. What could possibly be wrong with that? Well the problem is you've got a party in Opposition that harks back to the 1950s because they are somehow kind of obsessed with what happened then. We just have to get over it. We have some major challenges in New Zealand economically. We have some major challenges with lifting productivity. We have some major challenges with working with employers to invest in that next generation of capital equipment and new gear that's going to need new skills but lift productivity and add new value. We've got to create an environment where employers can do that with confidence but not only that where workers can engage with the processes needed to lift productivity and to embrace new technology and new equipment knowing that they will share in the gains and that they will share the benefits.Right around the Western World for the last 25 years Governments and civil society have been grappling with the issue of how we can make sure we allow economic transformation that frees workers up from doing the mundane mindless tasks allows us to take on new technology embraces the digital transformation and embraces the wonders of artificial intelligence but makes sure that workers whose jobs are going to change and will change can negotiate the benefits and gains of that for themselves—that they can share in those gains. That's the magic we have to create. Good employment law that protects workers and their right to organise and their right to represent creates the conditions for that dialogue to happen. That's why this is important. And so what if from time to time every now and again the relationship between workers and employers breaks down and it gets a bit mucky it gets a bit icky? Well we have institutions to deal with that. That's why we have obligations to work through those issues and we have State-backed institutions like the Mediation Service like the Employment Relations Authority that allow them in the rare times when those employment relations fall apart and the wheels fall off to come back together again and to work those things through with the help of professional input. That's what modern employment relations look like. There is nothing to fear. The very sad misguided 1950s campaign that the National Party continues to run is just embarrassing frankly and embarrassing for this House. It ought to be embarrassing for them; they think there are a few votes in it but that's what they're getting to.This bill restores balance. It restores balance to the rights of workers to advocate and negotiate for themselves. It restores balance and those basic protections. The personal grievance regime makes reinstatement the primary remedy when there's an unjustified dismissal found. Here's the big irony: the personal grievance jurisdiction started under a National Government. It started in 1970 when a more progressive National Government realised the idea that workers when they got sacked had no meaningful remedy because it was way too expensive for them to take a wrongful termination claim so they created the personal grievance jurisdiction with a right to reinstatement.And then the subsequent Labour Government elected in 1972 created the Industrial Relations Act in 1973 that finessed it refined it improved it and we've had reinstatement not only as a remedy but as a primary remedy since then. It's been fiddled around with under the previous National Government but putting it back in place is right. If you are sacked for no good reason and that's found out and the employer's got it wrong but you've lost your job you should get your job back. This bill is about balance—balance in the employment relationship in the modern world—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Thank you."