Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Breaks Infant Feeding and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Breaks Infant Feeding and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18199. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the third reading of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill which we probably should be calling the “Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding and Sneaky KiwiSaver) Amendment Bill”. However we are voting of course in favour of the third reading of this bill despite the fact that we vehemently opposed the Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the KiwiSaver provisions.  
The bill should have been relatively uncontroversial. Of course National believes that employees should be given meal breaks and tea breaks and by all accounts common sense prevails and this actually does happen. Employers want to retain good employees; they will do what they can to do so and they will work in with employees to make sure the workplace is a happy environment. Rest breaks and meal breaks are not there just for health and safety issues of course; they are also there for the socialising impact between employees so that they can get to know each other and it can be a happy and productive workplace and we certainly support that.  
Obviously the bill was drafted with two—well it is now three—relatively separate and discrete issues. Firstly one was to deal with meal breaks and rest breaks which most people did think was already covered in the law; it was certainly arguable that it is already covered in the health and safety legislation. But this bill to a certain extent codifies what happens with rest breaks and meal breaks and for that reason it should be relatively uncontroversial. 
Secondly the bill deals with the requirement for the employer to provide breastfeeding breaks and facilities. We did ask at the time why those two matters which are relatively discreet and separate were included in the one bill. The answer that was given to us was that it was to make it politically difficult for National. I have to say that National has not found it politically difficult to debate in favour of giving meal breaks and tea breaks to employees because we believe in fairness in the workplace. We believe in balancing what is fair to employees with what is fair to employers. [ 
Interruption 
] We have said that all along I say to Mr Fairbrother even though the member may not have heard it.  
What we did oppose though is Supplementary Order Paper 229 which shows the unfairness of this Labour Government the arrogance of this Labour Government and actually its bad faith. The Employment Relations Act is based on good faith and this is one of the most classic examples of this Government exhibiting bad faith. The relevance of KiwiSaver to breaks and infant feeding still eludes most common people. That was dealt with in the House yesterday—apparently by motion—surreptitiously and sneakily. The amendment has not been subject to proper scrutiny: it has not been subject to consultation and it has not been subject to proper scrutiny of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The public have not been permitted to submit on it and to give their views. It has been snuck through under urgency at the eleventh hour and I have to say that I think that is a sad sad day for democracy in this country. I think it is a disgrace and an abuse of process.  
Already this Parliament has been criticised by a New York University professor for the recklessness of its lawmaking and for the irresponsible lawmaking that can happen and this is an example of that. I find it very disappointing that this Government is so arrogant and so ignorant of the process of legislation and just overrides common sense common decency— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member voted for it. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: —we did not vote for the amendment—in fast-tracking legislation which the professor himself described as disgraceful by world standards. This is reckless legislative process. It is a typical example of bills being rushed through under urgency in a deserted Chamber. Members are subservient to the executive there are constant closure motions there is no quorum and there is no second Chamber which is why we do have a robust select committee process. But this Government just ignores that. There were no checks and balances on Supplementary Order Paper 229 for KiwiSaver. I have to say that the duty of care was not being properly exercised when this was snuck through.  
This undermines the effectiveness of the select committee process. It actually undermines the confidence that New Zealanders can have in the democracy of our country. I think that that democracy unfortunately is not as robust and not as stable as one would expect. It is tenuous and when we have a Government like we have after 9 long years one realises just how tenuous democracy really is. There is no concern whatsoever for common decency for democracy. It is just power at all costs: “We want to get in; we will do what we have to to stay in power not what is best for New Zealanders.”  
What is best for New Zealanders is to have a proper consultation process. What is best for businesses is that they should be consulted on these far-reaching KiwiSaver amendments. What is best for New Zealanders is that the very people that this Labour Government pretend to be supporting the lower-paid and elderly workers—those workers who cannot afford to enter into the KiwiSaver scheme—are those workers who have not been consulted. Has the impact of the KiwiSaver legislation been referred to them? No it has not. On the day that this House went into urgency a sneaky amendment was introduced bearing no relevance whatsoever to a meal breaks bill a tea breaks bill and a breastfeeding facilities bill—bearing no relevance whatsoever—with no consultation and no submission to a select committee and I think it is atrocious and an outrage that it has been done in this manner.  
We did oppose the KiwiSaver amendment because we do not think it is fair. We think that providing meal breaks and tea breaks is more than fair. We think that providing breastfeeding facilities and breaks is more than fair when reasonable and practicable but the KiwiSaver Supplementary Order Paper 229 is not fair. Why should it—and this has not been answered by the Minister—be unlawful to offer employees different salary packages because they are or are not members of KiwiSaver? Why should one employee be treated less favourably than another because that employee has made a different private savings decision? This amendment is a case of bad faith.  
It is really interesting that the Government specifically allowed for employers to include employer KiwiSaver contributions as part of that total remuneration package when it passed the KiwiSaver Act. Now this Government has flip-flopped done a U-turn and has reversed that decision. At the time the Minister of Finance said the Government expected that the phase-in of compulsory matching employer contributions would be taken into account in wage and salary bargaining. The Government was quite comfortable that there would be trade-offs between pay rises and KiwiSaver contributions. What has happened since then? What has happened is that the Minister has decided that it is unlawful for employers to deduct the employer contributions from employees without first giving them a pay rise of at least that amount. But that is already unlawful under existing KiwiSaver legislation. That did not need to be sneaked through as a Supplementary Order Paper to the meal breaks and rest breaks legislation.  
The KiwiSaver Act provisions made it quite clear that after 13 December 2007 the question of whether compulsory employer contributions are in addition to current remuneration or can be offset in part against pay rises is subject to mutual agreement between employers and employees. That provision was specifically inserted by Government members on the select committee and this Government has now reversed its stance. Good faith is a requirement of the Employment Relations Act provisions. It seems that good faith is not a requirement of the Labour Government.