Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5124] 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 31 August. 
Clauses 3A to 5 new clauses 5A to 5C and clause 6 ( 
continued 
)  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The Employment Relations Amendment Bill which we are presently considering in no way resembles what this country needs to reinforce the words that were spoken in the Speech from the Throne this year. We need robust and vigorous laws that will encourage an economy to grow. What we are still confronted with is a Labour Government waxing lyrical in terms that would put the average working New Zealander to sleep. We are certainly nowhere nearly as motivated to the level we should be. The Employment Relations Amendment Bill is undoubtedly dumbing down the ambitions and enterprise of a whole generation. It is with much concern that National opposes this amendment. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that this is the 15th amendment to the Employment Relations Act and it reminds me of that Simon and Garfunkel song about how many ways there are to leave one’s lover. In actual fact this Employment Relations Amendment Bill in effect is “15 ways to screw the nation and its enterprise”. It is hugely concerning. It reminds me very much of the Garfield comic strip. We see Garfield the cat yawning away dreaming about warm fuzzy moments and notions of self-interest which serves only to reinforce bad behaviour. That is what we see within this Employment Relations Amendment Bill. In no way does it stir up and conjure enterprise within this nation. What we see is very similar to what we see in old Garfield the cat. Inside this tired and lazy Labour Party is corruption slothfulness and wastefulness. That tone is set from the very top and it is flowing through society. 
When we look at what is across on the other side of the Chamber in a tired and wasteful Government we see there are some old burnt-out MPs whom the electorates said they did not want to see again. They voted them out. We see them sitting there dormant tired and sleepy although the electorates have said they do not want them. We now have in front of us legislation that New Zealand does not want to see. When we start telling an employer who he or she should take on and employ it cuts across the enterprise that this country needs. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This bill if ever a bill was is truly legislation for money. Here it is and this Government gets money from the trade unions. It knows that and it delivers legislation—cash for policies if ever there was such a case. A lot of people would say that is corrupt. When we pay money to a Government and get legislation there is no other way to describe that than as a corrupt practice. We are getting used to that. 
I want to say something to three Labour members sitting across the Chamber on the Government benches. They are all new and at least two of them will be gone at the next election. So I say to them they should enjoy their 2 years or more accurately suffer their 2 years because today’s question time is merely an example of what they can expect. We are angry and the public are angry. They are saying to this Government it should be honest with the voters and pay the money back. The Government should listen to the 81 percent of the public who say that because the public have no patience at all with a Government that would basically take money and deliver legislation. 
 The policy behind this bill is in any event fundamentally flawed economically because the Government is trying to get new business owners to take on old employees under the same terms and conditions they had previously or else to pay them redundancy. That is the choice. This Government obviously has not heard of the last 20 years of economic reform. Do those members not know how greater productivity is actually achieved? It means that we have to get more work—more productive output—from each employee. That is the only way productivity is increased. It may mean providing more capital or it may be a case of adopting better management systems but whatever it means it means change. We do not end up doing exactly the same job in the same way it was done before. We heard submitters say: “Woe is me because in the last 20 years my job has changed.” I would say to those submitters that they should get real and come into the real world because work does change. There are more efficient systems new technology new machinery and new management systems. Actually that is how the economy was turned around over the last 20 years. 
Government members have some fatally flawed idea of paying the unions back and adopting until the point of bankruptcy the ideology of their trade union mates. Here we have in the Chamber two members of that Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—trade union officials—delivering to their unions policy that the unions paid for. That is my definition of “corruption”. They are delivering here not just corrupt ideas around Government but also bankrupt policies as well. 
National is fundamentally opposed to this bill. We even suggested—and my colleague will talk about this—some modest changes to the bill in our minority select committee report. We said that we should at least exempt smaller employers because we are faced with an absurd proposition. A small firm probably consisting mostly of family members will tender for a contract. It intends of course for its employees and team to take over the contract. But what does the Government say? It says the firm should forget about its own business all the capital it has at risk and all its new initiatives because it has to take the old people on. Well the very reason the contract is being changed is that the person who is changing the contract wants there to be a new team: the team presented to the person who is changing the contract by that new small employer to do the work—to do it more efficiently effectively and cost-effectively. My colleague David Bennett will talk on his proposition as to why the proposed change to the bill to address that issue is so desirable. 
I do hope that New Zealand First is sympathetic today to the ideas and values of small businesses particularly of family businesses. The New Zealand First member on the select committee Peter Brown well knows—because it was discussed in the select committee—that the proposal is aimed precisely at that group of people. I hope the New Zealand First members will stand by their ideology and support small business. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I rise today to speak in opposition to this bill and it absolutely appals me to hear yet again the sort of language coming from the other side of the Chamber when Government members talk about protecting vulnerable workers. We have to realise that it suits Labour members to have workers feeling vulnerable. It suits them to have them needy and in a lesser situation so that those workers feel indebted to the unions and those workers do not have the means to be able to speak up for themselves and say what they really need. This bill is just another example of the sort of language coming from the left that likes to see everyone in a position of neediness and vulnerability as if we cannot help or look after ourselves. What an absolute load of hogwash that attitude is! 
One need only look at the unemployment figures these days to know that there is an across-the-board level of unemployment relating to cleaners and those affected by this bill. Those who have the means and are doing a good job will move into other work with no issues at all. 
I can see some understanding and logic around the district health boards’ position which was aired during the select committee process. I personally have not had much to do with the district health boards and the workers involved with them. We heard arguments from them and I certainly heard the argument from Labour members about those workers who are going under six different contracts and who have their terms of employment changed six different times. Without a doubt Opposition members have some sympathy for those workers and we felt that that issue needed to be addressed. But as usual we have the big stick and the blunt instrument from the Government for a problem that will now affect all other small businesses and we certainly have a high level of concern about that. 
Small-business owners often family-owned businesses will be affected detrimentally by this bill and the Labour Government simply does not care. It is not interested in those small businesses and does not grasp the concept that they too will be affected by this bill. It is as simple as that I tell Labour members and they just need to listen to the argument that family businesses will be affected by this bill. 
Sue Moroney 
: They deserve decent wages too. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: The member is right and they deserve to be able to employ their own people and their own family. It is as simple as that. If those businesses are tendering for a contract and they win it then they should be able to employ their own family members in that business—not be obligated to take on another family that had the contract previously. It is as simple as that. If what the Government proposes in this bill happens then that business will have to make their own workers and family members redundant. That is what will happen with those small-business owners and family-owned businesses which is most of the problem with this bill. During that select committee process there was no way that any Government members on the committee were willing to listen to the concerns that came out about that issue. Those members were not willing even to acknowledge them or even to listen to what effect this legislation would have on small businesses. 
I think National members were the ones who put up our hands and saw that through the district health boards and the examples given with those large cleaning contracts we identified and agreed with them at some level that there was actually a means for it. That process is called listening and learning. But in no way with Labour’s left-minded ideology about vulnerable workers were those members prepared to go in and actually listen to what small-business owners had to say. They were not prepared to hear the effects those business owners struggle with day by day in addition to all the other obligations that are placed on them and this requirement will become yet another level of obligation that those businesses simply will not be able to handle. 
This is—and I would like members to listen to this—the 15th amendment to the Employment Relations Act that this Government has made. In 2000 the Government rushed that legislation through when it came into office after promising to pay off the unions and telling the unions that it would do something. We have had to fix that Act 15 times and Government members cannot tell me that doing that is a good use of this House’s time. They cannot tell me that there are not other things out there that they have stuffed up that we should be looking at fixing because goodness knows there are. There are enough struggles going on out there that this House should be spending its time on fixing up. The Government rushed through with that legislation. It is now seeing all the mistakes and the stuff-ups it has made that we are repeatedly having to go back to fix. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 It is probably true that the Government has fixed the Employment Relations Act 14 or 15 times. That is only slightly more often than the National Party has had changes of leader and deputy leader since Helen Clark became the leader of the Labour Party. I think National has had about 10 or 11 new leaders and deputy leaders. What were those members doing then? Were they fixing something—was that a stuff-up? 
New Zealand First will support this legislation with the Supplementary Order Papers. I will address the Supplementary Order Papers because it is true we have concerns about this type of legislation but we also believe there are vulnerable workers who do need a bit of legislative protection. So we have insisted with the Labour Government that there will be one Supplementary Order Paper in my name that will allow for a review of this whole amendment within 3 years. The second Supplementary Order Paper which is produced by the Government—and which the Minister and I spent some hours negotiating—allows for full disclosure and we will be supporting that. 
The third Supplementary Order Paper is in my name and it is a result of Mr Blumsky’s concern. I think his concern might be wrong but he raised it while speaking in the Chamber I interjected on him and he approached me afterwards and elaborated on it. I think he is wrong. I spoke to the Minister as I promised Mr Blumsky I would. Both the Minister and myself believe there is no cause for concern but we thought it was an issue that might arise if we were dealing with a devious or underhand employer. I do not know any such employers but possibly National members do. So we took it on board and in my name there is a Supplementary Order Paper that will amend the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper along the lines that Mr Blumsky suggested. So I want to see how National will vote now because it knows that this Supplementary Order Paper will improve the situation for employers and that it had a hand in this. I would not mind betting that National will vote against it. 
I want to talk about Mr Bennett’s Supplementary Order Paper. Mr Bennett approached me the other day and asked whether I would take it to my caucus. I did so but the Supplementary Order Paper is flawed. I have explained that to him privately as I have explained it to Mr Wayne Mapp. It is flawed because it basically says that nothing in this part of the bill applies to small employers with under 10 employees—I think I have got that right. Well excuse me but the most vulnerable of vulnerable workers are probably those working for a small company. That Supplementary Order Paper just does not do the job. 
New Zealand First members are by natural instinct not supportive of this type of legislation—I have to be honest—but we have listened intently to vulnerable employees. They can negotiate their wages and conditions up and if we open the door for anybody to take a new contract or take over the firm—which is already covered in the earlier legislation—then those guys will start right on the bottom again. When one listens to their cases and the situations they have been in one has to have some sympathy. People have told me privately that they had been doing their jobs and were regarded highly but when a new contract emerged one way or the other they were told they could still carry on working there but would get paid less or they would get paid less and have more to do or things would be made much more difficult for them by undermining the very conditions they worked under. That is not fair. There is a genuine concern in New Zealand First for those people. 
This legislation closes the  
Gibbs and others  
v 
 Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd 
 loophole. We recognised that the Government produced legislation last term that addressed the principle of what happens when one company is sold to another and we thought that on merit it is worth positively addressing this part of it. We were aware that the Government had the numbers so our attitude in New Zealand First was to get the best possible deal. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 It is a big concern when I hear my fellow colleagues talk about 15 amendments to the Employment Relations Act. A bigger concern and an even stronger message that this Labour - New Zealand First Government does not like small business is that we are still even today making amendments to this legislation on the hoof in order to crucify small business. 
Let me explain exactly where I am going with this point. I stood in this Chamber just short of a week ago and I raised some issues regarding the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by Minister Dyson. I raised some issues to do with the fact that there was no protection for small businesses if they were taking over the employment entitlements after successfully winning a contract. My friendly colleague on the other side of the Chamber Peter Brown who has just spoken shouted me down at great length during the debate saying that I was wrong and that the Supplementary Order Paper would fix that problem. After I had delivered that speech I had a discussion with my colleague Mr Brown who then made a representation to the Minister. A Supplementary Order Paper in Mr Brown’s name has been presented today because of the discussion I had with him. Mr Brown then had a discussion with the Minister who has agreed to support the Supplementary Order Paper. 
No further proof is needed of the messy disruptive nature of this legislation—which is on its 15th amendment—than what we are currently seeing. That has to be a signal the Labour - New Zealand First Government is sending to small businesses that it does not like them because a lot of the Government’s mates who actually fund it are in unions and it has to look after what they want. The Government is saying it is important that its mates the unions who fund it are well and truly looked after. 
As I indicated in my last speech to the Committee I get a lot of correspondence from small businesses. I will read from a letter from a Wellington business—it has been in business for 14 years and has had 60 employees—because it just typifies and underlines what I am trying to say: “The past 4 years have been a nightmare for our business and we believe the reason is partly due to the overall climate and tone that now exists in this country created by a Government intent on pushing employment policies that are not necessary and political correctness that is way over the top and crazy.” I will drop down to another line that I particularly like which I will share with members: “We believe the only way to get New Zealand back on track is to get rid of the current Government.” I suggest that is an incredibly inspirational piece of writing from that small business. 
At the end of the day we should not be distracted from the fact that this legislation is not good for business in New Zealand. It is messy—there are 15 amendments to the Act—and this is Supplementary Order Paper number whatever because of issues that were raised by myself in the very last debate on this bill. As I say that is not the way we should be doing business. This Parliament needs to make sure New Zealand is moving forward. This Government needs to look at how it can lower taxes give people incentives to get ahead and ferret out the waste and the very many low-value programmes in the public sector so that the public gets good value. The public is not getting good value from this legislation. The Government needs to stand up and apologise to businesses in New Zealand because it is not giving them the respect they deserve. If we were the Government we would ensure that the right climate was there and that businesses got the credit they deserved. Thank you Madam Chairperson. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank Mark Blumsky for that excellent speech. Today is a very disappointing day. A political party called New Zealand First campaigns year after year on keeping people honest on standing up for individual rights and on being there for all New Zealanders—and what has it done today? When it had the chance it just dumped the small-business man. New Zealand First members dumped the people who supported them and they supported the Government in order to keep the baubles of power—so that its members could stay in the Cook Islands and sit on spiders. Well that is not good enough for New Zealanders. We want to have a country that represents all New Zealanders. We want a Government that is actually prepared to make the hard calls—a Government that will move with the issues and with the people. 
When we were in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the issue of vulnerable workers was raised quite genuinely. There is an issue out there and that issue will not be solved by legislation that is universal. There are two things that this legislation will not do and those members opposite will destroy the vision and passion of ordinary New Zealanders—those people out there who set up a business to clean as a family unit who employ fewer than 10 employees and who want to transfer their business through. This bill kills them. They are stung by harsh legislation that puts far too many restrictions on them and their business capabilities. That is shocking. It is shameful and there is only one word for it. It begins with “h”. 
Secondly this legislation indicates the intention of Labour and New Zealand First to keep the people under their little thumbs—to keep them under control. They know better than the people—that is their message. Labour and New Zealand First say that they know what is best for ordinary New Zealanders and that 60 of them can make a decision for 4 million people. They know because they think they have this God-given right to tell everyone what they think. This is what they think and that is what New Zealand First has been doing just for the baubles of power. It has become part of the union movement now. It is part of the union movement; it is the Labour Government. 
I refer now to some of the issues and numbers given to us in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and heavens above to think that this question might have been asked by Peter Brown! He might actually have asked in the select committee how many small employers there were. The answer was that for 1417 sole traders there were zero employees. There were 737 businesses employing one to five employees and 153 businesses employing six to nine employees. That gives a total of 890 businesses that employ between one and nine employees or a total of 2307 businesses employing fewer than 10 people. The sole traders are not even in the legislation. 
If we look at the number of employees we see that for businesses employing zero to nine employees there are 2860 employees. That is for 2307 businesses. But there are 16180 employees for the other 451 businesses that employ more than 10 employees and those 16180 people are the people this legislation is for. They are the real vulnerable workers. 
The other 2000 people are people in small businesses who are trying to make a go of it. What then does the Government do? It just goes and shafts them. And what does New Zealand First do? It supports the Government in shafting them. What did we have to do? We put up an amendment that would have given the opportunity for the political parties in this Chamber to stand up for what is right to stand up for New Zealanders to stand up for those working people who are vulnerable employees and to stand up for those hard-working New Zealanders who want to start their own businesses. What happened? Those parties denied it. They said no to it and moved on. 
This legislation would have supported 16000 New Zealanders but 2000 have been denied that support through New Zealand First’s inaction. We had the numbers here today. We could have got that amendment through. The parties around this Chamber all listened apart from New Zealand First. Why did it not listen? That is my question to that party. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I have some very simple questions for the Government and for its puppy New Zealand First. I ask the Government why it hates workers but loves trade unions. That is the difference is it not? The Government hates workers but it will do anything for its trade union mates. New Zealand workers have voted with their feet. Eighty-five percent of New Zealand workers in the private sector have said no to the unions because New Zealand workers hate unions. The Government loves unions. Do members know what unions do? They put their lackeys into Parliament. I am looking at two of them now: Darien Fenton and Sue Moroney. Do members know what Darien Fenton did? She stole workers’ union money to pay for the Labour Party campaign. That is what she did. That is the exposé in  
Investigate 
 magazine. 
I have a question for New Zealand First. Why does New Zealand First hate small businesses? Why has it sold out to the party of the unionists? It is truly appalling. The party that calls itself “New Zealand First” is in fact “trade union first”. It has sold out to the Government. The New Zealand First Party— 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I want to raise objection to comments made by the member— 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: To what? 
Darien Fenton 
: To the accusations the member has made about— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I called a point of order. Will the member please be seated. The member will withdraw and apologise for speaking while that point of order was going on. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: OK that is a final warning. The member has taken offence at the remark made by the member on his feet and I ask him to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Madam Chairperson I surely have to know what the member has taken offence to before I do so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think the member is very clear on what the member said which was— 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: She did not actually say. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I will just ask the member to stand and clarify her point of order. 
Darien Fenton 
: I take offence at the comments made by the member accusing me of taking money from the union to get myself into Parliament. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has taken offence at that. Mr Mapp will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. I have ruled on this— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated Mr Williamson. The member who has the call will withdraw and apologise. I have ruled on the matter. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. First of all I disagree with your excluding me from making this point of order because it was very relevant to the matter. Earlier in the House during question time the Speaker Margaret Wilson made it very clear to a member of the House that members cannot come back some time later and take offence at something. Members should take a point of order at the time something is said and say that they take offence or the matter is gone and the House moves on. The Speaker was very clear on that. She did not allow the retrieval to be made against the statement the Prime Minister made against Don Brash because time had moved on. 
Dr Mapp had quite clearly moved on to a completely new issue. At the time the member raised her point of order Dr Mapp was talking about New Zealand First and its relationship with the trade unions. If Darien Fenton had taken offence then according to Margaret Wilson’s ruling earlier she should have got up at the time of Mr Mapp’s comments and raised a point of order saying so. She did not and I think it is wrong for you Madam Chairperson to allow Darien Fenton to come back some time later and take offence when the Speaker would not allow Don Brash to do the same thing. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will make a ruling but will make two points to the member first. The first is that it is the Chairperson’s responsibility to rule on a point of order as he or she sees fit. It is not up to the member to question that. The second is that the point of order was taken during the speech not at a later point. Certainly that is what I have ruled. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Of course the member Darien Fenton cannot deny that there is an article in  
Investigate 
 magazine that talks about some very nefarious goings on to do with union moneys and Labour Party campaigns—very nefarious goings on indeed. She was a candidate and she managed to arrange money to be spent by the union without the permission of the members on Labour Party campaigns. There is a word for that. Certainly  
Investigate 
 magazine had no hesitation in using it. What disturbs me is this— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: If it’s not true she will sue won’t she? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Maybe she will—but will she? That is the question. 
I have this question for New Zealand First. New Zealand First said that it is not part of the Government. Apparently that is what it said. Most people do not believe that and I am not surprised they do not believe it. But if a party says it is not part of the Government then it does not vote with the Government every damn time; it does not vote for bills it does not even believe in. Time after time we see the spectacle of that party the poodle party voting always with the Government. If members of that party want to know why they are at 2 or 3 percent that is the reason. 
National is opposed to this legislation. We gave New Zealand First the chance to stand up for small business. We gave New Zealand First members that chance and what are they saying? They say they do not care they do not want to support small businesses of New Zealand they do not want to support family businesses and they are going to vote against small businesses in New Zealand. I say to New Zealand First that they are going to be judged by the voters and the electorates in 2 years’ time. The voters will remember when New Zealand First abandoned small businesses when they abandoned New Zealanders and when they abandoned thrift hard work enterprise and innovation. If Peter Brown in his retirement in 2 years’ time wonders why he is spending his time in Mount Maunganui instead of Wellington he will remember this day—the day he voted against New Zealand’s small businesses—and he will say that is why he was retired by the people of New Zealand. 
From time to time parties in this Parliament get choices and those choices are based on their votes. Those votes are measured and counted and remembered by the people of New Zealand. We will say to the people of New Zealand that this was the day New Zealand First abandoned small business abandoned voters abandoned the people of New Zealand and said they were with Labour and the trade unions. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The introduction of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is quite specific. It states: “This bill is intended to protect certain categories of employees …”. When I listen to other people I wonder and I want to understand why they have missed what this Government has done. Certainly in relation to this bill the minimum wage has increased six times in the last 6 years. The issues about employees’ rights are quite clear and people revel in that. The macro level in this country—in the sense of small-business development—sings out and continues to say: “Long live the Labour Government!”. Well I will continue to say that because this Government has most certainly been the best friend of small and medium businesses that this country has had for a long time. What is so wrong with protecting employees’ rights? What is so wrong with doing that? What is so wrong with giving a fair toss for the workers? The Government is unlike some other organisations that have deep pockets of cash that they give away to run other agendas. 
The bill is quite simple; it is no big issue. The bill is about people’s rights and certainly the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has worked hard on it. This Government has continued to develop the macro level so that the micro-business structure in this country will survive for a long long time. The advent and the wish of people in the sense of keeping a strong entrepreneurial-type economy alive is something that this bill supports. The unions have done well in terms of participating in the economy and so have employers. That is what this bill is about; it is about continuing to make sure that workers’ rights are recognised. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is amazing to hear a Minister—the Hon Parekura Horomia—talk about economic growth when Labour is the Governnment that has managed to give us zero percent economic growth from last September to March of this year. This Government has given zero percent when our trading neighbours are growing at 9 to 10 percent a year. This Government has killed our economy. It has strangled what was a strong economy good economic times and good commodity prices. Now we are at the bottom of growth rates; at zero percent for 6 months. That is completely unacceptable. We need to be growing at least 3 or 4 percent to be competitive with Australia and our neighbours who are at 9 to 10 percent. Why are we growing at zero percent? It is because this Government has constantly fiddled with the economic fundamentals that National set up in the 1990s and Labour set up in the 1980s—the fundamentals that set this country on the right track. 
Today we have seen a New Zealand First Party that has said that it was not going to turn its back on the small businesses of New Zealand do exactly that. This is the New Zealand First party that voted against this legislation in the first place. New Zealand First members voted against this legislation and now they are supporting it while they are in Government. Can members figure that? Why did they vote against it and now why do they vote for it? Well there has been a general election and they got the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; that is why they voted for it— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Baubles! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes exactly—they have changed their vote to go for legislation that they were against 3 years ago. That is a shame for this Parliament and for this country. We do not want to see that word beginning with “h” used again but it can apply to only one party here and that is New Zealand First. It had the chance to stand up for all workers. 
The thing about this legislation is that it is about vulnerable workers the people who need assistance from government—the 16180 people who are in businesses with more than 10 employees. But the other 2860 employees and 2307 businesses need the discretion and the ability to grow their businesses. They need a Government that will actually back them. This concept—to back our people to give them a chance to trust our people to make the most of their opportunities—would be so foreign to Labour. Labour members could never do that. They cannot have people given a chance because they cannot control them. If you cannot control them they will not vote for you—that is the theory they are working on. So they continually try to control everyone and they will not even let 2860 people who are in 2307 businesses live their own lives and make their own decisions about their futures. They will not give them that chance. They do not want to see someone progress. They just want to see 451 big employers and that is against the rationale of this legislation. 
This legislation should be for vulnerable workers. How can you have legislation for vulnerable workers and at the same time you crucify them by saying you cannot grow out of vulnerability? You are always going to be working for a big employer. That is what Labour and New Zealand First are doing here today. They are saying if you are in those occupations—such as cleaning—you have to work for a big employer. Why do you have to work for a big employer? It is because you have to pay a union fee and if you pay a union fee you get that party back on the programme—and they dearly need that money at this time. 
So keeping people under control is a fundamental part of this legislation. It is not about vulnerable workers’ rights it is about union control union domination and stifling the ambition and hard work of ordinary Kiwis. When we see New Zealand First members in the election campaign next time if they stand up and say they are going to keep the Government honest if they say they are there to allow New Zealanders to grow and make the most of their opportunities then we can say: “You had your chance 2 years ago. You could have voted for this legislation—you did not. You gave the people a slap around the face. You will pay the price in 3 years’ time and so will the Labour Government.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Can I just say to the member who has just sat down—and I have given this ruling several times—he knows he cannot bring the Chair into the debate. He did it many times. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I want to respond to some of the remarks that Wayne Mapp and David Bennett have made against New Zealand First. First of all it is true that we voted against the Employment Relations Amendment Bill at the first reading and we are now voting for it but there are some significant changes to the bill— 
Katherine Rich 
: Baubles! 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not know whether I have any more baubles than she has—maybe she would like to tell me where my baubles are. We changed our minds simply because we struck an arrangement—a deal if you like—to improve the legislation which is something the National Party would have really liked to achieve. We have achieved full disclosure of everything and a review will take place within 3 years. 
Mr Bennett believes that he is an advocate for small business but if I were a small-business person with a staff of fewer than 10 and I were in the position of tendering for a contract I would like to think there was a good chance that I could win it. If I had full disclosure I could win it. If I did not have full disclosure I would probably never win it. 
Sue Moroney 
: That member understands small business. Good on him! 
PETER BROWN 
: I support small business. If I were an employer who had a contract that was going out for tender and I employed fewer than 10 people I would like to think that if I lost the contract my people would be looked after. But under David Bennett’s amendment they would get the sack. They would be out the door—whoops! If that is looking after small business and looking after vulnerable workers then I am a Dutchman with plenty of baubles. 
New Zealand First has put some common sense and fairness into this legislation. Wayne Mapp knows that. He is sitting over there in Opposition envious that we can represent the business community. I tell him to talk to his employer mates and ask whether they appreciate legislation that requires full disclosure both in the public sector and the private sector. The honourable member spoke to me privately a little while ago and admitted that David Bennett’s amendment was flawed. Mr Bennett knows that it needs to be amended to cover employees working for small business. He knows it is unfair. He knows that if an employer who employed fewer than 10 people lost a contract then those guys would be out of work. In his heart he knows that yet he stands up and rants and raves and says he is the champion of small business. 
If David Bennett is the champion of small business then he knows that small businesses must look after the people who work for them. I invite members opposite to think about that. Let us say that a small business or even a large business employed these vulnerable workers who had over a period of time upped their negotiating strength and as a result had received increased wages and better conditions and then because of this legislation those people lost those conditions overnight. Is it fair for them to have no protection? Those people are at the bottom of the heap anyway. They need to have a bit of legislative protection. All they have is the protection of the minimum wage which New Zealand First is doing it darnedest to get up to $12 an hour within this term of Parliament. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
PETER BROWN 
: Members opposite should think about the hardship that those vulnerable workers go through. A whole host of them came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and outlined their concerns. They need to have some legislative support. 
The New Zealand First members were convinced that if we could make amendments to this bill by means of a Supplementary Order Paper we would be doing the best for small businesses and for the people who work for them. I am very proud to say we approach this sort of legislation with an open mind. We are not committed to ideology unlike the crowd opposite me in this Chamber. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is interesting to hear comments by the member from New Zealand First. It is significant there will be some very hard calls required in the near future for his party because it is facing a problem where it is seen to be in Government with Labour and therefore guilty by association. I do feel very sorry for that outstanding member Ron Mark from down my region who is respected but is soiled with such filth and utterly deplorable legislation. It is very very scary because it is against everything that has made this country great. 
When we look at the way provincial New Zealand voted during the last election I believe we will see the completion of the New Zealand convergence to come in behind National to be the only solution to take this country forward and to maintain that high quality of life that we have become used to. When we see that we have had 15 moves to get this bill to a stage where Labour can be satisfied with it knowing that 15 movements beforehand it was totally unacceptable to its comrades—the unions—we can see why one would call the bill the “Labour (Union Movement Close Relationship) Amendment Bill”. Certainly it is nothing to do with looking after those people whom the Government labels “vulnerable”. The people whom I come across who are vulnerable are mostly those who are ripped off continually by the behaviour of the Labour Government. It is very very recognisable that many many people are coming to the understanding that the only way forward is through supporting the way forward with the National Party. 
There are 300000 businesses involved and it is a bit of a shame when we hear the president of the Council of Trade Unions talking in glowing terms about innovation productivity and suchlike yet enshrined in this legislation is the deplorable activity of beating up on business. The bargaining of an employee is open to abuse when we get to a situation where somebody wins a contract and I would be hopeful from my own experience of taking over businesses that it would be done with due diligence and that one would convince oneself there was a degree of rigour inside the accounting processes and that people came on board subject to their satisfaction and one’s own satisfaction over a period of time. 
So on that basis I can see a lot of logic behind Wayne Mapp’s 90-day probation bill on the basis that it gives everybody the opportunity of being comfortable. On that basis we look forward to that engagement as well. But I would imagine that the insidious behaviour of the union movement has so turned the tables on what is good for this country that we will be confronted again with this deplorable activity where we end up with consumption speeding away and burning up our economy while the export base is eroded. So when we think about those sorts of things we can understand why the National Party is so clearly opposed to this legislation. 
I would like to recall the situation with Garfield the cat—that deplorable beast that we all recognise within ourselves as that tendency we must resist where we yawn and dream away about those warm fuzzy notions of self-interest. That is what we are seeing inside this sort of legislation—the “Labour (Union Movement Close Relationship) Amendment Bill”. This bill does nothing to create the robust innovative competitive environment with rigour and what is necessary to grow this economy. What we are seeing is Labour waxing lyrical in some dreamy fantasyland that will have us all come home rich and abundant but just for the pure effort of keeping this Government in power. It has nothing to do with vision nothing to do with leadership. Good hard-working New Zealanders will recognise that. 
When we look for examples of how we get performance we look at the export sector of this country and globally we lead the world around creating the incentives whereby we stand on our own two feet. At the end of the day everybody on this side of the Chamber prays that we will continue to produce sufficient people in this country able to stand on their own two feet. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of David Bennett to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add to Part 6A the following new section: 
69OEExemption for small businesses 
Nothing in this part applies to a business that has fewer than 10 employees at the time that the provisions of this part apply to that business. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 53 in the name of Peter Brown to clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 55 in the name of Peter Brown to the amendments to proposed new subpart 1A of Part 6A in clause 4 and to proposed new clause 5B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 54 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 54 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the a 
mendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3A clause 4 as amended clause 5 new clauses 5A to 5C as amended and clause 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Clause 3A clause 4 as amended clause 5 new clauses 5A to 5C as amended and clause 6 as amended agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.