Locke Keith: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Locke Keith: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15446] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the title and commencement date clauses of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I think the commencement date should be changed. Instead of being 1 April 2011 it should probably be 1 April 1911. I do not know whether we can have retrospective dates like that but it is appropriate to that period in our history when our employment legislation was very weak and employees were at a serious disadvantage. This bill would fit in that period more. 
In terms of the title rather than the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) it might be better to call it the “Employees’ Submission Amendment Bill” because that is what the bill is about the submission of employees in the workplace particularly to their employers. I think clause 3 “Principal Act amended” rather than amending the Employment Relations Act 2000 might be better to amend the Corrections Act. This bill is in some ways imprisoning workers or at least taking away the freedoms of workers in the workplace. It is relevant to the Corrections Act because under that Act I think there is now an allowance for home detention. This bill does not have home detention; it is sort of work detention. So that clause relates perhaps more to the Corrections Act than the Employment Relations Act which as has been pointed out was passed in 2000 to improve relations between employers and employees to create a fairer relationship and to allow for fair bargaining between the two parties. 
The Green Party was supportive both of Trevor Mallard’s amendments to Part 1 and of the prospective Parts 3 and 4. I think that if the Government was serious it would have accepted amendments that allowed for the union to be given access to workplaces as normal without all this hold-up where urgent matters are concerned. Certainly health and safety and sexual harassment are urgent matters and if someone is dismissed the union cannot wait for a few days before it comes in to defend them work out whether they should be in the job negotiate redundancy payments and all the rest of the issues. These are matters that require the urgent attention of union officials and I think it is a pity that those amendments to Part 1 were not passed. 
In the prospective amendments there is the secret ballot issue too. There is a funny contradiction in the legislation before the House at the present time. On the one hand there is this requirement in Tau Henare’s bill which the Green Party opposed to provide a secret ballot before any action is taken by unions but on the other hand in this different bill—the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)—the unions cannot even get access to hold their secret ballot or the employer can stop them and put barriers in their way. The two measures are in contradiction. 
The other amendment that was put forward by Trevor Mallard met with the approval of the Green Party too which was that the primary remedy of reinstatement should particularly apply to those who are involved in union bargaining and health and safety issues etc. Otherwise an employer could kick an on-the-job union representative down the road and that has happened many times in New Zealand’s employment history. I think there was opposition to that interpretation by the National Government. If the National Government does not think there will be a picking off of union officials etc. by disallowing reinstatement as the primary remedy then it should have supported that amendment. The other points raised in the debate have been very relevant too particularly the one relating to access to welfare benefits if someone is dismissed under the 90-day provision.