Roche Denise: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 28 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:257. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.DENISE ROCHE (Green)to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he have any concerns that the changes proposed in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill will weaken workers’ rights and therefore make it harder for workers to deal with workplace bullying; if not why not?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):No. I do not believe there are any provisions in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill that make it harder for workers to address workplace bullying. Workplace bullying is unacceptable now and it will remain unacceptable when the bill is passed.Denise Roche: How strong a position would a worker being bullied by their employer be in to even negotiate a tea break after his Government takes away this fundamental right with its anti-worker legislation?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I reject the premise in the question that this legislation is anti-worker. Tea breaks and meal breaks are a right set out in the Employment Relations Act but for many many years the law provided for some flexibility. That was removed and it took away some very sensible arrangements that needed to be made in places like sole-charge air traffic controls night shift supervisors in service stations and in health care settings where leaving the workplace would be inappropriate and unsafe. That is all we are doing. It is not an attack on workers.Denise Roche: Does he consider that his Government is effectively acting as a bully by taking away the rights of some of the most vulnerable workers in New Zealand with the Government’s attack on Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Mr Squeak—Mr Speaker. [Interruption] I withdraw and apologise before being asked.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: And I did not mean to bully the Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am looking forward to the answer so if I can hear it from Mr Michael Woodhouse.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The question is an attack on workers. It presumes that they are not capable of negotiating appropriate arrangements for themselves or that their unions cannot protect them if they feel they are being hard done by. Agreement must be reached. It is as simple as that.Denise Roche: Is his Government not just paying lip-service to solving the problem of bullying in the workplace by launching anti-bullying initiatives on the one hand while pushing through legislation that hurts workers and will make them easier targets for bullies on the other hand?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I reject the question but I do acknowledge that WorkSafe has provided excellent guidance this year on the management and detection of bullying in the workplace and although that has not resulted in an increase in bullying it has certainly resulted in an increase in people feeling confident enough to speak up. I think that is exactly the sort of workplace framework this Government is looking for.Denise Roche: I seek leave to table the research from Victoria University’s Centre for Labour Employment and Work entitled Public Servants Want to Make a Difference which actually says that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No further explanation is needed. It is a research document done by Victoria University. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just in relation to this question and I have left it until now to ask is it appropriate that a question gets on the sheet that in its second part presupposes an answer to the first part? If you look at it it says “therefore make it harder.” That is a supposition that is unreasonable for anyone to make prior to the first part of that question being answered. I am just suggesting that if we are going to get better answers to questions as you are requiring there needs to be greater scrutiny of the questions that are being put on the sheet each day.Kevin Hague: The questions asks: “Does he have any concerns that the changes” etc. and therefore “will weaken workers’ rights” and therefore the point made by Mr Brownlee it seems to me actually is not valid.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If someone wished to question what is in a question before this House the time to raise it is before the question is asked not be the last guy to wake up in the House—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can resume his seat. The question has been raised before the question is formally asked in this House. It has been accepted. It is on the Order Paper. We are going to proceed with the question. But I will certainly have a look at the point that has been raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee.