Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT for the second reading of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. ACT opposed this bill at the first reading and after listening to the many submitters we oppose it stronger now than we did before. I must congratulate or say thank you to the great work done by the Parliamentary Counsel Office and officials to put together a really complicated—but unnecessary—piece of legislation. Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment officials even said at the Education and Workforce Committee that it was difficult trying to make this very complex system understandable". I spent quite a bit of time studying the Crimes Act 1961 in a past life and I'm really in awe of the way it was written so it showed that we have some really talented people working in this place. But be assured—for the sake of employers and especially employees—this will gone after the next election. The naming of this bill is an extremely cynical use of words because like other Labour Party phrases—misnomers like "money tree" and "gravy train"—it doesn't mean what it says. "Fair": it's not fair especially in this case it's subjective and quite meaningless. "Pay": it's not only about pay; it covers all aspects of an industry's employment. And "Agreement": it's certainly not an agreement; if there's no agreement they will be set by the Employment Relations Authority but they are industrial awards.To oppose this bill doesn't mean opposing fair pay—quite the opposite. Thankfully most people aren't fooled by this wording. The bill seeks to take New Zealand back to the national awards systems of the 1970s and 1980s risks a return to the industrial chaos of that era as individual businesses find themselves dragged into disputes that they have nothing to do with. The current employment agreement contracts legislation has provided the necessary safeguards and flexibility for employees that have proven to be successful over the last 30 years.The fact is that after declining through the 1980s employees' pay and conditions have improved substantially since the introduction of the Employment Contract Act in 1991. There are issues in some industries that obviously needed addressing and they came out quite obviously during the select committee process. Drivers have an issue; cleaners and a number of other professions obviously have inherent issues that need to be sorted. But most workplaces are going well—even Minister Wood acknowledged this—and this silly piece of legislation is quite unnecessary. Once again the most divisive Government in New Zealand's history—proud history—has excelled in pitting one section of society against another: employers against employees. Labour fails to understand that all business owners—those New Zealanders who strive to get ahead through their own effort and who are prepared to take risks to provide work for those who want it—those employers were once hard-working employees who had a great work ethic and a vision. I realised how out of touch Labour were a couple of weeks ago when during question time Minister Sepuloni proudly quoted Costco's managing director who said "We pay over the award rate and the living wage. We want to give people really really good jobs; good training." In response to the notion that other businesses were struggling with a national skills shortage he said "If you pay the right wages and have the right working conditions you [can] get the right people." He also added that he had little problem "finding staff himself".Costco: a multinational corporation third largest retailer in the world making billions of dollars in net profit each year being compared with struggling New Zealand businesses that are fighting for survival because of this Government's policies. Insinuating that there wouldn't be a worker shortage if New Zealand businesses just paid their employees more is just so offensive.I'd like to thank many of the submitters as well for contributing to this really important debate. They were divided into two camps: not just for and against the bill but emotive and factual. Some employees are doing it tough and their stories were often heartbreaking to hear and I thank them for sharing them. But fair pay agreements are not going to help; they will make it worse. A number of submitters stated that they would like to have more say in the running of their business to feel like they belong more and I'm sure a lot of businesses would actually like that if the employee was also prepared to mortgage their house or get a loan to pay just in case the business got stuck—like the business owner has to. One submitter represented the hospitality industry a union with a membership of 3 percent of the 100000 workers in the industry quite adamant that if extra conditions placed by a fair pay agreement (FPA) caused a business to go bankrupt or fail well that's just tough luck. Totally out of touch with their own workforce. The popular Labour rhetoric that if you can't pay their bills they shouldn't own a business is straight out of the trade union manual.The other group of submitters were against the bill proceeding: business owners who are experiencing the current Government policies and some highly experienced and qualified people who came to the committee with the facts. The fact that FPAs will affect employment relations negatively. The fact that most employees were happy with their current pay and conditions. The fact that most businesses are already providing training and pathways for employees to get ahead. The fact that health and safety and welfare of employees was hugely important to business owners. They haven't needed a Big Brother Government to tell them. The development of workplace relations has improved hugely since the introduction of the employment contracts in 1991.Retail New Zealand did the survey that you heard about before: 71 percent of New Zealanders didn't want FPAs. They also said that 0.5 percent—half a percent—of their workforce could initiate an FPA. That's just not fair.This bill does amount to unionism by stealth and will simply make it tougher for businesses who have struggled to keep trading during the last two years and who continue to struggle with the never-ending costs imposed on them by this Government.I had my first experience with unions when I was 17. I left school to work as a cleaner in a psychopaedic hospital in Nelson. I met the union rep on my second day there when she pulled me aside told me it was an expectation to join the union if I wanted that morning tea with everyone else and if I wanted to get free cheese on toast. So I did join. I met her again about two weeks later when she again pulled me aside and told me I had to slow down. They had a way of doing things and I had to follow it. She was telling me not to work too hard and there is little evidence to show that that attitude has changed within the union movement.New Zealanders are free to join a union if they want to. They shouldn't be forced upon them because of Labour's ideology. The constant comparison with Australia by Minister Wood and these guys sitting here now about how fantastic these agreements are has become tiresome. It's just not factually correct. Their agreements are very different. Union membership in Australia—and throughout the world—is declining as workers prefer to be treated like adults more than capable of working out their own conditions for employment. Maybe if we started mining like they do in Australia we could reach some of their rewards.Timing of this bill is another kick in the teeth for business owners and the Government knows FPAs won't help. Over the last two-and-a-half years we've had an environment where employers and employees worked things out for themselves to cater for the current unprecedented situation. Businesses help workers workers help businesses—struggling employers. It has worked and COVID showed us—and continues to show us—that we need a flexible workforce.But from the start of this pandemic we've been kept on having a tax on businesses. Two weeks into it the minimum wage went up and I won't bother with listing all the rest.The Government must realise that businesses have survived in spite of them not because of them. And when Business New Zealand refuses any part in this bill you'd think there was cause for some concern. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has warned against FPAs saying they will reduce productivity and make it harder for employers to grow. This is a solution looking for a problem; it's not good governance.New Zealand's workforce has improved from the 1991 introduction of the employment contracts agreement. FPAs are a backwards step and they will affect good hard-working employees. ACT believes that New Zealanders are more than capable of talking to employers and working out pay and conditions that suit both parties and most importantly are affordable—something that's lacking in everything Labour says. It's called an employment contract and they work great.Unions can play a part if the employee wants them to. But this bill overrides basic freedom of association by allowing the union to represent a worker even when the worker does not want that to happen and to set conditions that may be against the wishes of the employee. That's not democratic and we oppose this bill. Thank you."