Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10489] 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill introduced last week “The approach remains one of free choice flexibility and fairness to all to reflect the diversity of workplace arrangements in the labour market and to support a more innovative economy.”; if so why? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes because it reflects the reality that employment relationships founded in the principles of good faith and fairness are more productive more stable and more enduring. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Interjection occasionally is allowed but silly comments like “Sit down” are not. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What then does she have to say to allay the concerns expressed by business leaders that the bill is based on the failed German socialist labour-market structure is aimed at introducing de facto compulsory unionism will undermine the ability of employers to deal with staff equally and fairly and imposes unions and multi-employer collective agreements on those who neither want nor need them? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That interjection was out of order. It was in the second person for a start and the member will stand and withdraw it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: If any employers—if any real employers as opposed to lobbyist employers—actually believe that I suggest they come and see me so we can go through the legislation together. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How does New Zealand’s industrial law compare with that of our major trading partner? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Our major trading partner Australia has higher levels of labour law regulation. Its system is based on a national award system and compulsory arbitration. Furthermore Australia has never had a law like the Employment Contracts Act which may go someway to explain why Australians earn more on average than New Zealanders—which the honourable member has on occasions pointed out to us. 
Peter Brown 
: Is it not true that a principal reason behind the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill is to encourage and in some cases compel people to join unions and thus to contribute to Labour Party funds? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No and as a former Labour Party president I can say “Definitely no”. 
Sue Bradford 
: What steps in brief is the Government taking to reduce freeloading by non-union members in the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill and does she think these measures will be adequate to address declining union membership particularly in the private sector? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The purpose of the bill is not to address declining union membership; it is to ensure there is fairness when it comes to bargaining between collective and individual agreements which is why there is a provision in the bill that states that if in fact an employer passes on the same or substantially the same provisions with the intention of undermining collective bargaining then that would be bad faith. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can the Minister explain to the House where the free choice flexibility and fairness is in two clauses of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill—clause 14 which requires an employer to attend the first meeting of bargaining for a multiparty agreement and clause 12 which requires an employer to conclude a collective agreement unless there is a genuine reason not to—and will those two clauses taken together not have the effect of enforcing employers into multi-employer collective agreements; in other words an Auckland employer could agree to this and force his Auckland pay and conditions on every other employer in the country? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: And pigs might fly. No I think that is a highly unlikely scenario the member proposes. Those clauses are designed to ensure that substance is given to the notion of good faith—good faith meaning that the parties should engage with each other. There is no obligation to reach an agreement but in fact there is an obligation not to say: “I will not talk to you.” 
Dr Don Brash 
: How does she respond to the reported comments of Peter Tritt of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) that the bill will “lead to interminable misunderstandings wrangles and confusion” to the statement of Simon Carlaw of Business New Zealand that the bill will introduce a system of Clayton’s arbitration and is “an undisguised shifting of the goalposts” and to the statement of Sue Thorne of the Early Childhood Council that the bill foists unwanted unions and multi-employer collective arrangements on those who clearly do not want them? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: My response to those comments is that they should take advice on what in fact is in the bill not on what they think is in the bill. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Could the Minister clarify the answer given earlier on the so-called freeloading question and say where the fairness is that an employer is not allowed to extend the same or better pay as is in the collective agreement if the intention and effect of this is to undermine a collective bargaining; how is an employer supposed to be able to prove that and where is the fairness in discriminating against those employees who choose to be on an individual agreement? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It does not apply to better or worse conditions. That clause applies where in the specific circumstances an employer sets out—and they are very few in number but there are examples of it happening—to deliberately undermine the collective bargaining process by automatically passing on the same conditions that have been negotiated. The purpose of that provision is to provide fairness and balance to those who negotiate those conditions.