Thursday, 19 August 2010
Volume 665
Sitting date: 19 August 2010
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): As advised to the Business Committee some time ago, next week the House will sit for extended hours in order to facilitate the passing of a range of non-controversial bills that have been on the Order Paper for some time. The House will also debate the first readings of some bills. It is the Government’s hope that we will have a question time each day next week, and that the extended hours will conclude by 6 p.m. on the Thursday evening.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I wonder whether the Leader of the House could confirm that just as a cut is now known as “changed funding”, urgency is now known as “extended hours” as part of the rebranding of the Standing Orders that is under way—if he could assist in respect of that. I also ask him whether the Government is committed to holding question time next week.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Firstly, I thank the member for the endorsement of the extended hours’ proposition. I think that is a very positive thing for the House. On the second point, yes, we are quite happy to have question time. That, of course, would be by leave of the House, given the nature of the proceedings, but members should expect that.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Welfare Reforms—Policy
1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that the Government has an “unrelenting focus on jobs and work”?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: The competent and hard-working Minister stands by her statement that the Government has an unrelenting focus on jobs and work.
Hon Annette King: If her unrelenting focus on jobs is working, why did 1,600 people apply for 110 jobs at Bunnings in Dunedin, 2,550 people apply for 150 jobs at a Mount Roskill supermarket, and 100 people in Tauranga apply for one receptionist job; and could the answer be that the focus has been “too little, too late” considering that unemployment went up by another 19,000 in the last quarter?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: This Government feels sorry, in many respects, for all those job applicants. They used to have jobs but those jobs were based on excessive Government spending and an unsustainable housing boom caused by the mismanagement of the previous Government. Those people will get jobs only when this Government’s programme of building the confidence of businesses to invest and employ makes more progress.
Hon Annette King: Are the long queues for jobs we are seeing around New Zealand, and the latest unemployment figures, which the Minister described as a “shock” to her, the reason she admitted, last week, that “aggressive” is not the word she would use to describe the so-called recovery, which put her at odds with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The recovery has been quite considerable. As was pointed out to the House yesterday, the economy turned round from a 1.5 to 2 percent shrinkage; it is now on a path to 2 to 2.5 percent growth, which is generating a consistent rise in hours worked and a drop in unemployment. That is not as fast as we would like, but the lesson we have learnt from that—
Hon Annette King: A drop?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, unemployment has dropped, from its peak. The lesson we have learnt is that jobs based on the kind of growth that the previous Government promoted, which was funded by excessive borrowing, and not by growth in the tradable and export sector, were jobs that were unsustainable.
Katrina Shanks: Has she received any feedback about how the 90-day trial is creating jobs?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In fact, yes, the Minister has received feedback from employers who have made it clear that the staff they have recently taken on under the trial period would not have got jobs if it were not for the opportunity for those young people to get their foot in the door, show that they can prove their worth, and, for instance, thereby earn the opportunity for an apprenticeship.
Hon Annette King: When she said there had been a 40 percent rise in online job adverts and that she could see the employment situation improving, had she seen the report by the TV3 reporter Patrick Gower that stated some of those jobs were duplicates; if so, what is the real number of jobs available?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are any number of ways to measure changes in employment, ranging from job ads in a newspaper to the online job ads, to the various surveys carried out by Statistics New Zealand. One thing is quite clear: unemployment has peaked, and employment is growing. We wish the employment rate would grow faster, but we do not have the choice of just cranking up the recovery. The Government is already putting about $9 billion of cash into the economy, supporting thousands of jobs through job schemes, through its extensive infrastructure investment. In the long run, more jobs are about building the confidence of businesses to invest and employ. We are working relentlessly on that.
Hon Annette King: Having said that she backs unemployed people all the way and constantly promotes her job schemes, is she aware that these programmes are hardly making a dent in the youth unemployment rate, which is up 65 percent since June 2008 to a disgraceful total of 68,200; I do not think the Minister could say that unemployment has obviously peaked?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister does promote the job schemes vigorously because they are providing the opportunity for about 9,000 young people to keep contact with the workforce. The fact is that the new jobs that are created are created not because the Government is spending up large or because households are borrowing a whole lot of money, but because it needs to rebalance the economy, grow the tradables and exporting part of this economy, and create sustainable jobs through business investment and employment.
Economy—Reports
2. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As I mentioned yesterday, I have been looking at an analysis of real after-tax wages. Between September 1999 and September 2008, real after-tax wages grew by only 3 percent in that 9-year period. I have just seen a report of a comparison with the previous 9 years, 1990-99. When we use the same statistics that are used for calculating New Zealand superannuation, we see that in those 9 years real after-tax wages grew by 15.5 percent, compared with the 3 percent increase over 9 years under the previous Labour Government—and Labour was meant to be the workers’ party.
David Bennett: What has happened to real after-tax wages since 2008?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again using the statistics employed by Governments for the last 20 years to calculate New Zealand superannuation payments, I find that real after-tax wages have grown by 8.7 percent in less than 2 years since September 2008. Across-the-board personal income tax cuts on 1 October this year will further increase after-tax incomes. We do not pretend that it will be easy to maintain that kind of progress, because further increases in after-tax income in this country will need to come from enhanced productivity, better export performance, enhancements in public sector productivity, and a rebalancing of resources into the private sector.
David Bennett: What factors explain these trends in real after-tax wages over time?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a couple of factors. One is that a combination of low inflation and tax cuts has tended to help faster increases to occur in after-tax wages. There is no doubt, though, that the mix of higher inflation, no tax cuts, and economic mismanagement in the 9 years under the previous Labour Government had the obvious effect of suppressing increases in real after-tax wages.
David Bennett: What do these trends in real after-tax wages tell us about the economy’s performance in these periods?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again using the statistics that are used to calculate New Zealand superannuation, the increase in real after-tax wages in Labour’s 9 years in power was just 3 percent—quite a staggering achievement in a time of global prosperity. The reason for that extremely poor performance, particularly since 2004, was simply mismanagement of the economy: excessive Government spending, too much regulation, crunching the export sector, and excessive debt. This Government has the job of cleaning up that mess, and then improving New Zealand’s economic performance.
Hon David Parker: In his reports on the economy, has the Minister received reports that the National Government cut contributions to the Superannuation Fund, cut KiwiSaver, and refuses to run an operating surplus; if so, do those reports indicate that the National Government is responsible for worsening New Zealand’s saving deficit?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a bit rich, coming from Labour, to say National—
Mr SPEAKER: The member should not start an answer by attacking the questioner with “It is a bit rich”. The Minister should make an attempt to answer the question first.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have seen reports that every time that National does something to try to achieve a surplus, the Labour members go into a kind of hysteria and call it cuts. They cannot have it both ways. Here we have one spokesperson for Labour saying we are simply refusing to run surpluses, while the rest of the Labour members go hysterical when we try to do that.
Hon David Parker: In his reports on the economy, has he received reports that the National Government axed the research and development tax credit, axed the $700 million Fast Forward innovation fund; if so, do those reports show that the National Government is responsible for dramatically worsening the research and innovation deficit identified in today’s report by the New Zealand Institute?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen reports that those two initiatives of the previous Government were cut by this Government, and for good reason: we had a better policy. We have put that in place, and we have a more positive attitude towards science and innovation in that sector of the economy than there has been for many years.
Hon David Parker: Are the savings deficit, the innovation deficit, and the lack of a credible plan or any milestones for the National Government why the New Zealand Institute called its report that was released today A goal is not a strategy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen reports that the previous Labour Government had—I ask members to listen to this—250 strategies. The Parliamentary Library could not find all of them; those were only the ones that it found. The result of those 250 strategies was an economy that was on its knees, the worst public sector administration we have seen for years, and New Zealand being in recession before the rest of the world even thought about it.
Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the New Zealand Institute report released today, A goal is not a strategy.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I seek leave to table a report listing 250 strategies of the previous Labour Government.
Mr SPEAKER: Who has prepared the report? What is the source?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Parliamentary Library.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Document Security—Ministerial Offices
3. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Defence: Is he satisfied that the removal of a document entitled Defence Review 2009 from the office of his then Associate Minister does not represent a security breach?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Defence: Yes.
Hon Pete Hodgson: Will he confirm to the House the written remarks of the honourable Heather Roy that ACT board member Nick Kearney has a copy of another paper, a Cabinet paper dated 23 June 2010, which she describes as “extremely sensitive in nature”, and that he, the Minister of Defence, “believes Rodney Hide has passed this paper on, and he is upset that he could not trust a ministerial colleague to keep a paper he gave him to himself”?
Mr SPEAKER: I call the Minister in so far as the Minister is responsible for some of those things; part of the question quoted a person for whom the Minister is not responsible.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: A very good point. I am unable to confirm that.
Hon Rodney Hide: I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation.
Mr SPEAKER: Covering what matter?
Hon Rodney Hide: Covering the allegation contained in the statement made by the Hon Pete Hodgson.
Hon Darren Hughes: Point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the member briefly. Leave is being sought, but if it is helpful, I will hear the Hon Darren Hughes.
Hon Darren Hughes: It is convention to allow a member to make a personal explanation, but if this is a matter concerning ministerial business, the ownership of ministerial papers, and where those ministerial papers have gone in a ministerial capacity, surely it should be a ministerial statement that Mr Hide makes to the House.
Mr SPEAKER: It depends. I cannot predict what the Hon Rodney Hide is wishing to do, but he understands the Standing Orders. If he wishes to make a personal statement, then it must be a personal statement. If he were to be granted leave to make a personal statement, it should not be on a matter to do with ministerial business; it should relate to him personally. So leave has been sought by the Hon Rodney Hide to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
Hon Rodney Hide: The reason I am making a personal statement—and I am happy to correct that—is that it does not relate to my responsibility as Minister of Local Government or as Minister for Regulatory Reform. It concerns a defence document. I am happy to change my leave and seek leave to make a ministerial statement, if people would feel better about that.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not stopping the member, but the point should be made that Ministers can, of course, talk about things they do in their ministerial capacity, as members of Cabinet committees or working with other Ministers. That is a ministerial rather than a personal explanation. He would not have had the paper that is being talked about, if he was not a Minister. We will not object to his making a ministerial statement as he offered to do.
Mr SPEAKER: A ministerial statement is a very different matter. It can be debated, and it is a very different matter. Leave has been granted for the member to make a personal statement. He is an experienced member and he understands what a personal statement is. I am sure that if the member departs from making a personal statement, we will discover that. Leave has been granted, and I call the Hon Rodney Hide.
Hon Rodney Hide: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the House. The allegation was that I in some capacity had passed a Cabinet document on to Mr Nick Kearney, or, indeed, to anyone who was not authorised to have that document. In this House—and I know the full consequences of what I am saying—I emphatically deny that allegation. I have never ever given a Cabinet document to a person who should not have it. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: That is quite enough. We are on question No. 3. The Hon Pete Hodgson may wish to ask further supplementary questions. [Interruption] I have called the member’s colleague. I ask him to show some courtesy to him.
Hon Pete Hodgson: Will he confirm to the House the written remarks of the honourable Heather Roy that “he had never initiated contact” with the Hon Rodney Hide but that “he said that Rodney Hide had approached him on more than one occasion to tell him things, including a rumour about drug use”?
Mr SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister perceives any ministerial responsibility, the Minister is welcome to try to answer.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Thank you for that. The document from which I believe the member is quoting is not an official document, and there is no ministerial responsibility for any of its contents.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was not based on the document. The question was whether the Minister of Defence had been approached by Mr Hide in relation to rumours of drug use by the Associate Minister of Defence. That goes exactly to his responsibility.
Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. We will not debate the question by way of point of order. A question was asked and the Minister answered it, and that is where the matter lies. The member may ask further supplementary questions if he wishes.
Hon Rodney Hide: Again, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought by the Hon Rodney Hide to make a personal explanation about—I ask him to clarify for the House.
Hon Rodney Hide: It is about the allegation made by Mr Trevor Mallard by way of point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the member to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
Hon Rodney Hide: I thank the House again. I can emphatically say that I have never approached any Minister with concerns about drug use by Heather Roy, as alleged by the member opposite. I think it is appalling that he would say such—
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat immediately. I say to the Hon Rodney Hide that the House extended him the courtesy of allowing him to make a personal explanation. He will not use it again to criticise another member, and neither will this matter be pursued further by way of point of order.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: I alert the Hon Trevor Mallard that he will not use the point of order process to debate an issue, and he will not in any way use the point of order process to criticise another member in this House. With that warning, I will hear the honourable member.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table the document of Heather Roy’s that makes allegations about Rodney Hide.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Pete Hodgson: Did he advise his Prime Minister—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: This time it is the Hon David Parker. I ask him to show some courtesy to his colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson. He has the floor to ask a supplementary question, and unnecessary interjection like that is not assisting the order of the House.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at the comment made by Sandra Goudie accusing the Opposition of being sewer rats, to which I responded with my interjection.
Mr SPEAKER: This childish matter will not be taken any further. I have called the Hon Pete Hodgson.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, Mr Speaker, a member has taken offence at what I suspect that you, and every other member of this House, would deem to be an extremely unparliamentary comment. He has taken offence. A number of us have taken offence at it. You—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: The member will deal with his point of order or he will sit down.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Well, I will deal with that comment, as well. He has compounded it by saying it was true.
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. This childish behaviour will stop immediately—immediately. We are adults in this place, and I ask members not to behave like children. If Sandra Goudie offended the Opposition, I invite her to withdraw and apologise for whatever she said. I apologise that I did not hear it. If she did offend the Opposition she will know—I do not want her to repeat what she said. If she did not, I am prepared to take her statement that she did not make any such statement.
Sandra Goudie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I absolutely and categorically said nothing of the sort.
Mr SPEAKER: This is where that matter will lie. The member will resume his seat immediately. This is such childish behaviour that it is an insult to this House and demeaning of the dignity of this House. The Hon Pete Hodgson has the floor to ask a supplementary question, and that is where it will remain. [Interruption] And that is enough of that nonsense from the back of the House.
Hon Pete Hodgson: Did the Minister of Defence advise his Prime Minister that the Hon Rodney Hide had, reportedly, told him that the honourable Heather Roy was rumoured to be using drugs; if so, when; if not, why not?
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have already given a personal explanation that I did no such thing. Therefore, that question is out of order.
Mr SPEAKER: I accept that point, because the House must take the word of a member when a member has made a personal explanation. The consequences of misleading the House on a personal explanation are high. Therefore, the House must take the word of a member. I therefore rule that question out.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I could bring to your attention an obvious problem, which is that I am accurately quoting nothing more or less than the written word of another member of this House. That is all I am doing.
Mr SPEAKER: But the facts remain that a member has made a personal explanation in relation to that matter, and the House must take the word of that member. If that member has wilfully misled the House in making a personal explanation, the consequences of that are very severe. That is why members making personal explanations have to be very careful what they say to this House. But I cannot allow a question that contravenes a personal explanation given by a member.
Hon Pete Hodgson: What were the “other defamatory statements” that Heather Roy said the Minister of Defence had been told by the Hon Rodney Hide?
Hon Rodney Hide: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation; I take it that it is on the point just made. It is up to the House whether it grants it. Leave is sought. I put it to the House. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is just to assist the House to find a way forward. There is a series of questions that the member wishes to ask, based on information that has become available from a member of the party of the member making the personal explanations. If, at the conclusion of the questions having been asked, the member wishes to make a personal and full explanation about the matters he is concerned about, then I do not think there would be objection from the Opposition. What we do object to is his jumping up every single time and ruling himself out of certain matters, as a way of shutting down questions, when the base document that the Hon Pete Hodgson is using is actually from the parliamentary ACT Party.
Mr SPEAKER: The member is entitled to seek leave to make a personal explanation, if he finds an allegation contained in a question to be highly offensive to him. He is entitled to seek leave; the House is equally entitled not to grant it. But there is no way that I can ask the member, because if he does not seek leave to make a personal explanation, it allows to go on the record of the House things that the member may consider are untrue, offensive to him, and in any other circumstances may be defamatory of him—but that is not a remedy in this House, of course. So I have a dilemma there. I realise that the member Darren Hughes is trying to be helpful, but the House declined that leave, so I am obliged to accept that. I probably have to ask the member to repeat his supplementary question, because such time has gone by now that members have probably forgotten what it was.
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that the Opposition has exercised its privilege to deny me the right to make a personal explanation, but I would just make this point. We will find ourselves in quite a difficult position in question time, because the member is getting up and asking questions that make an allegation against me—a highly offensive allegation. I have the opportunity, as any member of Parliament does, to stand up, make a personal explanation, and say it is not true. What the Opposition has done has denied me that opportunity. What that means is that it will become a currency in this Parliament that, under the cover of asking a question, or, indeed, in giving a speech asking questions of the Government, any defamatory or offensive statement can be made about a member. One seeks leave to give a personal explanation to say it is not true—which is the strongest statement one can say in this Parliament—leave is denied, so it will just continue.
Hon Trevor Mallard: If it was a fresh allegation, or something that was new or not known to the House, then the member might have a point. I think the problem he has is that this is not an allegation made by Mr Hodgson; it is one made by Heather Roy, and he is merely quoting it.
Mr SPEAKER: The member has raised a relevant issue. Under the Standing Orders, members must not insert into a question an allegation that is contrary to the Standing Orders. That is why the member, in asking a supplementary question, could not make a statement about another member, because that is strictly outside the Standing Orders. I do not stop members, I do not intervene, when members do insert allegations into questions, because I would be intervening far too often, but when it comes to a matter relating to a member, then I would intervene. As the Hon Trevor Mallard points out, on this occasion the member asking the question is not himself making an allegation against anyone. As I understand it, he is quoting from something. Again, if it was an outrageous quotation, then that would not be acceptable in this House, either. I realise that this is a sensitive matter, and it is not an easy matter for me to rule on, but I think we need to hear the supplementary question to be satisfied that the member asking it is not himself making any allegations against the Hon Rodney Hide in the question. The question must be relevant to the Minister’s responsibilities; otherwise, it is unreasonable. I should not allow a question, even though it might be quoting someone, on a matter for which the Minister has no responsibility, just because a member wants to try to get something on the record of the House. That would not be reasonable, either. So I ask the experienced member the Hon Pete Hodgson to respect the Standing Orders of the House in wording his supplementary question. We will listen to it very carefully, but it must not contain any allegation that he might be making, it must not quote any outrageous allegation, and it must be within the responsibility of the Minister of Defence.
Hon Pete Hodgson: What were “the other defamatory statements” that he reportedly told the honourable Heather Roy that the Hon Rodney Hide had told him?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question today stated: “Is he satisfied that the removal of a document entitled Defence Review 2009 from the office of his then Associate Minister does not represent a security breach?”. Since then we have had a series of questions that relate to an internal party document that has various allegations in it. It is not an official document. It is a matter of record in this House only because it was tabled, and it was tabled only because it is freely available on the New Zealand Herald website. I would ask you to rule why Ministers in any circumstance, given the Speakers’ rulings that I think you will find relating to incidents that took place in 2002, should be required to answer any questions about another party’s internal document.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I think all it could go to is the possibility that the other defamatory statements that are alleged to have been made by Mr Hide about Mrs Roy went to any question of security risk or her ability to do her job as Associate Minister of Defence. If those were the sorts of allegations that were made—and I can think of no other reason why a leader of a party would make such allegations to the Prime Minister—
Mr SPEAKER: I think we have heard sufficient. We risk getting into debating the merits of the issue. I realise that it is a very sensitive issue, and I hear what the Hon Gerry Brownlee said—that the primary question related to security. The supplementary questions have moved more towards matters relating to an internal party document for which the Minister is certainly not responsible. In answering the question—because at this stage I have not ruled the question out—I think the Minister should guided by the fact that he is responsible for the conduct of the Associate Minister of Defence only in so far as any of it relates to the defence portfolio. He is not responsible for the private conduct of such a member; neither is he responsible for any relationship between another member and that member. So, in answering the question, I invite the honourable Minister to reflect on the limitations of his responsibility there. Rather than simply say it is unreasonable for me to have allowed the question to be asked, because it is distanced from the primary question, I ask him to simply think about his ministerial responsibilities in answering it. It would be, in my view, perhaps going a little too far for me to rule out the line of questioning totally.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am unable to confirm anything that is in the particular document referred to by the member.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Pete Hodgson.
Hon Trevor Mallard: That cannot be correct.
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called. This was provoked by the Hon Trevor Mallard, who interjected when a point of order had been called. He is an experienced member—and, actually, often a very good member—and should know better.
Hon Rodney Hide: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I have called the Hon Pete Hodgson on a point of order, and he will be heard first. And he will be heard in silence.
Hon Pete Hodgson: My point of order relates to the personal explanations given by the Hon Rodney Hide, and speaks on behalf of another member. What has happened is, as I have explained in my questioning, I have done no more than accurately quote the written word of a member. That has been denied by another member in this House. My question to you is should the first member, on her return, want to offer a personal explanation in rebuttal of another personal explanation, will that be in order?
Mr SPEAKER: I am not about to rule on such a matter; as an experienced member, the Hon Pete Hodgson should know that very well. This is an important matter. I realise that members are taking it very seriously, and I appreciate that, but we should be aware that under Standing Order 371(1)(c) “discreditable references to the House or any member of Parliament or any offensive or unparliamentary expression” cannot be included in a question, including in a supplementary question. Even if a quotation is being used, if it makes discreditable reference to another member of the House, strictly it is outside the Standing Orders. I do not like preventing members from questioning too far, but I just mention this—and members are welcome to look at Standing Order 371(1)(c)—because we do need to be careful here. I have allowed the questioning to go ahead, but, as the Minister has pointed out, he has no responsibility for a certain document, and that is a perfectly fair answer.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to take this matter, I think, one step further, but in respect of Standing Order 371, I would like your judgment as to which discreditable reference you refer to. Is it that the honourable Heather Roy—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. In pursuing this point of order, the member is about to do exactly that—perhaps make some discreditable references. We will not have that by way of point of order, either. If the member has no further supplementary questions, we should move on.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Let me have another go, and I apologise. I will try to do it generically. Under Standing Order 371, was the Speaker referring to a discreditable reference made by one of the members of the House or about one of the members of the House?
Mr SPEAKER: It does not matter. If it is about a member of the House, it is strictly out of order. Even if the member asking the question is quoting from material, and even if the member is quoting from material that derives from another member of the House, strictly, under the Standing Orders, one cannot make discreditable reference to another member of the House. In terms of the formation of questions, I do not apply the Standing Orders strictly day in, day out, because I would be intruding far too much into question time. At least half the supplementary questions asked today have not complied strictly with Standing Order 371, but I leave it to Ministers to exercise their judgment as they listen to questions, and they know that when a question is fairly wide in respect of the Standing Orders they have a lot more liberty and licence in answering it. I would rather let the game, if you like, flow like that, rather than my intervening all the time. But when it comes to an important issue like this, where members’ integrity is at issue, I need to apply the Standing Orders, I believe, correctly, and I believe I am doing that.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you for that ruling. It is a difficult issue, because I recall a very considered and important line of questioning by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith in respect of Taito Phillip Field where allegations of corruption were made. Those allegations of corruption were quite properly questions for the floor of this House, and were not ruled out of order under that particular Standing Order.
Hon Rodney Hide: The difference was that those allegations were true.
Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Hon Rodney Hide not to abuse the point of order process like that. I will not tolerate that further. The difference was, in fact, that I made no allegations whatsoever. If members check back in the Hansard, they will find that I was very, very careful, for that reason. The Speaker should not be brought into the debate on this matter, anyhow, but I invite the member to check back. If, in fact, I had made all sorts of allegations of corrupt behaviour, the line of questioning would never have lasted as long as it did.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for raising one more point of order. Sooner or later your interpretation of Standing Order 371 may get us into trouble, because it seems to me that if, for example, this document I am holding up were an affidavit—it is not—and it had some degree of legal supremacy to it, you might be of a mind to allow any allegations or disreputable remarks contained in that affidavit to stand in the House. I wonder whether you could contemplate that, perhaps not now but in time to come.
Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s point of order.
Hon Rodney Hide: I seek leave to make a personal explanation about the contents of the questions that Mr Hodgson made against me.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are minded to agree to that request for leave, but we need to have slightly more specific reference as to the personal nature of what Mr Hide is seeking to correct on the record of the House, rather than a generic reference to issues raised by Mr Hodgson.
Mr SPEAKER: I think it is not an unreasonable point the member is making. The House has already given leave for two personal explanations. For this one, it would be helpful to know what specific reference he is referring to.
Hon Rodney Hide: I seek leave to make a personal explanation that I never made any defamatory statements to Dr Wayne Mapp about Heather Roy.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make such a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection.
Hon Rodney Hide: I have never made defamatory statements to Dr Wayne Mapp about the honourable Heather Roy.
Electricity—Progress on National Grid Upgrade
4. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What progress has been made in upgrading New Zealand’s national grid?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Today the Prime Minister opened a second substation at Ōtāhuhu. This marks the completion of Transpower’s Ōtāhuhu substation diversity project. A third of New Zealand’s power supply, and nearly all of Auckland and Northland’s power, is currently supplied through the Ōtāhuhu site. This $100 million project will provide greater diversity of power supply to the Auckland and Northland regions. It is a significant piece of infrastructure.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What other projects are under way that will reinforce supply into Auckland?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Reliable electricity infrastructure is very important to New Zealand’s largest city. There are a number of other projects under way, such as the underground cable circuit between Pakuranga and Albany, and the new line into Pakuranga from the south. Transpower will spend around $1.7 billion in total on transmission projects to reinforce its network into and across Auckland. It is a significant infrastructure spend.
Charles Chauvel: Given that Transpower spent over $1 million last year on overseas travel for its staff and contractors, and given its decision to spend over a quarter of a million dollars this year on its own—
Mr SPEAKER: I have just pointed out that members are not meant to insert statements, claims, or assertions into questions. I do not insist on members starting a question with a question word necessarily, the way previous Speakers have, but to keep a list of “givens” going is simply a bit beyond the pale. I invite Charles Chauvel to reword his question.
Charles Chauvel: Can taxpayers be satisfied that the decision to offer Transpower dividend relief has been accompanied by an appropriately strict oversight by him of Transpower’s planning and spending processes, in light of Transpower spending $1 million last year on travel for staff and contractors, its spending over a quarter of a million dollars this year on its own fibre-based internal phone network, and its lack of any plan to incorporate smart grid technology into its $3 billion upgrade?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes.
Drink-driving, Blood-alcohol Limit—Research
5. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What differences, if any, is he expecting New Zealand research to show on the effect of a blood-alcohol level of between 0.05 percent and 0.08 percent on a New Zealand driver compared to an Australian driver?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): This may come as a surprise to the member, but I do not expect to see any difference in the effect of alcohol on a single New Zealand driver compared with, say, an Australian driver. What I do expect the research to show is particularly the actual level of harm caused on New Zealand roads by drivers with a blood-alcohol level between 0.05 percent and 0.08 percent. This gap in the research was identified by the previous Government, but as in a number of other areas the work was never done.
Hon Darren Hughes: Why did he say in the foreword to the Safer Journeys strategy, in respect of actions to lower the drink-driving limit, that “change is needed if we are to catch up with Australia … and others that are best in the world”, if he was not convinced by existing New Zealand and Australian evidence that immediate change was needed?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I certainly stand by those comments in my foreword. We have made a number of changes that will impact on the road safety record of this country, relative to Australia—for example, the cellphone rule change, the illegal street racing legislation, the raising of the driving age to 16, the nil alcohol limit for recidivist drink-drivers, the nil alcohol limit for young drivers, the introduction of alcohol interlocks, and tougher penalties for drink-driving and dangerous driving causing death.
Hon Darren Hughes: Does he believe that a lower blood-alcohol limit for drivers is one of the factors that has resulted in 16 Australians in Victoria, for every million people, dying from alcohol-related road crashes, compared with a much higher 28 people for every million people in New Zealand?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is difficult to draw that conclusion, because the number of people apprehended in New Zealand at the 0.08 percent limit, on a population basis, is higher than the number in Australia, so that suggests a different attitude to alcohol amongst those who drink to excess. I note that it is amazing that Opposition members are taking this approach on the issue, when they were obviously lambs in Government on this issue and are lions in Opposition.
Hon Darren Hughes: Is it correct that the data in his Safer Journeys document on the relative risk of a fatal crash, set out by various blood levels, uses New Zealand data and research, and clearly shows that a 0.05 level is far safer than existing levels, based on that existing New Zealand research?
Hon Annette King: There’s none.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There is absolutely research, and, as I said—
Hon Annette King: The Minister has said there is no research.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, that is not correct. What I said was that there is no research on the issue of the level of actual harm—no actual research between 0.05 and 0.08, and there cannot be, because legislatively—
Hon Trevor Mallard: Just ridiculous!
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Trevor Mallard should not call me “ridiculous” on this issue, because he sat in Government for 9 years and never changed it—[Interruption]—never changed it, and now he is a lion in Opposition.
Mr SPEAKER: There is quite enough noise all around the Chamber.
Hon Darren Hughes: Does he recognise that these constant references—
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. Now, on this occasion it is the Hon Ruth Dyson. That was a totally unnecessary interjection. Interjection is good in this place if it is relevant to what is going on but her own colleague is asking a supplementary question. That interjection is totally unnecessary.
Hon Darren Hughes: Does he recognise that the constant references to previous Governments of both colours leave him as the only person who is playing the party politics card on this issue; that he should accept that a majority of MPs in this House want to vote for a lower alcohol limit—which my bill would allow—and when will the Minister move beyond politics and do something for road safety that we can all support, when there are no party politics to be played here?
Mr SPEAKER: Before I invite the Minister to answer, I am going to invite the member to re-ask his question, and National members—because I will not include United Future and ACT in this—will not interject like that. I could not hear the question and that is why I am inviting the Hon Darren Hughes to repeat it, but I ask him not to add into it stuff that is really outside the Standing Orders.
Hon Darren Hughes: Does he recognise that these constant references to actions or his perceived inactions of previous Governments of both political colours, leave him as the only person still playing the party political card on this issue, when a majority of MPs in the House do want to see a lower blood-alcohol limit for driving, something that my member’s bill would achieve?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I cannot accept that. The reality is that this Government has, in less than 2 years, a far better record on road safety than the previous Government had for 9 years. If the member opposite is embarrassed about his record in that regard, that is for him to sort out. But we have introduced the cellphone rule, drug-driving legislation, and illegal street racing legislation, committed to raising the driving age to 16, and introduced a nil alcohol limit for recidivist drink-drivers, a nil alcohol limit for young drivers, alcohol interlocks, and tougher penalties for drink-driving and dangerous driving causing death. When I asked the previous Minister of Transport what Labour had achieved in new road safety rules when in Government, she said rumble strips.
Hon Darren Hughes: Point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I say to both the Minister and the Hon Annette King that a point of order has been called. They should have heard that. They will cease interjection when a point of order has been called.
Hon Darren Hughes: I seek leave for the Land Transport (Safer Alcohol Limits for Driving) Amendment Bill to be set down as a members’ order of the day.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Employment—Workplace Access for Union Representatives
6. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Labour: Why is the Government introducing legislation to restrict union access to workplaces when the Department of Labour advises that there is no “widespread evidence” of union representatives misusing the current system?
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): As I have said previously, I agree that union representatives do not widely abuse the current system. However, where abuse does occur it can cause significant disruption and badly impact workplace productivity. I do not agree that this change will restrict union access at all. Employers cannot unreasonably withhold access, so the rights of unions and union members remain protected.
Keith Locke: How can the Minister say the problems she refers to are big enough to require legislation, when her own Department of Labour, in the policy options paper, said: “There does not appear to be widespread evidence of union representatives exercising their current rights to enter workplaces in an inappropriate way, resulting in disruption for business operations or adversely impacting on the employment relationship between employer and union members.”?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: Very, very easily. But the same policy paper also said: “Providing discretion could enable employers to undertake better business planning. For example, avoiding any unforeseen stoppages and potentially rescheduling activities around employee availability.” The reality is that this is not a widespread problem, but that where abuse occurs it can cause significant disruption.
Keith Locke: Why is she departing from the existing legislation, which does cover over the problems she has just referred to, when the wording in the Employment Relations Act specifies that union access is restricted to reasonable times and reasonable ways, having regard to normal business operations and complying with existing health and safety requirements and security procedures; surely that is enough?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: This is a small change, which merely clarifies an area where there has been some uncertainty.
Keith Locke: Does she agree with the Department of Labour, in its policy options paper, that current arrangements provide an appropriate balance of fairness to employers, employees, and unions; if not, why not?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: The change that we are making to the Employment Relations Act in relation to union access is fair and reasonable, and is pragmatic. It is a small change, which will remove some uncertainty. Uncertain law is good for neither employers nor employees.
Keith Locke: How is it pragmatic, and why will giving employers up to 2 days to respond to a union request to go on site not seriously frustrate the work of union officials and the workers whom they are representing?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I suggest to the member that if he has an issue with 2 days, and if he thinks that the period is either too long or too short, he can make submissions during the select committee’s scrutiny of the legislation.
Keith Locke: I thank the Minister for that small concession, but what advice would she give in that respect to a worker who needs support from a union representative to resolve an urgent workplace problem like bullying or sexual harassment, only to see the union locked in a long-drawn-out battle with the employer for union access?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: The employment regime is based on being fair and reasonable. We have put in a protection so that employers cannot unreasonably withhold access to unions. That is an objective test, not a subjective test.
Keith Locke: What guarantees can she provide that her legislation will not be used by employers with a strong anti-union bias to deny union access to the workplace, such as happened in 2004 when the Exclusive Brethren denied the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union access to represent migrant workers under a loophole then in the Employment Relations Act, which was later closed?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: If the member reads the legislation, he will see that we are very mindful of any abuses of the employment system. That is why we have doubled the penalties for employers.
Tertiary Education—Management of Enrolments and Access to Student Loans
7. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: How will his policy of restricting access to student loans for thousands of people and allowing tertiary institutions to shut out thousands of students from enrolling support New Zealanders of all educational and social backgrounds to achieve their potential?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education): The Government is restricting access to student loans in two main ways. It will require students who have a place to pass 50 percent or more of their courses over 2 years—which seems entirely reasonable to me—and it will require permanent residents and Australians to show a commitment to New Zealand before being able to access student loans, which brings student loan access into line with similar criteria for student allowances and other welfare payments. These changes will ensure that students are focused on achieving results in their tertiary study and ensure the maximum number of places available to New Zealand students.
Grant Robertson: Why did he disagree with the Department of Labour’s advice to him on his student support cuts that “limiting access to student loans in a recession is a regressive measure which will only increase pressure on the labour market and unemployment”?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If the member opposite is suggesting that we should just hide people in tertiary education even if they are not achieving in tertiary education, then it is fine for him to make that suggestion. But my view is that it is important that we do not have a double-jeopardy scheme in student loans where people stay in education, do not pass their courses, build up a student loan, and then do not obtain the jobs they would need to do to pay off their student loan once they leave university or tertiary education.
Kelvin Davis: Does he agree with Te Puni Kōkiri that the axing of student loans to 3,500 Māori students is at odds with the tertiary education strategy’s aim of “increasing the number of Māori students enjoying success at higher levels”; if so, why is he continuing to push the policy, especially at a time when the unemployment rate among young Māori is running at 40 percent?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We are seeking to encourage students to progress their tertiary education by passing at least half of their courses over 2 years, and that applies to every student. We are also doing performance-linked funding to encourage institutions to provide pastoral care to their students. I am confident that those two measures together will improve education outcomes for all students, including young Māori and Pasifika.
Kelvin Davis: Did the Minister consult the Minister of Māori Affairs on the impact his student loan restrictions would have on Māori; if so, what response did the Minister give?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I had discussions with the Minister of Māori Affairs, and he quite rightly said at the time, I believe, from memory, that obviously he is concerned about the performance of Māori students over time. I gave him my undertaking that I will be continually working to improve that performance.
Grant Robertson: Will he now step in to provide more places in tertiary education so that the thousands of students who have been shut out as a result of his policies will not languish on the unemployment benefit?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have, in fact, I say for the member’s benefit, stepped in and provided more student places at universities and polytechnics. In fact, there are 5,600 more core places at universities in 2011 than in 2008, and there are 6,500 more full-time places in polytechnics in 2011 than in 2008. That increase, along with the changes we are making in terms of the entry requirements for permanent residents and Australians, gives me confidence that the demand pressures will ease over the next 2 years.
Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table a paper provided to the Cabinet social policy committee by the Minister for Tertiary Education, which includes comment from the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, the Department of Labour, the Ministry of Social Development, and Te Puni Kōkiri opposing his changes.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Holidays Act Reform—Christmas and New Year Public Holidays
8. MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Labour: What changes has she announced regarding public holidays?
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): The Holidays Amendment Bill, which has just been introduced, includes a late amendment in order to clarify the law around the Christmas and New Year public holidays. The Employment Court recently ruled that if a firm shuts its doors over the Christmas and New Year period, employees are not legally entitled to Christmas and New Year public holidays, so employees may have needed to use up 4 days of annual leave to cover those days instead. Christmas and New Year holidays are an established feature of the New Zealand summer. Where firms decide to close their doors it is important that staff are not unfairly disadvantaged by losing four public holidays.
Michael Woodhouse: Were any recommendations to the holidays advisory group not accepted?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: Yes, there was a suggestion that the day after St Patrick’s Day be made a public holiday. Although I had some sympathy for that suggestion, in the interests of productivity and growing the economy, we rejected it.
Employment, 90-day Trial Period—Conditions of Employment
9. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: When she said that the 90-day scheme “is voluntary” and “is not compulsory”, did she mean that an employer could not make a 90-day trial a compulsory condition of employment?
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): A 90-day trial can be entered into only if an employee agrees to it in writing. By definition, an agreement is not compulsory. If employers wish to take someone on using a trial period, then they must advise the prospective employee of that. Just like other aspects of an employment agreement, such as salary and hours of work, this aspect is open to negotiation. At the end of the day, the employers decide who they wish to hire and on what basis. I encourage all employers and employees to avail themselves of this fantastic and successful policy.
Darien Fenton: Is she saying that the only part of the 90-day trial period that is truly voluntary for employees is whether they accept the job?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: No.
Darien Fenton: Is this scheme voluntary only for employers, considering that they can choose whether to make it a condition of employment, and considering that the prospective employee in reality has no choice other than to decline the job?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: No, I do not accept that member’s assertion. It is really no different to the situation of an employer’s advertisement requiring or insisting that a job is done on a Saturday. If employees do not want to work on a Saturday they should not apply for that job. If employees do not want to take the opportunity to use the trial period to have a go, then they do not have to take a job with a trial period.
David Garrett: How many people have come forward as part of the Council of Trade Union’s roll of shame campaign, and how many of these are members of the Labour Party?
Mr SPEAKER: I could not hear David Garrett’s question, at all. This time it was the Labour front-benchers making all the noise. It is not good enough, though I must admit it was not the Hon Annette King on this occasion. It was not fair, reasonable, or courteous to the House. Would David Garrett please repeat his question.
David Garrett: How many people have come forward as part of the Council of Trade Union’s roll of shame campaign, and how many of these are members of the Labour Party?
Mr SPEAKER: I do not know what ministerial responsibility the Minister has for that matter, at all. I invite the member to rephrase his question to try to ask a question about a matter for which the Minister is responsible. [Interruption] There will be no more interjection. I paid the Hon Trevor Mallard a compliment earlier in question time today. It may be that I was mistaken.
David Garrett: Has the Minister seen any reports regarding the contents of the roll of shame and the political affiliation of the persons on it?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have looked at some blog sites but I am advised, to the best of my knowledge, that in the last 18 months a total of two people have come forward as part of that campaign, and that at least one of those two people is a member of the Labour Party.
Darien Fenton: If a prospective employee does not want to sign up to a 90-day trial period but the employer has said it is a condition of employment, what options and rights does that prospective employee have?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: They have the same rights as anybody else. If they want the job they can apply for it, or they can discuss it with the prospective employer and negotiate what terms suit both parties.
David Garrett: What reports has she seen about union support for grievance-free trial periods?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have seen a report by the Australian Council of Trade Unions that supports a 3-month—that is, 90-day—grievance-free period in its submission to the Senate on the recent fair work legislation. I look forward to New Zealand unions taking a similarly reasonable approach.
Darien Fenton: To the Minister—
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to Darien Fenton on this occasion. I say to the National Party benches that I could not hear Darien Fenton, at all. The level of interjection is unreasonable.
Darien Fenton: If she is now confirming that an employer is entitled to advertise a job with a 90-day trial as a condition of employment, and that the only way an employee can avoid the trial is to not accept the job, was it not somewhat misleading for her and the Prime Minister to continually tell Kiwis when this scheme was introduced that it would be totally voluntary for employees?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: The member is making some rather odd assumptions. The scheme is voluntary for employees and it is actually working very well. Employees are taking advantage of it, and they are getting the opportunity to get their foot in the door. It is win-win.
Hon Darren Hughes: I seek leave to table a document from the Parliamentary Library outlining examples of workers who have been exploited under this scheme. I note that the first example is a woman by the name of Heather.
Mr SPEAKER: The member should not have done that last bit; he had already identified the document. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Leaky Homes—Progress on Financial Assistance Package
10. PAUL QUINN (National) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What progress has been made on the Government’s financial assistance package for owners of leaky homes?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): Good progress has been made on the Government’s leaky homes financial assistance package, which we announced on 17 May. Twenty-eight councils are now on board, which collectively represent more than 90 percent of the current leaky home claims. Other councils will be able to opt into the scheme at a later stage. Several meetings and workshops have now been held with the local authorities and banks on developing the operational details of the package. We are certainly on track to have the package up and running by early 2011.
Paul Quinn: What reports has he received on reaction to the Government’s proposed leaky homes package?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I have been advised by the Department of Building and Housing that up to 145 new weathertightness claims involving 289 homeowners have been lodged since the Government announced its financial assistance package for owners of leaky homes. This means that people recognise that it is a good scheme and it is worthwhile to sign up. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many more potential claimants are waiting for more information before they make a claim. We encourage those people to apply now if they are approaching the 10-year cut-off period in order to determine their eligibility to stop the clock.
Consumer Affairs, Minister—Priorities
11. Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: What are his priorities for the Consumer Affairs portfolio?
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Minister of Consumer Affairs): My priority will be to continue the work of my predecessor, particularly the significant work already under way to rationalise consumer legislation as part of the One Law—One Door programme. Last night I received a briefing from my officials in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, and over the next few days I will be considering the matters raised.
Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister stand by his statement that “The ETS is already set to impose a significant cost burden on New Zealand households—a burden that may become crippling if opportunistic companies take advantage of the situation to inflate their profit margins,”; if so, will one of his priorities as Minister of Consumer Affairs be to protect consumers from opportunistic emissions trading scheme pricing; if not, why not?
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: The Minister of Consumer Affairs has never made that statement.
Charles Chauvel: Supplementary question—
Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Hon Nick Smith and the Hon David Parker that I have been on my feet for some time, and I am not as little as that. Members should be able to see that I am on my feet. Charles Chauvel has the floor for a supplementary question. That noise was just totally out of order.
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a requirement under the Standing Orders that questions be true; members cannot ask a false question. The member asked whether he stood by that statement. In fact, the Minister of Consumer Affairs never made that statement.
Mr SPEAKER: That point of order is totally unnecessary. The Minister said that, and it was a perfectly good answer.
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the particular wording of the question. I asked the Minister whether he stood by his statement. There is no doubt that he made the statement.
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Ministers are not responsible for statements made previously by anyone other than the Minister. The member has been in this House long enough to know that. The Minister answered perfectly properly that the Minister of Consumer Affairs had not made that statement. Someone else of the same name as that Minister may have, but that is irrelevant.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You raise an interesting point with the House. Is it in order for a member to ask whether a Minister agrees with the statement of a member of Parliament, and whether those comments will be influencing a ministerial policy agenda that the Minister’s officials were briefing him on last night, even if the member of Parliament being referred to is the same person as the Minister? Presumably it would be in order for a Minister to be asked whether he or she agrees with the comments of Gerry Brownlee, or whoever it happens to be.
Hon Rodney Hide: Speaking to the point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: We do not need to debate this matter further by way of point of order. It is a very simple matter. Ministers can indeed be asked whether they agree with other statements, but in terms of the precision of any answer that might be achieved, Ministers are not responsible for statements made by other people. I cannot insist on any particular answer. The question can certainly be asked—the Standing Orders have been relaxed to allow that—but in terms of the precision of any answer gained, often those questions do not really elicit much by way of answers.
Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister agree with the view expressed by John Boscawen MP in May 2010 that “The ETS should be scrapped or delayed but if the Government is dead set on imposing this ridiculous”—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has longstanding conventions about ministerial responsibility. It is very plain that if Mr Chauvel has concerns about the emissions trading scheme, or issues in respect of it, they are within my responsibility and not the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer Affairs.
Mr SPEAKER: I listened very carefully to the previous supplementary question. Although the answer given to it was perfectly in order, I was listening carefully because initially I had the same impression as the honourable Minister that this matter could not be the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer Affairs. But then the questioner linked it to the responsibilities of the Minister of Consumer Affairs in terms of the impact on retail pricing and consumers’ interest in it. I believe that that is a legitimate area of interest of the Minister of Consumer Affairs. The Minister’s answer was perfectly in order. The member is now asking the Minister whether he agrees with a statement made by a person, and that question is perfectly in order. I invite Charles Chauvel to start his question again.
Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister agree with the statement made in May 2010 by John Boscawen MP that: “The ETS should be scrapped or delayed but if the Government is dead set on imposing this ridiculous tax on the country, then New Zealanders should be told exactly how it will affect their lives,”; if so, will one of his priorities as Minister of Consumer Affairs be telling New Zealanders exactly how the emissions trading scheme will affect their lives; if not, why not?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that question is to be included within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister of Consumer Affairs, then frankly there is not a single question in respect of transport, finance, justice, or anything that would not fall within his responsibilities. The reality is that if there are issues in respect of pricing and the emissions trading scheme, Mr Chauvel is perfectly free to put down a question to me as the responsible Government Minister.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Speaking to the point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: I do not need further assistance on this matter. It is not up to other Ministers to claim that it is their area; it is up to the Minister being questioned to determine that it is not his or her responsibility. When it comes to consumer prices, it is not for me to judge; the Minister of Consumer Affairs is the one to judge whether he has responsibility in that area.
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: As the Minister of Consumer Affairs I can tell the member that I am considering advice on this issue. As I said, I had a briefing with my officials last night and I look forward to working with them on my priorities. But as a member of the ACT Party I absolutely agree with the statements made by John Boscawen last May—
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is not responsible for anything that a member of the ACT Party may have said.
Hon Shane Jones: More, more, more!
Mr SPEAKER: I fear that a fellow Northlander made that interjection. I feel somewhat embarrassed that a fellow Northlander could make such noises. I invite the House to come back to order.
Charles Chauvel: Of the two following statements about the effect on consumers of the emissions trading scheme, which should consumers believe: John Boscawen’s statement that “The ETS will have a profound impact on our economy, raising prices across the board …”, or the Prime Minister’s response to one of John Boscawen’s recent questions that “there will be no impact on prices as a result of the emissions trading scheme … and the member should stop making it up.”?
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Clearly there are different views on the emissions trading scheme. I look forward to taking advice from my officials and making future statements on this issue as they and I deem appropriate.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that you have properly ruled that if the Minister considers matters to be his responsibility then he should answer, but I think there is also a responsibility to ensure that questions are appropriately addressed to Ministers. In that case, the Minister of Consumer Affairs was asked to arbitrate between two opinions taken by two different people. Firstly, I do not know how that particularly assists consumers, and, secondly, I do not know how it goes to his responsibility. He has no responsibility for any statements other than those statements made as Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not need to hear anything further on the matter. The question was framed in relation to the impact on consumers. That is why I did not intervene in the question. It seemed reasonable to address the Minister of Consumer Affairs on a matter that related to consumers. However, because it asked him to comment on two statements made by people for whom he is not responsible as Minister, I would not insist on any particular answer. So the Minister’s answer was perfectly adequate in dealing with the question. As the Hon Gerry Brownlee points out, he is not responsible for what either John Boscawen might have said or the Prime Minister might have said. He is the Minister of Consumer Affairs.
Civil Defence—Disaster Planning DVD for Deaf and Hearing-impaired
12. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What actions has he taken recently to increase civil defence awareness?
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence): On Monday, 16 August I had the honour of launching a DVD designed to give potentially life-saving advice on emergency planning to the Deaf and hearing-impaired. Information is provided in New Zealand Sign Language, and is also captioned. This DVD encourages those who are deaf or who have significant hearing impairment to plan ahead for their specific requirements in an emergency. It focuses on developing an emergency plan with friends, family, and neighbours.
Jo Goodhew: Given the Minister’s answer to the previous question, why is it important to have such resources available?
Hon JOHN CARTER: Public education is essential to ensure that New Zealanders are aware and prepared for the number of natural hazards that this country is vulnerable to. Making New Zealanders more aware includes of course the Deaf, the hearing, and the hearing-impaired. [Interruption] Obviously, the Opposition does not take this matter seriously, but for New Zealanders who are interested, it is a matter of seriousness. Making New Zealanders more aware—
Hon Darren Hughes: It’s the tie we can’t take seriously.
Hon JOHN CARTER: Well, it is very interesting to see that the Opposition considers civil defence a matter of a joke. But actually—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: We have had a bit of fun in the House this afternoon, and some serious times, and there is no need for this level of interjection. I think the House was too noisy. Has the Minister completed his answer?
Hon JOHN CARTER: Of course, it is no wonder members opposite consider it a joke; New Zealanders think they are a disaster, Mr New Zealand—Mr Speaker. Making New Zealanders more aware includes—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: It had better be a point of order, though.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Given the news—and we were not aware of it—I seek leave to move a motion without notice congratulating you on your success in the Mr New Zealand contest.
Mr SPEAKER: What?
Hon Trevor Mallard: He just called you Mr New Zealand.
Mr SPEAKER: I have to say that the House has totally destroyed my reputation for getting through question time efficiently. I think that today’s has been the longest question time in my time as Speaker. There have been some tense questions, and there has been a bit of fun, as well, but members are now just wasting time.
Hon JOHN CARTER: Let me help you, Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: No—just answer the question, please.
Hon JOHN CARTER: I will, Mr Speaker—absolutely. Making New Zealanders more aware includes of course the Deaf and hearing-impaired. It is estimated that about 10 percent of the New Zealand population have hearing difficulties of some degree. It is essential that all communities release the Get Ready Get Thru scheme.
Jo Goodhew: How is the Get Ready Get Thru campaign progressing?
Hon JOHN CARTER: I am pleased to see that the latest research shows that the Colmar Brunton survey carried out in April and May of this year shows an increasing awareness of overall civil defence issues by the public. For example, 65 percent of respondents have undertaken some action as a result of the Get Ready Get Thru advertisements. But, of course, there is always more to do to ensure that New Zealanders are prepared for disasters.
Bills
Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)
First Reading
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): I move, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 5 November 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer, and during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that it could slightly be my colleagues, but I think it might be the sound system again. I am the next speaker, and I am having real trouble hearing the Minister. I notice that the microphones at the front appear to be working, so it might even be better if she could shift down there, and that might help.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I believe that it was the level of noise in the House. Would members just be a little more quiet as they move about the House, and if they are going to have conversations, I ask them please not to have them in the House.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that this is really unusual, but it is not done in any facetious way, at all. Could the Minister start again?
Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Minister, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, if she would like to, to start her address to the first reading again, because members were making a great deal of noise. I say to members in the House to please not have conversations in the House. I am looking at a pair of members carrying on their conversation and totally ignoring the Speaker. I ask members, if they are going to have conversations, not to have them in the House, please, because it was very hard to hear their colleague.
Hon KATE WILKINSON: At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 5 November 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer, and during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c).
The employment reforms contained in this bill are designed to assist New Zealand and New Zealanders as we grow out of the recession. This Government is focused on growing a stronger economy and creating more jobs. This bill is about creating opportunities. The changes being debated today are thoughtful, pragmatic, sensible, and, above all, fair. They will help New Zealand’s overall productivity and will give businesses of all sizes the confidence to seek new opportunities to invest and to take on new workers.
Shortly after the 2008 election, trial periods for businesses with fewer than 20 employees were introduced. Employers with small and medium sized businesses gained the confidence to hire new employees without the fear of facing a personal grievance claim if the relationship did not work. That initiative has been successful. An evaluation of the operation of trial periods revealed that 40 percent of employers who used it said that they would not have, or were unlikely to have, hired a person without a trial period. Aside from that report, I have received and read positive feedback on this policy. One employer thanked us for introducing the trial period, as it allowed that employer to hire three new farm workers, all of whom were unemployed and two of whom had criminal records. Without the trial period, those three New Zealanders could still be sitting in the dole queue. Furthermore, a brief survey by the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce found that 30 new jobs could be directly attributed to the introduction of the trial period. Examples like those can be found all over the country. Because of this policy, New Zealanders are being given opportunities that they might not otherwise get. By extending access to trial periods, we are giving all businesses the increased confidence to hire new employees and giving many more people the chance to prove themselves in the job market.
I am proud to stand here and tell New Zealanders that this Government backs them. We want them to be successful in life. We want them to increase their standard of living and that of their families. We want businesses to flourish and invest in their communities, and not to be too scared to hire someone out of fear that it will derail their business. The trial period has been a success and will continue to be a success.
The bill also brings us more in line with overseas jurisdictions. If we compare how the same discussion was handled in Australia, we see that its Labor Government introduced a system of qualifying periods under the Fair Work Act, where employees cannot take an unfair dismissal claim in the first 12 months if they work for a small business, and in the first 6 months for all other businesses. That is different from the situation in New Zealand, as it applies to everyone, whereas our trial period occurs only with the agreement of both parties, it must be included in a written employment contract, and it is only for the first 90 days. The Australian Council of Trade Unions put in a submission supporting a 3-month, or a 90-day, qualifying period.
On one side of the Tasman, we have a Labor Government and a union movement that support having compulsory grievance-free periods because they know that it is a policy of opportunity—a policy that encourages employers to invest and to take on more staff. Yet, here in New Zealand, we have a Labour Party and a union movement so blinded by ideology that they cannot see the positive opportunities. They try only to exaggerate the perceived negatives. Fortunately, New Zealanders recognise the positive opportunities that this policy offers. They understand that the employment reform we are progressing is all about providing more opportunities and flexibility. Trial periods in various forms have been utilised successfully all over the world, and I am confident that we will continue to see employers using this policy to take on new staff and offer more opportunities to those who need them. I am also confident that sufficient safeguards have been built into the policy and the legislation to prevent the exploitation of employees.
This Government has always had an express commitment to improve labour laws in this country to make them fairer for employers and employees. Fixing the personal grievance system is a prime example of a targeted change. Earlier this year I invited submissions on the personal grievance system. There was an overwhelming response. A large number of submissions highlighted the point that the test of justification in the current legislation is confusing, and we are fixing that. We want employers to be assured that minor and technical procedural defects in their processes will not mean that a fundamentally justified decision can be deemed wrong.
We will also be making a number of other changes to make the system fairer, more consistent, and efficient. Reinstatement will no longer be the primary remedy in settling personal grievance cases, but it remains as an option where practicable and reasonable. When a relationship has broken down, for whatever reason, in some situations reinstatement is simply not suitable. Furthermore, the Employment Relations Authority will now be able to filter out vexatious and frivolous claims early on. We are focusing on the importance of early resolution by encouraging the use of mediation as the primary instrument to address grievance. To encourage parties to attend mediation first, the authority will be giving priority to cases where parties have first attempted a mediated resolution. Both employers and employees need certainty in the process, and neither need nor want that process to be drawn out. That is not justice for either party.
This Government was elected on a manifesto that included a commitment to make changes to union access provisions. We will be progressing that election promise. Employers have the right to manage access to their workplace in a reasonable manner. Unions retain the right to access their members, as an employer cannot unreasonably withhold consent. The majority of union members will see little or no difference. Where some union representatives have abused the current, very relaxed, law, they will no longer be able to. As I have said previously, this is not a widespread problem, but where abuse does occur, it has the potential to cause significant disruption and to have an impact on the productivity of a business. Protections for union members are retained by ensuring that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. Where an employer denies consent but does not provide a written explanation of the grounds for refusal, the employer would then be subject to a penalty action.
This bill also addresses other issues relating to communication during collective bargaining, and it strengthens the enforcement powers of labour inspectors in order to improve compliance. Employment agreements are the cornerstone of employment relationships. All employers will be required to have a written employment agreement. Labour inspectors will be able to seek a penalty action for not having employment agreements, reinforcing the importance of having written employment agreements.
The bill also increases the maximum penalty to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for companies and other bodies corporate. This will send the strong message that deliberate or persistent non-compliance will not be tolerated. Collectively, the changes in this bill provide more flexibility and greater choice, and they will ensure a better balance of fairness for employees and employers.
This bill provides for more speedy resolution of employment problems, improves the overall efficiency and operations of the Employment Relations Authority, and discourages poor employment practices by parties. It will reduce costs, improve overall confidence in our employment law, and lay the foundation for higher economic growth and better times ahead. However, it will not condone exploitation of employees; nor will it allow ideologically driven principles to hamper or restrict economic growth. Good businesses need good employees, and good employees need good employers. It is as simple as that. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): It will not surprise the Government to know that the Labour Opposition will be opposing the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), and that we will be committing to repeal the most offensive parts of this legislation at the earliest possible opportunity. This bill is an attack on the rights and wages of wage and salary earners. It is part of an attempt by this Government to run down the wages and conditions of those people who work for a living in New Zealand. The legislation is very uneven, and it makes vulnerable workers, vulnerable wage and salary earners, more and more vulnerable.
Paul Quinn: When you were in power the average wage went from 82 to 73 percent.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I tell that member to look at any wage and salary figures in a time of high employment, and he will see that when low-income people get jobs, averages do not go up as quickly. Average wages tend to go up in times of high unemployment because low-income workers lose their jobs. If those members are too thick to understand that, there is no hope for them, at all.
Paul Quinn: He doesn’t like it, eh? He doesn’t like it.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member thinks it is a compliment to be called thick, and I agree with him. It is not fair on thick people to put Paul Quinn into that category.
Hon Tau Henare: He can’t handle it, can he?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Paul Quinn cannot handle it, at all; I agree with Tau Henare.
This is a four-pronged attack on job security. There is an attempt to weaken the process, to extend the range of reasons for dismissal—
Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I cannot hear, and I am sitting directly opposite the member who is not in his own chair but who is interjecting.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I would have some sympathy with the member’s point of order, but I have to say that there has been some provocation from both sides on the matter.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: These changes are unfair, unbalanced, unnecessary, and ideologically driven, rather than being driven by people with any real knowledge of how wage and salary earners live in New Zealand these days. The provisions attack job security, they weaken the processes, they extend the range of reasons for dismissal, they restrict the right to appeal, and they restrict the right to reinstatement. What an outrageous Government that tips away the balance. When someone wins his or her case, the Government says that the balance should not be towards that person getting his or her job back again. That is the sort of approach we are seeing from the National Government here today.
This is part of National’s attempt to drive down wages, and it proves that before the election, lies were told about the wish to close the gap with Australia. What we have seen under legislation—
Hon Tau Henare: Who by?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Those members should all look in the mirror occasionally! This bill makes a lie of the commitment to closing the wage gap with Australia. It allows people to be sacked without a reason, and that is just not fair. New Zealanders do not like that; New Zealanders are for fairness. New Zealanders accept trials and they accept probationary periods, but they say that if someone is not going to be employed at the end of a probationary period, he or she should have a reason. That is pretty fair and reasonable. No reasonable person would disagree with that. No one is saying that someone has to keep a job, but if that person is not keeping a job then a reason should be given.
The Prime Minister made a promise to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions as to the processes about access provisions. He said that that was not a priority for the Government. Business New Zealand said that it was not a priority for that organisation. The Prime Minister said that he would discuss the matter again before he made any public announcements on it, but he has now been shown not to be telling the truth on that issue. I think that one of the things we used to see quite a lot of around here—and in recent years, and I include the latter period of the Hon Jim Bolger—was a high emphasis put on people keeping their word and being honest. But that has been abandoned by the Prime Minister in this legislation.
On the question of access, I think it is a pretty simple issue that if workers have an immediate problem, if there is a grievance issue—subject to provisions like safety and normal working arrangements, which are the sort of things that have been there—they should be allowed to ask someone from the union to visit them on site in order to try to sort out the issue. That is not an unreasonable thing. Again, it is a matter of the pretty basic fairness that Kiwis believe in—that is, that if there is a problem or an issue in the workplace, then someone from the member’s union should be allowed to come in and talk to that person about it, and that that action should be pretty immediate, and not put off until the next day or the day after by an employer who may well be attempting to mislead people as to what is actually going on. Even Kate Wilkinson—I want to quote the Minister—said just over a year ago that “There does not appear to be widespread evidence of union representatives exercising their current rights to enter workplaces in an inappropriate way, resulting in disruption for business operations or adversely impacting on the employment relationship between employer and unions members.”
I agree with Kate Wilkinson. In a year as Minister of Labour I do not think I had a single complaint come to me about that issue. I do not know of any complaints that came to the department. Certainly, no complaints about that were reported to me. I think that we are trying to solve a problem here that does not exist, and in doing so we are taking away a fair entitlement for workers, which allowed them to get on the phone and ask their union representative to come along and try to help them sort out problems they had. That is not an unreasonable thing for workers to be able to do, and I think that most Kiwis think that that is fair enough.
I have referred to the 90-day trial period before, and the issue is relatively simple: it goes to whether someone is entitled to a reason when they get the sack. They are not asking for even a good reason, just a reason, and whether or not they are entitled to a reason. We have been seeing some parallels on that particular issue in these buildings over the last couple of days. The issue has been very well set out by Heather Roy when she said, talking about someone who was the leader of her party: “As previously arranged, Rodney Hide came to my office to view the defence document. He took it away from me and turned to leave. I explained that he could not take it away but could read it in my office, and explained again the security classification that he holds. He refused to leave it here. He turned to leave my office. Short of standing up in the doorway or coming from behind my desk and taking the document from him, I could not stop him from taking it from the office.” There we have a very clear case of someone who is effectively an employer. He is a leader of a party, which is pretty close to being an employer for these purposes, and which was certainly enough to get Heather Roy sacked. She could not intervene in that way, so we have a situation where one of her former fellow Ministers is saying that she thinks it is all right, and that she thinks it is something that can be extended to other people.
I tell this House that this legislation is designed to tell ordinary wage and salary earners that the Government wants them to have fewer rights, and that it does not want their wages to go up. It says to wage and salary earners that the Government is happy with the gap opening up with Australia, that it does not want union representatives to come in when workers call them, and that it does not want workers to be given a reason when they get the sack. That is the sort of legislation that I would have expected from a 1960s National Government. Even Sir Robert Muldoon would have believed in people being given a reason when they were getting the sack. Bill Birch certainly would have believed in people being given a reason when they were getting the sack. But with John Key and Kate Wilkinson, we have legislation here that does not do that.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I will take a short call on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). First of all, I congratulate the Minister of Labour on bringing this legislation forward. The first thing that New Zealanders need to do is acknowledge the success of the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008 and the number of people who have obtained employment in very tough times through that legislation. It is good that this Government has recognised things that have worked, and it has delivered even more so that we can get more people into work and give them opportunities, dignity, and the ability to work.
It was very disappointing to hear that last speech from Labour member Trevor Mallard. It tried to attack people’s emotions, and included a lot of inaccuracies about vulnerable workers and reducing wages. It was all a load of rubbish that is not in this bill. This bill is about giving opportunities and promise to New Zealanders, and that is what we will be doing through providing employment and making sure that the rules and regulations around it are easy so that people can get those jobs and get that chance in the future.
We look forward to this bill passing through the House to the select committee, where I am sure there will be some submissions on it. In essence, this bill builds on the very successful Act that this Parliament passed in the first term of this National Government. We look forward to this legislation progressing through the House and being successful. Thank you.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour): That was another stunning speech from David Bennett from Hamilton. I am sure that lots and lots of wage and salary earners in Hamilton are interested in his point of view and will give him feedback about the ridiculous things that he continues to say about the workers of New Zealand. As we have made clear, Labour strongly opposes the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). It takes us backwards.
The reason why we have this bill in the House today is that the Government is desperate to show the country that it is doing something about the economy. But, really, the truth is that it has no plan, and the problem is that we are falling further and further behind Australia. The Minister of Labour, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, can talk about Australian workers having various trial periods, but she never mentions that Australian workers are paid a whole lot more than New Zealander workers. They receive things like redundancy pay; they have centralised wage fixing. I ask the Minister why, if we are talking about balance, she does not put forward a balanced argument. The only new idea that this Government can come up with is to undermine the ability of Kiwi wage and salary earners to improve their wages and working conditions. Unfortunately, removing the fundamental right of workers to protection from unfairness is not a plan. It is not a plan for growth in jobs. It simply further undermines employment security for Kiwis, when we know and have seen that unemployment is already high and growing.
I really had hoped that we had moved on to a point in our country where New Zealand’s workforce—the Kiwi wage and salary earners whom we rely on to do the work, to produce goods and provide services, and to help make businesses successful—could at last take a breather from being blamed, targeted, and hung out to dry by the National Government. But, unfortunately, that is not true. That is not happening, because this bill removes rights from all Kiwi wage and salary earners. The bill extends the fire-at-will provisions to all workers, and it leaves them with no right to appeal against unfair dismissals within the first 90 days of their employment, let alone to be able to have a reason for why they have been sacked. It makes it harder for workers to have access to their union in the workplace for advice. Some of the restrictions in this bill are worse than those that were in the hated Employment Contracts Act. Can members believe that? We have access provisions coming from this Government that are worse than something that Bill Birch introduced 20 years ago.
The bill reduces the requirement for there to be a fair process, it expands the reasons for dismissal, and it removes reinstatement to a job as a primary remedy even when unjustified dismissal has been proven. Is this the payback to the New Zealand workforce for its contributions and hard work during the last 2 years of recession? Many workers have reduced their hours in order to keep the business going, many have taken pay cuts or had zero wage increases, and thousands and thousands of workers have lost their jobs. Unions cooperated with the Job Summit, with the Government, and with the 9-day working fortnight. That worked because of trust in close working relationships between employers, unions, and staff, not because John Key had a bright idea.
But this bill is typical of National and, may I say, of ACT. When they do not have a plan, they turn their guns on wage and salary earners. This bill sends a message to New Zealand wage and salary earners that this Government thinks workers are skivers and untrustworthy, and that they should be punished. What is more, it paints unions as adversaries and outsiders, by making access hard and by getting in the way of good-faith bargaining by allowing employers to be able to bypass union representatives in communications with workers.
The problem is that National has a very old-fashioned view of workers—of people who work for others for a living. National thinks that they should be grateful to have a job—that they should go down on their knees and be grateful that they have a job. Well, yes, workers are paid for their time, but they do not own the company, and they do not have any direct or meaningful stake in, or say on, its profits. At an individual level, what a worker in a company does seldom has any measurable impact on whether the company succeeds. That is about what its management does, yet this bill puts the blame for, and consequences of, poor management and company failure on to the economic livelihoods of New Zealand workers. It encourages sloppy management practices. It allows and encourages employers to substitute dismissal for good supervision and training of new workers. This bill is the big stick. It gives employers a powerful tool, by making it easier for them to sack the 700,000 workers who change jobs every year. It is a low-trust approach to employment relationships, which is why this bill takes us backwards. It puts fairness, as a requirement for decent work, on the back-burner.
Mr Garrett has been yelling out about one of the Council of Trade Unions cases that have come forward, and I have no idea why he thinks that young woman is a party member. She happened to go on to the Grassroots Labour website. [Interruption] Well, the Minister does not know that. Has she checked our party records? How would she do that? I want to talk about a hairdresser. I am about to tell the member about another one. I would be happy to go on all day, if I were given the time.
David Garrett: The other one?
DARIEN FENTON: Another one, and if the member would like to seek leave for me to talk for the rest of the day, I will cite numerous cases.
Yesterday the Minister talked about a hairdresser. She said the hairdresser was a bit rough, but she was taken on and was grateful to have a job, and it has all turned out lovely—it is all sweetness and light. I want to tell the story of another hairdresser whom I talked to yesterday. She got a job as a stylist, via the Internet. It is funny about the Internet, actually. What do we see on the Internet? We see job advertisements on TradeMe that state that the provisions of the 90-day legislation will apply. I thought that it was voluntary, not compulsory. I go back to the hair stylist. Two days after she started work, she was called into the office and given an individual agreement with a trial period in it, and she was asked to sign it. A few weeks later, before the 90 days were up, she was called into work and fired. No reason was given, no notice was given, and no support was offered. Let me tell members about that woman. She is 58 years of age, and was delighted to have a job. She had been struggling to find a job for a long time. She has never been sacked in her life, and this dismissal hit her like a bombshell. Her confidence has gone down the gurgler.
This is just one of many stories that we have been hearing. The Council of Trade Unions helpline has been inundated with calls from parents who are concerned about their children.
Labour is totally opposed to the extension of the 90-day trial period. The Minister’s own evaluation showed that there is widespread abuse of the 90-day trial period. One in five workers were sacked. The report on the trial period was very unbalanced: 3,500-odd employers were asked, and just 13 workers got to give their point of view. Yet the Prime Minister paraded that report at the National Party conference as a sign of the success of the trial period. It was a very, very unbalanced report. I am confused about the 90-day trial period in the current law, let alone what it may mean in future law. I cannot understand whether it is voluntary. If it is voluntary, what is voluntary? Is what is voluntary that the worker does not have to accept a job with a 90-day trial period? It seems to me that the only thing that is voluntary about this provision is that the employer gets to decide whether to voluntarily impose a trial period. There is no choice for many workers. If they want to have a job, they simply have to accept this provision.
I want to spend just a couple of minutes on access. There are so many things in this bill that I could talk all day, but I know that Mr Assistant Speaker will not let me do that. The problem with the access provisions in the bill is that, first of all, there is no demand for change, and that has been referred to today. No one asked for this change, and no one wants it. There is no problem; the Minister’s own officials have told her that. But the Minister is proposing that an employer must consent to access by a union representative, and that that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. There is a reference to unreasonableness again, which the Minister is removing from the Holidays Act with the amending legislation that we will be debating next week around sick leave, because she says it is open to interpretation. Well, yes, it sure is. I predict that we will see big tussles as a result of this provision, I say to the Minister. We do not have to look too far back in history to see what life was like when employers had to give consent to workers having access to their union. There are practical considerations, as well. If there is an accident at a worksite, does a union really have to give 2 days’ notice in order to go along and support the workers? There are a whole lot of things that make it completely impracticable.
Finally, I want to comment very quickly on the issue of process. Once again, this bill seems to be going through a rushed process. The bill has to be reported back by 7 November. That is a very, very short time frame—and we will have the amendments to the Holidays Act, as well—for the biggest change to employment law that we have seen in a decade. That is a disgrace, and Labour will be opposing this bill.
KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party will also oppose the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a serious attack on workers’ rights and conditions, on a number of fronts. Firstly, it restricts union officials’ access to work sites in a much greater way than previously. Secondly, it makes it easier for employers to dismiss workers, not only through the generalisation of the 90-day trial period but also through technical changes that make it easier for employers to win a dismissal case. Thirdly, it allows employers to communicate directly with their employees during a bargaining process, so that on a day-to-day basis they can undermine the collective negotiations between the employers and the unions that represent the workers.
I will talk first about the union access provisions, which I addressed in my questions to the Minister of Labour at question time today. It is quite clear that there is no need for the tighter provision on union access in terms of the regulatory impact statement made by Kate Wilkinson’s own Department of Labour. It states: “There does not appear to be widespread evidence of union representatives exercising their current rights to enter workplaces in an inappropriate way, resulting in disruption for business operations or adversely impacting on the employment relationship between employer and union members.” Further on, that same document states: “Current arrangements provide an appropriate balance of fairness to employers, employees and unions.” So what is the need for the change?
The existing legislation provides a practical surround for union access—that is, the Employment Relations Act specifies that union access is restricted to “reasonable times” and “a reasonable way, having regard to normal business operations in the workplace;”, and must comply with any existing health and safety requirements and security procedures. What more does one want? In this case, it will be much more complicated for union officials to get on to sites, particularly if there is an anti-union employer. Under the provisions in the bill before the House the employer can wait up to 2 days to respond to a request for access, and even then the response could be negative. Then the union has to get back and negotiate further. It could go on for days and days. When one talks about an important conflict on the job—perhaps sexual harassment or a personal grievance, which often requires immediate attention—the employer can just stuff the union around and hold it off from getting on to the site for days and days. Even in a subsequent court case the wording around access to workplaces is so vague that postponements could be allowed for all sorts of reasons. The wording in the legislation is that the employer can deny access on “reasonably practicable” grounds.
Then we have the 90-day trial period, which is supposed to make it easier for employers to hire labour. When we read the information obtained under the Official Information Act from the Department of Labour in a document to Kate Wilkinson, dated 8 June, in terms of the trial period that has existed so far, we see that it states: “very few employers use them for this purpose,”—that is, to hire disadvantaged job seekers—“because of the potential high cost of employing a candidate who was not the best or most able candidate selected from a competitive employment market.” The report goes on to state the very thing that the Green Party and others have been saying: “Some employees indicated that they had felt an increased vulnerability by being employed under trial periods.” There will be fear on the job, and these workers will be scared to join a union, and scared to stand up for their rights because they can be sent down the road at any time in those 90 days for any reason at all. That is disgraceful. It will divide the workplace between those 90-day workers who are scared about everything, and the union members, who might be a bit more confident.
Then we have the unfair dismissal procedures through the Employment Court and the like. There is a provision in the bill that if the defects in the employer’s case or the process were minor or technical, then the worker can be dismissed. As said by an earlier speaker, the bill does not allow redress through re-employment the way there is at present. This means that the worker finds it very hard to get justice if he or she is unfairly dismissed. It is an important principle across all our law that we do not say that because the problems with process were minor and technical, people who committed those breaches get off and can, in this case, do something very damaging to any workers—that is, sack them and deny them of their livelihood. Losing a job is very traumatic, and we want to keep the disciplines in the Employment Relations Act that employers have to abide by the provisions of the Act if they want to go through with a dismissal.
Then there is the question of collective bargaining. It is a well-established procedure. The whole concept of collective bargaining is that the union is on one side of the table and the employer’s representatives are on the other side of the table, and they negotiate. It completely undermines that process if the union, which in this circumstance will often not even be allowed access to the site very often to talk to workers, is disadvantaged by that. The officials are outside the workplace finding it hard to get on, and day by day the employer is saying to the workers that the union proposal to them is just a load of cobblers. If the supervisors day by day talk to individual employees directly and tell them what they do and do not believe, it intimidates the workers so that one cannot have proper collective bargaining on wages, conditions, or whatever it might happen to be.
Overall, if we take those issues together, we see that it is not, as Kate Wilkinson said in her introduction to this debate, that the opponents of this legislation are blinded by ideology. There are, very directly, practical matters of concern in this legislation. They affect workers detrimentally in real-life situations. Being dismissed within the first 90 days is real life and a bad thing to happen to someone. Not being able to have one’s representative on the worksite—be it through negotiations over wages or conditions, or some immediate issue of bullying or something that has come up in the workplace—is a real-life problem, and it makes it harder in the workplace. To be dismissed and not be able to get back one’s job when the process has been wrong is a real-life problem.
I think that if we add it all up and then add to that what is coming next—we will shortly probably be debating the Holidays Amendment Bill, which will require workers to get a doctor’s certificate for just 1 day off sick, being made sicker in the process—we see that it is a very serious attack on workers’ rights and a very serious attack on unions. If we look at the situation with unions at the moment in the private sector, we see that the level of unionisation is not very high at all. That is to a large extent because of the discouragement of employees by their employers. They say: “You don’t want to join the union, do you?”, and they sometimes put certain penalties around it. That is what has kept the level of unionisation in the private sector very low—lower than it was in the 1970s and 1980s before the Employment Contracts Act.
We live in a time when the economy is not growing rapidly and there is relatively high unemployment. That has pushed down workers’ real wages and conditions for 75 percent of workers over the last year. We need strong unions to redress all of those things. Thank you.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. Māori Party policy is to support the right for workers to be treated with dignity and fairness, so when the Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson, said when introducing the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) that the Government is committed to producing an employment relations system that is fair, pragmatic, and helps to give New Zealanders more opportunities and flexibility, it sounded good. But the relentless increase in unemployment confirms that the 90-day trial employment period that we have had since March last year, which this bill aims to extend, is having none of the positive effects that the Government has been touting. The statistic showing that 25 percent of those who got jobs under this scheme have since been fired tells us that we were right to oppose the scheme when it first came to the House. Although the Government has been talking about how good the scheme would be for young people, I note that the youth unemployment rate has jumped 12 percent since this policy was introduced, as well. I also note that the Department of Labour evaluation of this trial employment period says that “[employees] saw it as making them more vulnerable to reduced job security, and unfair treatment from employers. This belief was confirmed for the few employees who had been dismissed without explanation and, in their view, unfairly.” The interesting point is that those comments were not from the unions or from the Opposition; they were from the Government’s Department of Labour, condemning the actions of employers who were using this scheme to simply fire people rather than pay them properly.
The Māori Party concern with the probationary period legislation is that it discourages the very thing that is needed—clear contracts for new employees and good employment induction and training processes to minimise the risk of poor performance. We were told that the 90-day scheme would result in all kinds of employment opportunities for the 7,000 Māori and the 2,200 Pasifika youth currently unemployed, but there is precious little information to suggest that it has. There is no data on how many Māori and Pasifika youth started under the scheme, how many were paid more than the minimum rate, how many were kept on after the 90-day trial period, and how many got a pay increase. That information is important because we know that Māori and Pasifika youth are struggling to get into the workforce in the first place. We know, too, that they will often accept less than they are due by employers exploiting that legislation for their own benefit. We think that the Government should be focusing on ways to get our rangatahi into work and on keeping them there rather than making it easier to sack them. We will oppose any move that marginalises them, especially during the current unemployment crisis and particularly given the leap in the Māori youth unemployment rate over that time from 6 percent to 27 percent. This bill is not fair, it is not providing the opportunities for secure sustainable employment, and we will not be supporting it. Kia ora tātou.
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am pleased to speak in the first reading debate of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I congratulate the Minister of Labour on bringing the bill to the House. It will make a difference to many, many New Zealanders.
The bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000. Importantly, I want to take some time to talk about the 90-day trial period, which is being extended to all businesses. In 2008 the trial was for businesses with fewer than 20 employees. It has been very successful. A recent survey showed that 40 percent of employers would not have hired without it. I want to correct the previous speaker, Hone Harawira. I tell him that 75 percent of people hired under that scheme still have jobs, and the 25 percent who left did so for a variety of reasons. They usually left in the first few weeks, not at day 89, as some cynical people might suggest.
This scheme has made a real difference in people’s lives. It is giving them an opportunity for a job they would not otherwise have had. This bill is all about giving people choice and opportunity. It is right behind the Government’s objective to increase the number of jobs and also to grow the economy. So I congratulate the Minister on this.
The other issue is that most OECD countries already have this type of trial period. This is not a radical move by the Minister; this is in line with other OECD countries. In fact, their trial periods are longer than 90 days. This is a very moderate scheme.
Hon Tau Henare: Hear the old trout brigade over there.
Dr JACKIE BLUE: Absolutely. The other changes to this bill include union access to workplaces. It also clarifies communication with employees during collective bargaining and the personal grievance process. This bill is all about giving choice, it is about giving flexibility, and it ensures balance and fairness to both employers and employees. I commend this bill to the House.
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour): It will not surprise anyone in this House that I am vehemently opposed to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), from a Government that made a commitment to the Council of Trade Unions that it would not rush through legislation and that it would listen. By the Minister’s own acknowledgment, union access to workplaces is not a problem; there was no need to change that. But again, true to its colours, this Government had to go backwards in time. When I talk about backwards in time, I ask members to look at the 1990s just very quickly.
Darien Fenton: Who was in Government then?
LYNNE PILLAY: It was National, and what did it do? The first thing it did when it was in Government then was to scrap the pay equity legislation.
Hon Maryan Street: The very first thing.
LYNNE PILLAY: It was the very first thing, and it has done exactly the same thing again. What else did National do? It passed the Employment Contracts Act, which in those days was recognised as an attack, an assault, on workers—
Hon Tau Henare: And that member was still a young member then.
LYNNE PILLAY: Never mind the member chipping in—this Government is doing exactly the same thing again. It has scrapped the apprenticeship legislation, which is another way of not creating jobs. That is what the previous National Government did, and it had dear old Max Bradford wanting to buy the extra week’s holiday—surprise, surprise.
David Bennett, who is sitting there, is looking forward to chairing this bill when it comes before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, but I tell members in this House that it is an absolute insult to workers. For the Minister to stand there and talk about fairness and balance is utterly and completely ridiculous.
This bill is unfair, it is unbalanced, but, most important, it is unnecessary. We heard Jackie Blue turning round the figures. She said that because of this bill 75 percent of the few people who managed to get a job in New Zealand managed to keep their job.
Hon Kate Wilkinson: They did.
LYNNE PILLAY: I can see the Minister nodding over there, but what it actually means is that 25 percent of workers in New Zealand were dumped in the first 3 months. That was just in a select group of workplaces, but this Government is now saying “Oh gosh, we are not doing it tough enough. We will extend that to every workplace in New Zealand.” It is absolutely shocking stuff.
We heard a Māori Party member say that there is no job creation under this Government; it is actually preventing employment. We know that. It is pretty rich, when we look around this House, that anyone can be sacked from a job during the first 90 days for any reason whatsoever and that reason does not have to be given. It might be that an employer does not like the clothes an employee wears. It might be that an employer does not like the employee’s haircut. No reason needs to be given. I say to this House that if a young person’s first experiment, I mean experience—or experiment, because it is an experiment—of work is to be sacked with no cause and no reason given, how does that set up that young person for the future? This is a Government that is supposed to care.
But the other thing, again in line with a Government that does not think about creating or keeping jobs, is reinstatement. If, as a result of a personal grievance, a worker loses a job and it is deemed to be unfair, surely it is right that that worker should have the right to get back that job. Is that not fair? If an employer has sacked a worker and that worker is lucky enough to have access to personal grievance proceedings because he or she has been working for that employer for more than 3 months, and if it is deemed that the employer botched up, why in the middle of a recession with no recovery happening would a Government remove reinstatement as the primary remedy? Why would it do that? It is a mean-spirited and mean-willed action from a mean Government.
This Government is doing this despite all the rhetoric about caring, and I think that is what we on this side of the House find so offensive. It is saying that it cares, so it is going to make it easier for workers to be sacked. It is saying that it cares, so it says that if workers are unjustifiably sacked, then reinstatement is not a primary remedy. I would like the Minister or someone in National to take a call to explain to this House why a worker who has been dismissed without cause and without justification cannot have his or her job back. I urge someone in National—perhaps Tau Henare would be able to—
Darien Fenton: He’s very reasonable.
LYNNE PILLAY: He is a reasonable person and he has had experience of representing workers—not in a very good way, I will accept, but he has had experience none the less.
This is a sad day for workers in New Zealand. The fact that this bill will be hurried through the select committee process, in order to be reported back to the House in November, will be a nice Christmas present for workers in New Zealand.
Darien Fenton: Here we go again.
LYNNE PILLAY: Here we go again. We know who will be the worst affected by this bill. Who will it be? We have seen an example of workplace bullying with poor Heather Roy, and we all have a lot of sympathy for Heather Roy in terms of the workplace bullying that we have seen today. I can see Sir Roger nodding his head there and thinking it is not on. But Heather Roy still has a job. We are looking at young workers, vulnerable workers, who will not have an opportunity to stay in their job—a job that they may have worked really, really hard to get. This Government is removing that right.
I also want to draw attention to what we have seen in the short time that this Government has been in power. We still have languishing on the Order Paper victims’ rights legislation that would give real support to victims of domestic violence in New Zealand. But the Minister says that legislation will be introduced when the Government can afford it. The legislation is languishing on the Order Paper until the Government can afford it, and, instead, this Government is racing through legislation that once again is dealing to workers.
I would have more respect for Government members if they said that they launched it at the National Party conference because they know their constituency likes dealing to workers. They like it; that is part of what National is about. If they said that, we would at least respect them for a degree of honesty. But they say “We’re from the National Party, and we are here to help workers.” Well, I do not think anyone, certainly no one on this side of the House, believes that. I know that in their heart of hearts National members do not believe that either. It is just like their welfare reforms. They are there to help people into work. What do we say? Find the jobs. Invest in people, invest in the economy, create the jobs, and then people will work and they will be able to keep their jobs. Do not take away their right to get a job. As Ken Douglas said, his grandad said to him that when one gets a job, look after it, because someone worked very hard—
Hon Tau Henare: That dinosaur.
LYNNE PILLAY: That is rich, coming from that member. That is a doozy, coming from that member. Calling people dinosaurs; that is a real doozy.
This bill is an insult to workers in New Zealand, it is an insult to families in New Zealand, and it is something that should not happen. I am really pleased that members on this side of the House, along with the Green Party and the Māori Party, are vehemently opposed to this bill. I say to the Government that there will be many submissions before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee telling this Government what a lousy job it is doing in industrial relations and what a bad Minister of Labour it has.
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT): The ACT Party—
Hone Harawira: He wasn’t going to speak.
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS: No, I was not going to speak but the member got me so excited.
ACT supports the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). In particular, I want to talk about just one provision, and that is the extension of the 90-day provision. What we have on the other side of the House—it is really interesting to listen to the Labour Party—are the unionists advocating protection for existing workers and locking out the disadvantaged. That is essentially what the Labour members’ argument is. They wrap it up, but essentially they want to support and extend the privilege of existing workers, and they want to limit any possible competition from disadvantaged people. They want to lock out young Māori people, and they want to lock out our Pacific Island people from getting one foot on the ladder.
We know, from the provisions that have already been passed, that 40 percent of the people who got a job would not have got a job otherwise. In other words, those people got a start; they got a step up on the rung. Labour and the unions want to lock out the most vulnerable people in society so that they cannot get a step up on the ladder. They do not want to allow them to get a start.
We know what they said about youth rates. Labour members were not in favour of youth rates. They are not in favour of a young Māori boy being able to work for $300 a week. No, those members say, in the name of so-called justice—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member. We do not have interjections from members on their feet. Members should interject from their own seats.
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS: I was enjoying the interjections. I certainly was not worried. What Labour members say in terms of those young people is that they are not happy for them to work.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to check that we are debating the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and not the youth minimum wage legislation that the member moved. I think he might be slightly stuck in the past.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for those comments.
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS: I am making the point that their objections are similar in terms of this bill. They are saying to that young Māori boy that he is not allowed to work for $300 a week but that they will be very generous to him and give him $160 a week so he can stay home. Labour is saying that if those people want supplementary income they should join a gang, or, if they are female, have a child.
The simple point is that this bill aims to allow the disadvantaged, the most vulnerable people in our society, to get a step up on the ladder. When they get that step up, they can go anywhere. They can climb. That is what Labour wants to deny. Labour wants to protect existing workers at the expense of the unemployed and the disadvantaged. So when Labour members come in here and cry crocodile tears, we should not take any notice of them, at all.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Members have been playing a little bit of “my statistic is bigger than your statistic” over this debate, and I am very happy to play that game, as well, particularly in relation to the Department of Labour report on how effective this measure has been for the last 18 months in respect of firms with fewer than 20 employees. We have heard from Sir Roger Douglas and others that 40 percent of those people who were offered jobs would not have got them had there not been a trial period, but I ask how many employers actually took advantage of the 90-day probation period, at all. We have heard great statements from members opposite—
Sue Moroney: Was the job there already or was it not there? Did they make up a new job for them?
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: There is another statement. We are hearing that everyone will use the provision, and that when we extend it out to firms with more than 20 people, absolutely all employers will use it. But I say that that is absolutely not the case. Fewer than half of the firms eligible to use this provision did so—fewer than half—and only about half of the people employed by that half of employers were taken on under the probation period. So of all the people who could have been employed under a probation period, by my maths probably only about a quarter of them were.
But what is really interesting is why those people were taken on. Nearly a quarter of employers said that they were not sure whether work was available for employees, or that they had given a job to someone who might not otherwise have got it; they were not sure whether the person could do the job. To be opposed to that sort of thing, and to prevent even one job from being created in the face of uncertainty, is to have no understanding of how to run a business during a recovery from a recession, a recovery that is uncertain and fragile. If one has a small business—if one is a landscape gardener, or a plumber, with five or six staff—taking on an extra staff member is a huge risk, an absolutely huge risk, in the face of that uncertainty. To give a little bit more flexibility—
Sue Moroney: The Prime Minister won’t like you calling it fragile.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It is a fragile recovery and it is uncertain, particularly from the point of view of employers. That is what the surveys are showing, and they show that because people cannot see into the future.
I take up the point made by Mr Harawira about this measure being bad for young people. But 43 percent of the people taken on under these provisions were aged under 25. Nearly half of the people given a chance under this measure were young people so I think this is good legislation. It is fair, it is flexible, and I support it.
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I would just like to make a remark about the speech made by Sir Roger Douglas—and unfortunately he has not remained in the House—but it is hard to take him seriously, given that he presided over one of the biggest—
Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members are not supposed to say whether a member is in the House. It is pretty plain.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that. The member cannot refer to the absence of a member from the House.
CLARE CURRAN: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I want to talk a bit about what this Government is. My colleague Darren Hughes today quite accurately described it as a mirage because, ultimately, it does not mean what it says. This Government does a thing called Orwellian language. Orwellian language means an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past. The Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson, stood in the House at question time today, and again during her first reading speech, and described this Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) as fair and reasonable. Let me tell the House what fair and reasonable means according to this Government. It means unfair and unreasonable. Every time this Government says certain words, we know that it means something else—the opposite. The Minister said that the bill was not major and that it was only a little change. That means it is a big change. It is just like when Tony Ryall talks constantly about change in health—change that equals cuts. Bill English talks about change in the public sector and reprioritisation—words that mean cuts; cuts to people’s services and cuts to people’s jobs. The icing on the cake is “aspirational”, which means that the Government does not really mean it. We are aspirational about closing the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia. We are aspirational about creating 170,000 jobs—was it?
Grant Robertson: Something like that.
CLARE CURRAN: It was something like that.
Unfortunately the Government is not aspirational about this bill. It really means it, but it is not a small change that is fair and reasonable. It is a major shift towards fundamentally affecting the relationship between employers and employees in our New Zealand workplaces. It is taking us backwards as a country. It will affect the morale and the productivity of employees, of hard-working New Zealanders, of people who earn wages and salaries, and of people who are not liars and slackers. It will make workplaces harder to be in. It will entrench unfairness in our employment relations system and it will not do anything to address the fact that we do not have enough jobs in this country and we do not have an economic plan. If the Australian Labor Party wins the election on Saturday it will make Australia an even more attractive place to head for, with higher wages and more jobs in an environment that encourages and enables working people and does not make them feel bad.
Labour opposes this bill. I commend all my colleagues for their efforts to expose this bill for what it really is—an assault on workers’ rights, wages, and conditions. It demonstrates that the Government is implicitly saying at the outset: “We don’t care about fairness or treating employees as a valuable resource.” It is a continuation of National’s attack on workers’ rights, wages, and conditions. These amendments are unfair, unbalanced, and unnecessary. As I said, it is a backward step for New Zealand. It will undermine the ability of New Zealand employees to improve their wages and working conditions.
I will talk briefly about a couple of the measures: firstly, the 90-day trial period, which will let employers sack employees for no justifiable reason within 90 days of taking a new job. With an estimated 700,000 people changing jobs every year, and about 300,000 at any one time in their first 90 days, the legislation will have a grave effect on most workers. I know that one of my other colleagues called it sloppy and bad management practice. It will allow and encourage employers to substitute dismissal for sound appointment and induction, and good supervision and training, for new employees. It will lead to considerable abuse and bad practice; it will not increase employment, or work towards closing that gap with Australia. During the 1990s the Employment Contracts Act allowed many of these practices, so the legislation is going backwards; it is going back to the future. The result of that bad practice and the destruction of unions was low wages. In the 1990s after inflation, the average wage rose only 6 percent over the 10 years that the legislation was in force, and studies of this period show that exports were built on low wages and low skills rather than on high value. That was the period when most of the growth gap with Australia opened up, so I ask whether that is what we are heading for again.
I will give just a few examples of real people who have been affected by the existing 90-day law. A woman in Auckland worked at a bar, but got the sack, because—she thought—her employer wanted to hire younger people. There was nothing wrong with the quality of her work; it was just her age. But, as I was told, how could she prove it? She could not, and had to leave. That was not fair. A man in Wellington gave up a good job to go and work in a public relations company. He got to the new job and discovered that builders were doing renovations and he did not have an office. He did not have a job. A young worker at Burger Fuel was dismissed for asking for a tea break. That worker had no ability to defend himself; it was not fair. Twenty-two percent of people employed on the 90-day trial basis to date have lost their jobs, but if there was a problem with the quality of the work being done or with behaviour in the workplace, they could be dismissed fairly. Why should we make it legal to dismiss workers unfairly? It goes against the grain, it goes against the New Zealand psyche, and it goes against the essence of what it means to be a New Zealander. It legislates for bad employers and bad employment practices—bad law. I did not come into this place to see bad law being enacted.
I will also speak about restricting union access, which is an ideological and deliberate attack on the democratic right of workers to join unions and resolve workplace issues. There are campaigns nationwide, on the streets, in which workers and unions are protesting against this unjust and unfair legislation. The House has heard from Labour and Green members about this today; it is about fairness. This Government has at least now shown its true colours; it pretended to like the unions and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions for the first 19 months of its term. But all of a sudden this legislation has shown what Government members really think: keep unions out of workplaces. I heard Kate Wilkinson say at question time today that the legislation had just a small change that provided discretion to employers to be able to plan. But I ask: plan for what? It is a plan to be able to block union representatives from workplaces if there is any whiff of trouble—in other words to prevent employees from exercising their rights to be represented in their workplaces.
At the same time we know there is actually no need for the change. The regulatory impact statement noted that there did not appear to be widespread evidence of union representatives exercising their current rights to enter workplaces in an inappropriate way, resulting in disruption for business operations or in an adverse impact on the employment relationship between employer and union members. Having lived in Australia for a few years during the 1990s, I saw what happened when the Howard Government unfairly took on the unions and workers, interfered with that relationship between working people and their employers, and tried to skew it to the side of employers. Many thousands—hundreds of thousands—of people took to the streets over it, and the Prime Minister had to back down because it was fundamentally unfair. It is a short-sighted attack on workers, and it will have negative consequences, not only for working people but for the initiatives to change our workplaces into the productive—and it just appals me to hear Government members say exactly the opposite—well-rewarded places they need to be for real growth in the economy.
I will mention a few things about National’s past record on workers’ rights. Too many of the Ministers in the current Government are from National’s school of the 1990s, which taught that workers’ rights should be secondary to business profits. National has a shocking record on workers’ rights, but it tried to put on a smiley face at the last election and pretend that things would be different this time. But they are not, and they are clearly not. The first thing that National did in Government in the 1990s was to repeal the last thing that Labour had passed, the employment equity legislation, and in 1991 the National Government passed the Employment Contracts Act.
Hon TAU HENARE (National): Mr Speaker—
Hon Trevor Mallard: This will be a bottler.
Hon TAU HENARE: This will be a bottler, all right. Back in 1966 there was the FIFA World Cup final between England and West Germany. For years later a battle raged over who actually won that game. The battle went on and on. Well, this debate is a bit like that, because Labour members are fighting the old battles that were won and lost a long, long time ago.
I heard the lady from west Auckland, Lynne Pillay, who talked about the Employment Contracts Act and how this bill, the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), resembled that Act. But if that were the case, thousands upon thousands of down-trodden workers would be piled up outside. The last big protest that had thousands of people parked up outside this building was over the foreshore and seabed legislation. That is a telling little example. Who won that game? The Māori Party won that game—and England won the World Cup back in 1966. The Employment Contracts Act is so long ago that it does not bear even mentioning.
I will get up in this House and say a big thankyou to Sir Roger Douglas, because he has hit the nail on the head. Putting all the philosophy and the old rhetoric aside, this bill is about hope. It is about giving people a second chance. All we need to do is ask an ex-prisoner who is looking for a job—
Hon Trevor Mallard: A bottler.
Hon TAU HENARE: Absolutely! Oh no, I mean somebody who has actually been convicted—oh, but that is OK.
Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no—someone who’s bottled someone and cut their head open.
Hon TAU HENARE: Let us not go there.
This is about opportunity, this is about giving a chance, and this is about giving hope to the ex-prisoner who may want to get a job and get on the rung that Sir Roger Douglas talks about.
Where are all those thousands and thousands of union protests? They are nowhere. They are nowhere to be seen. In fact, the only place that they are seen is in the minds of the Opposition members. I tell members that my parting shot is this: they should go and look at the film Inception, because that is where the Opposition belongs—in dreamtime.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.
Ayes 64
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.
Noes 57
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.
Bill read a first time.
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): I move, That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consider the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), that the committee report to the House on or before 5 November 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c).
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 64
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.
Noes 56
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 4; Progressive 1.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill
First Reading
Debate resumed from 18 August.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I rise to take a very short call on this Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill—
Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no—take 10 minutes.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: —ha, ha—because I am not actually a tax expert and my co-leader is not here to do it, and because I really do like keeping to the point. However, if it were October the Green Party would have a great deal to say about the rise in GST. As it is not October, and as I will probably not be the Green member who makes the speech in October, all I can say is that I am appalled by the concept of the increase in GST. I know that we passed legislation last night that will hurt people, and the GST increase will hurt people more. I was ashamed to be part of Parliament last night, and I have had many emails from people on the subject of that legislation.
However, this bill is the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill. Tax is the price we pay to live in a civilised society. For the taxation system to work, everyone must pay their share and be seen to pay their share. Tax loopholes and tax avoidance undermine the collective sense of trust, and trust is a key word in our society. We have only a short amount of it around, so we really need to have this legislation. When overseas-owned banks unlawfully avoided paying $2 billion in tax, they did not just take money from ordinary New Zealanders; they undermined our collective will to pay our share, which is a serious matter in a society increasingly bereft of trust. Hence—
Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the member yield her time to me?
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: —we strongly support closing tax loopholes.
The Greens will support the bill, but as I am making a short speech I will be happy to yield the balance of my time to Trevor Mallard. Thank you.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I thank Catherine Delahunty. It is good to make sure that the time of the Opposition parties on the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill is well used. Rather than her talking, it is very kind of her to yield the balance of her time to me in order to ensure that we can look carefully at these particular matters. Is a Minister in the House? Oh, I see Jonathan Coleman—and Mr Finlayson as well. I could not see him. That one was hiding.
Jo Goodhew: Just sit down again.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, no; I have plenty to say. There are some really important changes within Part 3 of this bill that amend the Tax Administration Act. One of the questions I have is whether these changes go far enough, especially in respect of the late payment penalty in this particular area.
This is a bill that we will, of course, support going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. But I agree with Catherine Delahunty’s comments about the GST increase, and I want to reinforce the point that a number of us will be debating it publicly. However, there are some sensible changes in this legislation and a number of remedial amendments.
The Government is hammering families by increasing GST. It put the power prices up; it put GST up on top of that. What does the Government say to the superannuitants and beneficiaries who are being hammered? It says there will be 5.9 percent inflation, but it will not give them a similar increase under this legislation. I cannot see it in this bill, and it should be here. Although this bill is quite distinct, in that it is different from the Budget GST matters, it is a very, very good reminder of them. I thank the Government for making sure this bill got to its first reading stage and is about to head off to the select committee, because people will be given another opportunity—after debating it under Budget urgency—at the select committee to debate and focus on GST and the regressive nature of that tax.
It was interesting today in the House to hear Mr Boscawen in his first set of answers as a new Minister, one who has become a Minister in relatively unusual circumstances—
David Garrett: Not in your party!
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No; we knife people in the front in our party, not in the back in the way that Rodney Hide did. We certainly do not go around stealing papers out of members’ offices when they have “Defence: Top Secret” on them.
David Garrett: Go and say that on the steps.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think we are seeing a slight sign of tension amongst the ACT Party; it is having a pretty bad effect on the whip. I say to him that I do have some sympathy for him. I was the whip in the 1987-90 Government, and it is fair to say that, on the basis of keeping a Government party together and keeping it cohesive, I did not do a very good job. I say to that member that I would have thought that with just five members, he could keep them on track. If the member talks to Roger Douglas, he will hear that even in the worst times the relationship—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will get back to GST. That Government introduced GST, in 1986. By 1987 there was a proposal for a flat tax, and I am sure we would have had to have a Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill in order for it to be introduced. The point I am making to the member is that he will have to do quite a lot better as whip if he is to hold his party together. Now the member is doing Len Brown imitations. I am not certain that that is an appropriate thing for him to be doing within the House. I do not know whether it is parliamentary to mimic local body candidates in that way.
I think we should now focus on this bill. The provisions for the prevention of phoenix schemes, which undermine the integrity of the GST rules, are very useful. There is no doubt that when GST was first introduced, it was seen as pure and simple. There was a major drop in the income tax that people paid. When I became a member of Parliament in 1984 the top rate was 66c in the dollar, and it was reduced to 33c in the dollar when the GST legislation came in. People saw that as a fair cop: there was a big drop in the marginal rate of taxation, but GST came in. Around that time we did not have phoenix schemes, or cash arrangements, or things like that. But over a period of time, what has happened—and I would be interested in Mr Bakshi’s contribution to this particular issue—is that, particularly in some trades and in some ethnic communities, a cash economy has been operating and GST payments have not been made. There has been a change of culture in New Zealand. Having this sort of legislation to try to tighten up some of those gaps and to reduce the opportunities for that to happen is important.
I also think it is good that the bill is clarifying a situation in the GST rules with which some taxpayers have had difficulties. There is no doubt that there is a need for clarification. I think that any of us who are doing good constituency work know that sometimes the rules do not work towards resolving the problem. There are occasions, especially with regard to the penalty regime, where the Crown ends up in a worse position as a result of the implementation of the rules, which are very, very tight.
There is stuff on KiwiSaver amongst the remedial matters in the bill. The Labour Party, in later speeches on this bill, will say the bill is an opportunity to do what the Prime Minister said is needed, which is to bring in a savings culture. It is good that KiwiSaver is being brought up again, within the scope of this bill. Seeing as it is within the scope of this bill, the Labour Party—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but his time has expired.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I will take a short call in regard to the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill sponsored by the Minister of Revenue, Peter Dunne. The previous speaker, Trevor Mallard, finally got to the heart of the bill in the last few moments of his speech.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I had to find my place in the notes.
DAVID BENNETT: Well, that is familiar territory for him, I am sure. The basic nature of this bill is to close a tax loophole where phoenix schemes have been involved. Essentially, in order to close this loophole the bill requires that the GST be recorded at a zero rate for land if the buyer is also GST registered. That avoids the situation where, had the rate not been set at zero, the Inland Revenue Department could have been liable to pay the GST, the company might not be in a position to fulfil its obligations, and there is potential for fraud under the scheme. So this bill closes that loophole.
The bill has a number of other important subsidiary clauses that deal with simplifying some of the rules concerning GST. There are also some legislative changes in regard to KiwiSaver, fringe benefit tax, joint bank accounts, penalties, portfolio investment entity schemes, overseas donations, and superannuation. Effectively, this bill covers off an element of the taxation system that is important, because a taxation system needs to be robust, fair, and equitable, and we need to make sure that the legislation is such that people cannot take advantage of the system through schemes or the way that they structure their affairs. This bill is important in doing that, so that people can see the fairness and equity that they demand be represented in the taxation system. We support the passage of the bill through the House.
DAVID GARRETT (ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to indicate our support for the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill. I mention in passing that it was the great Sir Roger Douglas who came up with the concept of GST.
Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s no good greasing up to him now.
DAVID GARRETT: I do not need to grease up to him now. We are friends. We are good friends. I learn a great deal from Sir Roger. Every day, in fact, Sir Roger and I—well, not every day, but most days—share dinner together. We break bread together, as friends do. I find his advice extremely helpful on many political matters.
I will tell a wee story, because I think it is a very good one. In a greasy spoon cafe in Auckland, which I frequent now and again when I wish to return to my class roots, I go in and have a feed of eggs and bacon with all the trimmings. I never wear a suit, of course, but I am the only person there who wears a suit in daily life; it is frequented by truck drivers and digger operators and those sorts of chaps. I was in there about a year ago, and a group of people were having lunch and talking about the insulation scheme. One of them said the scheme sounded all right, but someone had to pay for it. My ears pricked up, and I thought that was a bit unusual. Then the man said: “You know that [bleep] Sir Roger Douglas? He had it right. That [bleeping] GST, even the rich [bleeps] have to pay that, mate. That is a [bleeping] good idea.” I thought that was marvellous. A man who makes his living driving a digger is able to recognise what a brilliant thing GST is.
It is good that we are here in 2010, a bit over 20 years later, making a few tweaks and adjustments to make sure that the wide boys whom Mr Boscawen despises so much have it just a bit harder to defraud the good, honest workers, like those chaps whom I met in that cafe that day and with whom I had a good talk, and whom that horrible shouter over there supposedly represents. ACT is very happy to support this bill.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Hoi nō, he tū poto tēnei, kia mōhio ai te Whare, e tautoko kaha ana te Pāti Māori i te pire a Rāhui Kātene, kia tangohia te tāke i te kai. Kia ora tātou.
[This is just a short call to inform the House that the Māori Party strongly supports Rāhui Kātene’s bill to remove the tax on food. Greetings to us.]
RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Kia ora.
Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Start in Chinese.
RAYMOND HUO: Ni hao. The Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill makes a number of tax-related amendments and introduces some sensible changes and a number of remedial amendments. Labour will support the bill’s referral to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Broadly speaking, the bill makes a number of amendments to GST, including zero-rating land transactions where both parties are GST registered. There are adjustments for changes in use, nominated persons, and the GST treatment of accommodation. It also makes a number of other changes to the KiwiSaver legislation, the tax treatment of Government-allocated emissions trading scheme units, portfolio investment entity schemes, and the tax treatment of superannuation funds.
A basic element of the GST system is that transactions between businesses should be GST neutral. However, infrequent transactions of significant assets, such as land, often create GST consequences for which businesses may not have planned. There is also a substantial risk to the tax base through phoenix fraud schemes that involve new revenue for the Government. So clause 10 requires GST-registered suppliers to charge GST at the rate of zero percent on the supply of land when the purchaser is also GST registered. A transaction between a registered supplier and a non-registered purchaser remains subject to the existing rules. So that is the first point.
The second point is that adjustments are made for changes in use. The current change-in-use rules that apply when assets are used for both taxable and non-taxable purposes will be replaced with an approach that apportions the input tax deductions according to the attributes of goods and services. The third point is on transactions involving nominated persons. GST is a tax on transactions, and most transactions involve only two parties—that is, a vendor and a purchaser. The legislation is not designed to cater for arrangements in which a purchaser nominates another person to receive the goods or to settle the transaction, or both.
The fourth point is that commercial accommodation provided by GST-registered persons is GST taxable. Broadly speaking, accommodation in a dwelling is excluded from the tax base because if GST was applied to rent, owner-occupiers of residential dwellings would have preference over tenants who reside in rental properties. The definition of dwelling is intended to apply in circumstances that have a reasonable level of sustainability between renting and owning a home. This goal is not currently achieved because of the potentially wide interpretation of the term “dwelling”.
This bill amends the definition of “dwelling” and “commercial dwelling” to clarify what types of accommodation fall within the ambit of the definitions and to ensure a better alignment of the GST treatment of equivalent types of accommodation. Interestingly, this bill makes a number of amendments to KiwiSaver. It is regrettable that the Government did not use this bill to undo the damage it did to the superannuation scheme by cutting KiwiSaver. National gutted KiwiSaver by halving the amount of money that the Government put into it, so it decreases the amount that people will save.
We have been talking about the savings problem in New Zealand for some time now. National’s response was to cut KiwiSaver, which had been the first real attempt to lift private sector household savings in New Zealand. It also cut payments to the Superannuation Fund. Bill English has spent the last couple of days bemoaning our level of indebtedness to the world. Unfortunately for him, after 2 years in Government both Treasury and the Reserve Bank are forecasting the problem to get worse. National’s belated decision to set up a savings committee is an admission that it knows it has been caught without a credible plan or milestones to catch up with Australia. Two years, two Budgets, and now it plans to set up a committee. Labour understands, and always has, that the biggest difference between New Zealand’s economy and our neighbour Australia’s economy is Australia’s better savings record. KiwiSaver spearheaded Labour’s commitment to turning this round, but National gutted the scheme as soon as it came into office and suspended contributions to the Superannuation Fund.
I will quote the New Zealand Herald editorial entitled “Compulsory super best way forward”: “So compelling is the case for compulsory superannuation that it is a mystery why the Government is setting up yet another working group. It needs only look across the Tasman, where the concept has proved so successful over the past two decades that almost two-thirds of Australians now support an increase in contributions to their compulsory scheme from 9 to 12 percent. … The core issue is the sustainability problems of NZ Superannuation as the baby boomers move into retirement. The Government’s response to this has been sharply constrained by two acts.” The New Zealand Herald cited the two acts: “The first was the Prime Minister’s unfortunate remark that he would resign if his administration ever changed the entitlements for national super. The second was the Government’s suspension of Cullen Fund contributions. Another road that pays for retirement needs will have to be carved out. Importantly, compulsory superannuation would provide the added benefit of building a much-needed savings base and reducing the country’s reliance on borrowing from overseas.”
On that note, there are two other intrinsic issues. The first one is that our young people are struggling and our elderly Kiwis struggle to make ends meet. If someone is on a middle income and is not one of the privileged few but one of the many ordinary New Zealanders, then that person is struggling, too. Another problem, as observed by Bernard Hickey, is that around 62 percent, collectively, of our extra savings is invested overseas. Currently, 69 percent of the Superannuation Fund is invested offshore, once the cash invested here is included in the total. It is 81 percent without that cash. Just over 40 percent of the $5.5 billion invested in KiwiSaver has been invested overseas as well. To sort out the problem, the obvious answer is to save more domestically, and the obvious mechanism is to make KiwiSaver compulsory, while also retaining the current universal New Zealand superannuation system as a safety net. Thank you very much.
AARON GILMORE (National): It gives me the utmost pleasure to stand and follow the previous speaker, Raymond Huo. I want to talk a bit about what the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill is about, which is GST. New Zealand has one of the most wonderful, simplified GST systems in the world, and the good thing about this bill is that it makes our system even simpler. There is a really neat little thing in the bill. It is not necessarily about the phoenix schemes, but it means that those nasty people called tax accountants will have a little less work to do. People will not have to talk to them and worry about the test of what constitutes a going concern as much as they used to. I happen to own a commercial building, and I had to pay my tax accountant a couple of thousand bucks. She is a good lady. But the good thing about the changes in this bill is that other people who go out and buy commercial buildings in the months and years to come will save themselves a little money. That is what our Government is all about—saving a little money, by reducing regulation. I think that is a good thing. Thank you very much.
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Kia ora nō tātou. The Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill is very important legislation, and as is reflective of the general attitude of this side of the House to savings and financial challenges, we actually support the bill. So it behoves me to take every second of the 10 minutes to ensure that not a single New Zealander—and, dare I say it, Australian and Pacific Islander, too—watches the final 45 minutes of this afternoon’s debate without understanding that point.
David Garrett: Watching 45 minutes of what?
Hon SHANE JONES: We have heard from Mr Garrett; we know that he has dealt with ”Private Roy”. He can go back to his seat now. We do not want to be distracted by that matter.
Mr Gilmore said this legislation pertains to GST. GST is a key feature and a consumption-based tax, and anything that simplifies it ought to be supported.
I really want to turn to the elements that relate to KiwiSaver. It is a tragedy that KiwiSaver has been wrecked by the current Government, and although we will support these amendments, I point out that they are of a technical nature. The underlying architecture of KiwiSaver has been rudely injured, and almost fatally injured, as a consequence of the parsimony and uninterested attitude of the current Government in respect of supporting savings. But wait; help is on the way! KiwiSaver ought to be a simple process. KiwiSaver is designed to achieve what the Prime Minister talks about, but unfortunately very rarely acts upon—that is, making up for the lost ground in relation to the nation’s savings deficit. If the Government had continued the fit of generosity and commitment that the previous Labour Government showed to gross savings, KiwiSaver would have increased those savings.
I talked today to a senior member of the Wellington commercial community, who had had the good fortune to bump into a bank, and that bank told the person that its customers are now growing far more enthusiastic about the idea of seeing their regular balances and the improvement in their savings position. They are disappointed not only that the Cullen fund is being gutted but also that KiwiSaver contributions may be under threat as a consequence of the niggardly approach that the current Government has taken.
The bill will go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It is interesting that Mr Bill English was formerly a member of that committee, and, indeed, when John Key replaced Don Brash, Bill English replaced John Key on that committee. I recall Mr English, on a number of occasions, talking about the importance of dealing with the country’s indebtedness. KiwiSaver is a fantastic instrument to enable that to take place. It is not the only type of savings we have in New Zealand, but it will likely grow poorer if all we see are minor, technical changes in terms of the greater debate that has been neglected by the Government. It is akin to pettifogging. What have we seen? A committee has been created to address the underlying problem. That committee is likely to come up with a set of ideas that will come perilously close to the time of the election contest, and the opportunity of the last 3 years will, unfortunately, have been lost. It will have been lost because 3 years have been squandered to deal with the underlying opportunity to take a risk and actually grow people’s enthusiasm. I sense the word “enthusiasm” coming from the other side of the House as members there seek to embrace a deeper commitment to savings.
It is a moot point as to whether savings ought to be compulsory, but we should not overlook the fact that the Australians have a compulsory system. As a consequence of that, Australia’s savings record outstrips ours, and as long as we do not have a compulsory system we will have to live with that gap. We know that the gap is something that the current Government has become painfully aware of.
Aaron Gilmore: So what did you do about savings?
Hon SHANE JONES: A reasonable question has been posed. The man was referring to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will not ask you what you are doing. You are transfixed as a consequence of this debate on a Thursday afternoon. This is not an issue of what this side of the House is doing; this is an issue of what the Government has not done, and all it is able to bring forward are some very minor, almost parsimonious changes that will not make a difference to the real challenge that lies ahead of us.
I give an assurance that this side of the House is progressing well on its savings policy. All types of people are bringing not only their ideas but their support, anticipating the emergence of an innovative set of policies and a plan, because half of the task that we have before us is turning up with a plan. I will not repeat what other members have said—there is a paucity of thinking and a total absence of a plan from the Government—but I will say that the reason why we support these changes is that our policy iterations will be sophisticated.
Grant Robertson: And clever.
Hon SHANE JONES: Although these changes are of a technical nature, they actually build on the architecture that was laid down by Dr Cullen. It will probably stand as a part of the proud legacy of the previous Government that an overdue step was taken in respect of the savings architecture and savings culture. That culture appeals to garden-variety Kiwis and it definitely appeals to businesses. We have a few reactionary forces and random voices threatening to emulate Hone Harawira’s style of politics and revolt in the event that employers are required, as a consequence of a compulsory savings policy, to contribute to an employee’s savings, but that is a matter of their theatrics. The deeper issue is that New Zealanders want to save, they want encouragement to save, they want a simple process where they can save, and they want to know that their savings will go into enterprises that will deepen the reservoirs of capital and enable talented people to remain in New Zealand and grow enterprises as a consequence of having access to capital that has an indigenous origin. Although businesses are enjoying the prospect of greater savings, they know that they cannot rely purely on bank finance or imported capital. But, over time, whether they are small start-up firms, firms in the middle of their growth trajectory, or very large firms that have managed to spread out to other jurisdictions, they will have access to a range of professionally managed savings schemes. Slowly but surely, we will recover the lost ground, which is continuously being lost, unfortunately, day after day, through the Government’s inattention and, I suppose, confusion as to what to do.
Let it be said that all successful economies thrive on the basis of accumulated capital and productivity. We will support this legislation today because it is a small attempt to address that, and because it is consistent with our general bipartisan approach to matters of important economic enterprises. We know that businesses and garden-variety Kiwis want to get behind a savings culture and a savings enterprise that will make a difference to the long-term wealth-generating capacity of the country, and to prosperity at the level of individual New Zealand families, New Zealand communities, and, dare I say this, of the overall New Zealand economy. It is fitting that we should arrive at this point where I signal that we support the bill. There will be a few refinements, as befits the intellect that we will bring to the task. Thank you very much.
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): I rise to support the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill. It is a bill that is part of the most comprehensive reforms in the tax area for 25 years. It is a centrepiece of this year’s Budget. It is a package that makes the system fairer and more sustainable, and it delivers better incentives for economic growth. It is a package that will deliver prosperity to this country.
When I talk to the people in Maungakiekie whom I represent, I hear that they are certainly looking forward to their tax cuts and the increases in their benefits—
Hon Trevor Mallard: And GST.
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA:—as well as a GST increase, to be fair. But they are looking forward to this package and to the Government continuing in this way. I support this bill.
Bill read a first time.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: I move, That the Finance and Expenditure Committee consider the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill, that the committee report to the House on or before 15 November 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 69
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; United Future 1.
Noes 52
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Holidays Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): I move, That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the Holidays Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 5 November 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c).
The Holidays Amendment Bill will improve the overall operation and efficiency of the Holidays Act, improve the balance of fairness, and provide greater choice to employees and employers. The changes introduced to the House today will make it easier for employers and employees to understand and to comply with the holidays legislation. This bill follows a review of the Holidays Act by a ministerial advisory group of employer and union representatives that we set up last year. The Holidays Act affects all employers and employees. It is significant legislation. However, parts of the Holidays Act have been criticised as being unclear, overly complex, and lacking choice for both employers and employees. A lack of clarity in holiday provisions has a negative impact on employment relationships and productivity because employers and employees have to spend time and resources trying to establish their rights and obligations. A high number of public submissions on the review shows that there are a number of issues that are important to people. The group’s recommendations provided me with a sound basis for arriving at the proposed changes we are debating today and I thank it for its work.
We will be making a number of changes to the Holidays Act. The major changes propose to address the application and calculation of payment for public holidays, alternative holidays, sickness leave, and bereavement leave, and give employees the ability to exchange up to 1 week’s annual holiday a year for cash. Giving employees the ability to exchange 1 week’s annual holiday for cash was a National Party pre-election manifesto commitment and I am delighted to be implementing this policy.
There is widespread public support for this exchange. New Zealanders want to be given greater choice and flexibility with their holidays and this Government is delivering it. This is an incredibly popular policy. All the feedback we have received from the public is in support of this choice. In fact, the only concern raised to date is that this policy has not been available sooner. This exchange is all about choice. We are saying to New Zealanders that they are best placed to make their own decisions based on their own circumstances. After 9 years of a meddling Labour Government this comes as a welcome relief. New Zealanders can be trusted to make these decisions. If they want to take their full 4 weeks’ holiday a year then they can. If they feel they need only 3 weeks then they can ask their employer to trade it in and be paid that extra week as cash. If it works for both parties then it is a win-win. The necessary protections will be built into the law. The exchange cannot be raised in salary negotiations or as part of an employment contract. This is a sound policy and I expect that it will prove beneficial for many New Zealanders.
The issue of relevant daily pay has proved to be the most difficult and frustrating part of the Holidays Act. The bill will address this issue. We acknowledge that for some employers and employees the existing arrangement of relevant daily pay is straightforward. For these people—for instance, those on salaries—relevant daily pay remains the basis for calculating the pay for leave taken. Where relevant daily pay creates difficulties, such as where pay or hours vary, we will be introducing a new concept of average daily pay. Average daily pay is a daily average of an employee’s pay over a year, or whatever lesser period the employee has worked for that employer.
This change will make the Holidays Act easier to understand because the payment for leave is based on past identifiable earnings. The change addresses the issue of potential fluctuations in pay. Average daily pay avoids the higher and lower payments that can be caused by averaging over 4 weeks, as is the case currently. It will be beneficial for employees and employers by providing more certainty around the value of leave for any particular day. It will provide more certainty where an employee is paid by piece rates; it will provide more certainty where an employee’s hours of work are dependent on the volume of work available; and it will provide more certainty where an employee receives different pay rates for different tasks.
This bill also provides more choice for employers and employees by restoring the right to transfer the observance of public holidays to another working day. The 11 public holidays provided by the legislation are important to New Zealanders. However, our society is changing. This law change recognises that it may better suit some workplaces and employees to agree to observe public holidays on other days. For example, an employee may agree with his or her employer to observe Boxing Day on another working day that holds religious or cultural significance for that employee. The bill sets out a number of criteria that apply to any agreement to transfer public holidays.
A minor change is being proposed to allow employers to request proof of sickness or injury within 3 consecutive days of an employee taking sick leave without first having reasonable grounds to suspect that the sick leave is not genuine. Despite the usual scaremongering from the Opposition claiming that the health system will be clogged up, I do not expect that this law will be used very often at all. Employers have to pay for the proof and it is clear that they will request a medical certificate only when they genuinely suspect somebody of routinely pulling sickies. The current law is open to interpretation and employers have noted that they simply do not know at what point they have reasonable grounds. This change will make the law clear and simple.
A late amendment to the bill will clarify employees’ entitlements during customary close-down periods such as at Christmas. This change makes it clear that employees are entitled to be paid for public holidays, alternative holidays, sick leave, and bereavement leave falling during a customary close-down period if they would otherwise be working days for the employee. This does not change current practice but it ensures that the legislation reflects the original policy intent. This change is in response to a recent Employment Court decision.
Lastly, we will be seeking to increase the maximum penalties under the Holidays Act. The maximum penalties for non-compliance with the Act will double to $10,000 for individuals and to $20,000 for companies and other bodies corporate. There is no reason why employers cannot meet their obligations under this Act, and the current penalties are too weak. Breaches of minimum entitlements are not conducive to good commercial practices and it is important that the law is taken seriously.
This bill responds to concerns raised by the public about the Holidays Act. The bill retains the integrity of the Holidays Act and maintains employees’ holiday and leave entitlements. The bill clarifies areas of uncertainty and addresses concerns about how certain aspects of the Holidays Act are causing unnecessary costs and confusion. It gives greater choice to employees who may want more flexibility around how they take their annual holidays and public holidays. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think one should probably start by looking at the regulatory impact statement for the Holidays Amendment Bill. That is probably the reverse of the way that it is done on occasion, but if we look carefully we can see what a nonsense this bill is. We see the statement from Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development that the proposed changes may not improve the functioning of the legislation. They note the balance of cost to benefit of the package of the proposed changes is not clear. At a minimum, amendments are likely to impose transitional costs on both employers and employees and the extent of other potential costs is unclear. They say that the cost of implementing it is likely to be so high that most employers will not use it, and that the proposal will create new tensions between employers and employees.
I think the fairly described, ideologically right-wing agencies of the State are basically saying that this will not work and this is nonsense. These are the very agencies that one would think would come in behind the Government to provide the Government with an argument to back up its nonsense. I think it is fair to say that for big parts of the legislation the Department of Labour said either there was not enough research or it did not have enough time to spend on it. In some cases, the Minister did not even ask the Department of Labour. She wrote the legislation and did not ask the department for a view, or ask what material or what facts were in its possession in relation to the legislation.
Hon Steve Chadwick: They don’t care.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: And maybe National does not care. Maybe National does not care about the effect this legislation has on Kiwi families, and that is something that I am beginning to see.
An interesting comment was made a couple of years ago by someone about the New Zealand situation. He said that spending long hours at work, having both parents in employment, childcare shortages, growing interest rates, and rising bills can be a far from ideal environment for good parenting and healthy family relationships.
Hon Steve Chadwick: Suicide rates.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, no, suicide rates were not mentioned by John Key when he talked about the pressures on families.
Grant Robertson: When did he say that?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It was just before he became the Prime Minister. It was at the point when he was pretending that he was supportive of a high-wage economy, rather than the introduction of measures that are deliberately designed to drive down wages and to reduce the conditions of New Zealand wage and salary earners.
He dresses up these measures as an attack on unionists and union members. But all of us know that his secret agenda is to very quietly undermine the wages and salaries of middle-income New Zealanders on behalf of the people who give very big donations to the National Party. That is what he is doing. He will never admit it, but that is what he is doing. He is not only attacking those people at the bottom of the heap, but with this legislation he is putting the pressure on middle New Zealand, in a number of ways that I would like to get into.
National members in the past used to be more honest. They used to say that they were opposed to 4 weeks’ leave. They voted in this House against 4 weeks’ leave. They said that they did not want it. Now they are pretending to say that they really do support it, but if one is poor one should not have a fourth week of holiday. If one is a vulnerable worker and does not earn enough to keep one’s family, one can cash up one’s holiday and not have the holiday. We know that low-wage earners are the ones most likely to do that. They are the very people who are under the most pressure in their households. They are the very ones who struggle the most, which causes all sorts of problems within their families, and they are the ones whom this National Government is attacking. They are the most vulnerable people, and they are being attacked by the National Government.
Kate Wilkinson said that employees will not come under pressure. Employers will not be able to pressure people. She said that cashing in annual leave cannot be a term or condition of the employee’s employment. It cannot be part of what is advertised for the job at the beginning. But is that not what she said about the 90-day trial legislation? That is exactly what she said. She said that it was the employee’s choice. It was not going to be one of the conditions when people were employed. I notice that Kate Wilkinson is not replying. She is not focusing; she is not listening. I think it is pathetic that a Minister in this House this early in a debate is not focusing on the inconsistency and the hypocrisy of someone who claimed that the 90-day legislation could not be part of the conditions of employment. She is making the same claim about this. We know that is not true and that she has no way—
Hon Steve Chadwick: Hold their heads down in shame.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Those members over there are holding their heads down in shame. It is interesting that as soon as the noisy Māori, Paul Quinn and Tau Henare, leave the House those members put their heads down. They look ashamed—so might that particular pair look ashamed.
Already in the first 12 months of this Government being in office, wages in Australia increased by 2.5 percent more than in New Zealand—2.5 percent more in average weekly wages in Australia than in New Zealand. National is the Government that promised to close that gap. What it has done, as National Governments have done consistently right through the 1990s, is open that gap. Under the employment contracts legislation the gap opened up massively during the 1990s, and this Government is true to form. This is what it believes in. National believes in lower wages; it is part of its raison d’être. National does not believe in high wages and good skills. It does not believe in decent capital investment. It believes in this spiral to the bottom and in competing for low-wage jobs with China and India. That is the sort of approach that this Government has, to drive wages down in New Zealand, and this is the sort of legislation that is designed to do it.
As far as holidays are concerned, New Zealand workers have fewer holidays than the vast majority of like countries, certainly around the OECD. We are holiday starved in New Zealand. The Minister of Labour might well hang her head in shame, as she is doing now. She should be ashamed of the fact that New Zealand is a country that has one of the fewest number of holidays in the OECD, and she is taking them away.
There is only one other point, and it relates to the provisions to stop sickies. The only thing I want to say about that is that Peter Dunne has got it right. I agree with Peter Dunne and I welcome his support for the Opposition on this legislation. It is good to see a Minister who is prepared to stand up for his principles and to abandon the Government on this. He says that the sickie provisions are unworkable. Any of us who live in low-income areas, who see long queues at doctors’ surgeries, would ask Kate Wilkinson whether she really wants someone who has the flu for a couple of days to go and infect everyone else at doctors’ surgeries. Does she really want someone with gastric problems to go to the doctor? Does she really want someone who has been given leave to look after a kid to drag that kid out of bed in order to go to the doctor? In my view, we do not want that. I think it is fair to say that when Labour was in Government we got a little bit of criticism from some of our friends and colleagues in the union movement for not going far enough, but the objective in that legislation, which was introduced by the Hon Margaret Wilson, was to get a balance that could be sustained because it was fair. Kate Wilkinson is undoing that balance, and that is unfair.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I rise to take a call on the Holidays Amendment Bill and to note the fairness and equity that the Minister of Labour is employing in her portfolio. The way in which the legislation has been proposed, the manner in which the public is aware of the detail of it, and the simplicity of the nature of the changes mean that many New Zealanders, and especially working New Zealanders, find a lot of comfort from this Minister and the way in which she is dealing with these issues. We congratulate her.
Contrary to the rhetoric from members opposite, we have had two labour relations bills before the House this afternoon and Labour members have not talked about the actual bill in either case. They have talked about lower wages and things like that, which have nothing to do with the bills. The New Zealand public needs to know that the reality of this bill is not about reducing wages or any of the other rhetoric that Labour members have talked about. This bill is about giving choice and personal direction in regard to holidays. It is a bill that will assist workers and be to their benefit.
We see this bill going through the House, being successful, and being in the best interests of New Zealand workers so that they have choice in the future. Thank you.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour): It is difficult to have to deal with two attacks on workers’ rights in one day. I put on the record an invitation to Kate Wilkinson to turn up to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions rallies on Saturday in Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin, and Christchurch—
Hon Trevor Mallard: No, Dunedin’s is on Sunday.
DARIEN FENTON: OK, Dunedin’s is on Sunday. I invite her to turn up and justify these changes to New Zealand workers. She will find it very difficult to do so. One of the things that make me very angry in this House is that members like the previous speaker, David Bennett, and others talk about what is good for New Zealand wage and salary earners, although clearly they do not talk to them. They talk only to their friends in business. The announcements at the National Party conference were all about its big-business backers and making sure that they will continue to fund the party at the next election.
I thought I would start my contribution today by reflecting on where we are at, what we are looking to change, what the current legislation says, and where that came from. Currently, workers in New Zealand are entitled to 4 weeks of annual holidays for rest and recreation. Who brought that in? The previous Labour Government brought that in. It took 30 years for New Zealand wage and salary earners to go from having 3 weeks’ holiday to 4 weeks’ holiday. The Labour Government did that. We also brought in time and a half on a public holiday. I am really pleased that we are not now looking at a push-back on paying time and a half on public holidays and a day in lieu, even though there are some issues—and I will talk about those. But a Labour Government brought that provision in. Prior to that, workers who had to work on a statutory holiday, a public holiday, had a day in lieu but received no extra money for it, unless that was specified in their agreement. So that was really, really hard. Even the 5 days of sick leave is under attack, as well, but that also came in under a Labour Government. It came in under a Labour Government, which added bereavement leave to that.
Those are the things that Labour brought in. In some ways it is reassuring that this Government has not really been able to go into an all-out attack on the things that Labour has entrenched in the minds of New Zealand workers, New Zealand wage and salary earners, as being their entitlements. But the Government is coming at it in another way.
I thought it was interesting that the Minister talked about cashing up annual leave. As I said, it took us 30 years to get to 4 weeks’ leave. In the previous debate about the changes made in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), she and all her colleagues could not wait to talk about what happens in Australia with regard to trial periods. But that is interesting, because in Australia there has been 4 weeks’ annual leave for a long time. Workers there cannot cash that up. They can go beyond that and cash it up, if that is part of their agreement. But Australian workers have had 4 weeks’ annual leave for years and years, just as they have had many, many other things.
Hon Steve Chadwick: Off they go to Australia.
DARIEN FENTON: Well, more Kiwis are going to Australia.
I can understand, and I think that we on this side of the House can understand, why any workers who look at the fact that they have had no pay increase under this Government in the last 2 years—unless they are on the minimum wage, and then it was a measly 25c an hour—and who look at their household bills and think about how they will feed their children, may think that cashing up the fourth week’s leave is quite a good idea. I can understand that. Our leader Phil Goff was trying to explain that; that is what he was saying about our position on the fourth week’s leave. But underpinning the fourth week’s leave from our position is the fact that it is about rest and recreation. New Zealand workers, New Zealand employees, work some of the longest hours in the OECD and have some of the fewest holidays in the OECD. There is an interesting thing about that; I read an article the other day that said that the only other country that works longer hours than New Zealand is Japan. There is a thing happening there called karōshi, where people are working such long hours that they are actually dying from overwork.
We have very few regulations about rest and recreation, breaks, and holidays, and we have almost no regulations on working hours in this country. The situation is so deregulated that it is not funny. The only other things that we have are meal and rest breaks, but, hey, can members guess what is happening to them? They are under consideration in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee right at the moment, because the Government is trying to take them away. Labour is doing its best to try to make sure that those protections stay—
Dr Jackie Blue: Rubbish!
DARIEN FENTON: —but what is happening with regard to meal breaks, I tell Jackie Blue, is the proposal to have a situation whereby workers can be required to work during an unpaid meal break. I think that it used to be called slavery when people worked for nothing. That is what I think it was called.
There are other things in this bill, but before I move on from annual leave I tell members that I remember that National voted against the fourth week’s annual leave. John Key called it a bribe. That is what he called it. National members can try to write in all the protections that they like, but the fact is that many, many workers will come under pressure to cash up that fourth week’s leave. We should be encouraging people to take leave and have time off with their families—to have 4 weeks with their families. Failure to do that is why we have the social problems that we see around the country. That is why families are under pressure.
Then we move on to public holidays and the proposals in the bill to transfer public holidays. I do not know where that came from. It certainly was not a National Party policy; it was not a National Party election promise. It was not in National’s manifesto. [Interruption] It was not. I tell the Minister that it was not in National’s manifesto. There was the whole thing about relevant daily pay, but transferring public holidays was not in the manifesto. I can kind of accept the thing about the fourth week’s leave, even though I do not agree with it, because National did go out to the voting public and say that was what it was going to do. People had a chance to understand that. But the transferring of public holidays seems to have arisen in the last couple of years. I am on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I remember some employers coming along and proposing that it would be a good idea to be able to transfer the 11 public holidays that we recognise in New Zealand, the festivals, to other days, which could be other cultural festivals, or whatever else.
Well, OK, that all sounds very, very good, and I see that the Minister of Labour has tried to write in protections to make sure that the transfer of a public holiday is not being done just to avoid paying time and a half on the day. But in reality what will happen is that, at the end of the day, if the employer and employee cannot reach agreement on a transfer, the employer gets to decide. So we could have workers working on Christmas Day, away from their families. They could have to work on Christmas Day and not be paid time and a half, and at some other time during the year the employer will decide that another day will be the holiday for Christmas Day. It could be in April. It could be 1 April—what a joke! What an absolute joke that is.
There are some very real concerns about the public holiday transfer. No one has asked for it, I understand, except Business New Zealand and the Employers and Manufacturers Association, which came up with the bright idea. The way that I saw it at the time was that it was a way to try to get out of paying for 11 public holidays. In fact, we have a problem next year. We should be paid for an extra holiday, because we have Easter Monday and Anzac Day falling on the same day, as my colleague Grant Robertson said. We need to look at that.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I’d rather have 4 weeks’ holiday.
DARIEN FENTON: The member would rather have 4 weeks’ holiday.
Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s my priority.
DARIEN FENTON: Well, that is true. Yes, I am sure that many, many workers would rather have that, too.
Then we get on to the whole issue of sickies, and the tone of this bill is that workers cannot be trusted. They cannot be trusted. Apparently, they are so untrustworthy that their employer can require them to go to the doctor so that they can provide the employer with a medical certificate on their first day of illness. That is very unfair. If a worker has a sick child, I ask whether the worker is really expected to drag that child out of bed, go off to the doctor, and get a medical certificate. We have heard from doctors that they will not appreciate it. I go to my doctor sometimes, and there is a big queue—particularly in winter, when there are many cases of flu. People will not get in to see their doctor, and what happens then?
Hon Member: If you did, you’d just infect other people.
DARIEN FENTON: That is right, so then they drag themselves off to work. It is just ridiculous. The whole argument around the Minister’s removal of the word “reasonable” is an interesting one, too, because that flows over into the Employment Relations Act, and we had a discussion on that earlier.
In closing, I say this legislation will help us to drift further away from Australia. We will see more people getting on planes and going off to Australia, because people do not have to argue about their holidays in Australia. They do not have to argue.
Hon Steve Chadwick: Forty families from Whangarei last week.
DARIEN FENTON: Forty families from Whangarei went off to Australia last week, and who can blame them? In Australia people are treated properly. They get time off to be with their families, and they do not have to put up with this nonsense.
KEITH LOCKE (Green): I seek leave for the House to rise at this point. I think that people are dashing off—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for the House to now rise. Is there any objection to that course of action? Yes, there is.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will just get out my gear and see whether I can find the appropriate Standing Order. I think that we are getting to the point in the debate where it is making a nonsense of trying to—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Order!
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am sorry, but I am trying to find the particular page as we go.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member must raise his point of order; we do not need a dissertation on the debate. That is not a point of order.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, I think you are right, Mr Assistant Speaker, but I am sure that one of my colleagues—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I ask whether some member is seeking the call. The member does not have a point of order.
KEITH LOCKE (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that Mr Mallard should have been able to get to the particular clause—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): What is the member’s point of order? I ask whether some member is seeking the call.
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the first reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. It is an excellent bill, and I congratulate the Minister of Labour on it. It is part of a suite of employment laws that the Minister is bringing to the House. We had the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) this afternoon, and the Holidays Amendment Bill is the second bill that we will debate today in this area. The bill is all about finding practical solutions to the issues facing both employees and employers, which is all being done in the backdrop of the Government’s objective to grow the economy, create more jobs, and increase growth for the country.
The bill amends the Holidays Act 2003, so that the Act is easier to understand and to apply; the comment has been made that the Act has been complex and confusing. The bill will decrease compliance costs for employers, making it easier for businesses to grow and get on with their core business, which is all about carrying out their business and opening up jobs. This bill is all about choice and flexibility. I commend it to the House.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The time has come for the House to rise, so we will not deal with a point of order.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.