The Green Party would not have supported this Bill unless we genuinely believed that it will make life fairer and better not only for workers, but also for employers and organisations across all sectors of the economy. Our Party is not one which is based in one section of society or another - our supporters come from right across the board. We do not have the benefit of either union affiliation fees or big business backing - but we do have a deep and heartfelt commitment to social and economic justice. We have done our best to try and make sure that the Employment Relations Bill comes as close to meeting our ideals as possible.
Of course, we have never thought the Bill was perfect, and we have tried through the Select Committee process and in the House this past week to keep pushing for some changes which we believed would make the legislation better. We are pleased, for example, that the Bill no longer poses any threat to those many independent contractors who do not wish to become employees against their will. As I mentioned yesterday, we also supported changes to clauses like 245 Liability of Directors, so that the intent was clarified in a way that didn't continue to intimidate managers and directors unnecessarily.
The Green Party also worked hard to try and find a compromise solution to the thorny problem of whether passenger road and rail should be added to the essential industry schedules or not. On the one hand, our strong commitment to public transport meant that we were keen to support any moves to stop industrial action happening where there wasn't time for the public to be notified. On the other, we didn't want to give carte blanche to those employers in this sector who have had a poor track record in regards to how they've treated their staff in recent years.
We believe the compromise that was reached in the end, in which a minimum 24 hours notice of industrial action will have to be given to the travelling public, is a good example of what can be achieved through the democratic process of listening to submitters, then debating the issues inside our own caucus, followed by working to find a negotiated solution with other parties here in the MMP environment.
Similarly, I have no compunction in thanking National, ACT and NZ First for their support on the issue of the Brethren, even though some union and Government colleagues have had difficulty in understanding our position on this. I do not believe the clause which has been added to the Bill granting an exemption from automatic union access to Exclusive Brethren sites in some circumstances will have a detrimental or widespread impact on issues of access. For a start, I'd be surprised if there are any other religions in this country who meet the theological criteria into which the Brethren fall; and secondly, staff in Brethren workplaces will still have a right to join a trade union should they so choose, and in that eventuality, the union will have the same access rights as they do through all the other provisions of the Bill.
We do not live in a theocracy or a one party state. The Green Party's support for the Brethren clause in this Bill reflects our genuine commitment to diversity and democracy as opposed to religious or secular totalitarianism. I'd also make the point that with some 80% of the New Zealand workforce currently non unionised, there are plenty of other workplaces which could benefit from the priority attentions of well intentioned union organisers apart from those run by members of the Brethren.
The struggle around trying to reintroduce a Transfer of Undertakings clause to the Bill has occupied a lot of the Green Party's energy over the last six weeks. Some of the stories that have circulated in this House about actual events around this clause have varied from the farcical to the tragic, but we have tried to keep our eye on the ball, and to keep working towards an amendment that would satisfy the infinitely exacting demands of the Government for support on this.
I am sad about our our failure to win that support, especially when I think of the of the mainly women workers in Auckland, Palmerston North and elsewhere who right now are living under threat of their jobs, wages and conditions being sold out from under them. I'd like to assure those workers that the Green Party will continue do everything we can from here on in to keep the pressure on Government to produce a sound and sensible Minimum Code, including a Transfer of Undertakings component, as soon as possible.
NZ First has constantly questioned our lack of support for their version of Clause 66. I'd just like to say to Mr Brown, that while I acknowledge the sincerity of his concern for low paid, part time and casual workers, his amended Transfer of Undertakings clause did not in fact contain any provision for continuity of employment for workers like cleaners and caterers in a change of contractor situation. As continuity of employment lies at the heart of what the affected workers are asking for, there was no way we could support the NZ First Clause 66, and we saw it as preferable to remain with the Government's Clause 65, despite its manifest inadequacy. And I do acknowledge and thank NZ First for voting for our Continuity of Employment amendment, despite their reservations.
Another core issue for the Green Party throughout the process of this Bill has been to uphold the right of workers and unions to strike on significant, environmental, and social grounds. We see this as a fundamental democratic and human right and we have been sorry that Alliance and Labour MPs, many of whom have a history of struggle in this arena, could not see their way clear to taking the final step of supporting our SOP on this . Even Margaret Wilson speaking in the House yesterday acknowledged that there were still difficulties for our country ratifying ILO Convention 87 because, quote, of 'the problem of sympathy strikes.'
As I've said before, I hope the day will come when workers in Aotearoa will not have to feel they're doing something illegal when they take industrial action over issues like nuclear warships in our harbours or human rights in East Timor - and I know that the campaign by workers for the right to strike will continue regardless of anything that happens or doesn't happen in Parliament.
Over the period of this debate, I must mention how hard it has been to listen to some opposition members talk constantly about the plight of vulnerable workers. Not only was National responsible for the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act and the 1991 benefit cuts, they are also liable for example, for the consequences of Max Bradford's electricity reforms which are now culminating in sudden huge increases in electricity costs, affecting disproportionately all low income people in Aotearoa. If National and its friends in ACT and NZ First in the previous administration had really cared about people at the bottom of our society, they had plenty of chances to do something about it. The rest is history.
Looking to the future, I know there will be many workers and their families who will be having a quiet celebration tonight, knowing that the era of the ECA is about to come to an end. When people went to the polls last November a clear majority did vote for Labour, the Alliance and the Greens, and our party is honoured to be playing its part in fulfilling this aspect of our election promises.
But none of us can pretend that the Employment Relations Act will be enough. There is still lots of work to be done, both inside and outside Parliament. One of the most pressing issues for us is the question of the 13 week stand down for workers who lose their jobs and then apply for the unemployment benefit.
I have a Private Member's Bill which will probably come before the House later today, calling in part for an end to these iniquitous stand down periods. I will be seeking Government support for this on a number of grounds, but the most significant of these in relation to the Employment Relations Bill is that if we go ahead with a situation in which sacked workers have to take a personal grievance before they can get a benefit, the new mediation services will find themselves as clogged up and dysfunctional as the Employment Tribunal has been under the ECA.
On a wider front, we offer the Government any help we can give with the development of a Minimum Code which will seriously address issues of minimum rates of pay for both adults and young people, holiday leave, parental leave and other equal employment opportunity issues, and Transfer of Undertakings provisions. We hope the Government will not prevaricate on this, after the promises which have been made to workers and unions during the ERB process. Until the people who work in the most vulnerable circumstances are given stronger protections, the true fairness and equity will not be restored to the workplaces of this country.
Subscribe to email newsletters
