Latest news with #AdrianRurawhe
1News
2 days ago
- Politics
- 1News
Opposition calls for tikanga committee following haka debate
Opposition parties have called for a tikanga committee for Parliament following last night's vote on record suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs who performed a haka to protest the Treaty Principles Bill. Speaking to 1News after the debate, Labour MP Willie Jackson said Speaker Gerry Brownlee should put a tikanga committee in place to be chaired by fellow Labour MP Adrian Rurawhe. Jackson said he was worried the New Zealand Parliament would be "misrepresented around the world" over "the worst suspension" in its history. "That would be disgraceful, given the amount of offences and what's gone on in this House for many years.' He said Parliament could be perceived as being "absolutely racist, which it is not". He acknowledged efforts were being made, but not enough. ADVERTISEMENT 'But if we put Adrian Rurawhe there chairing a Tikanga Committee, we'll be on track.' During the debate, he called on the house to consider a tikanga committee that "all MPs" could work on, to go through Parliament's processes in terms of tikanga Māori and tikanga Pākehā and "come up with a sensible way and strategy going forward". Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said her party would have preferred to pause the Privileges Committee proceedings until the tikanga committee could evaluate the "incorporation of tikanga in Parliament". "This would then allow the Privileges Committee to evaluate the conduct of MPs with any new Standing Orders that arise from this work." Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. (Source: 1News) Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the Privileges Committee was not "fit for purpose" and a tikanga committee should have enacted the decision, the discussions and feedback. 1News sought a response from Speaker Gerry Brownlee to Jackson's request for a tikanga committee chaired by Rurawhe. Brownlee's office said: "Mr Speaker has no comment." ADVERTISEMENT Other members of Parliament made reference to the importance of a discussion on tikanga during last night's debate. Interpreting the haka with 'no experience or knowledge' Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said it was an "absolute insult" to Māori to hear people with no experience or knowledge about haka interpret the haka. 'Whether they believe it disorderly, whether they believe it violent, it is an absolute insult to sit here and listen to peoples' interpretation of haka.' ACT MP Karen Chhour agreed discussion around tikanga, te ao Māori, and "all those other issues" may need to be addressed in the future. Green MP Ricardo Menendez-March said he welcomed the call to review the rules of Parliament to better incorporate tikanga. Labour MP Arena Williams said the debate wasn't just about disorder but the "discomfort that happens when Māori protest in a way that the House hasn't learned to accommodate". ADVERTISEMENT "Let's learn from this. Let's bring tikanga into our practice. Let's do our best to understand it, so that we can represent the people who need us." Haka echoed through Parliament and beyond Last night's vote brings to a close a six-month-long process that has resulted in a 21-day suspension for Te Pāti Māori leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and a seven-day suspension for MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke. Te Pāti Māori MPs in the House. (Source: 1News) In November, the three MPs and Labour MP Peeni Henare performed a haka in response to the first reading of the controversial Treaty Principles Bill. Henare appeared in front of the Privileges Committee in March, and it was recommended he apologise to the House. The three MPs for Te Pati Māori were referred to the committee but ignored initial summons to appear in-person, claiming an injustice as they had been denied legal representation and were unable to appear together. ADVERTISEMENT Last month, the Privileges Committee found the trio had acted "in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House in the discharge of their duty". The report said it was not acceptable to approach other members on the debating floor and "particularly unacceptable" for Ngarewa-Packer to "to appear to simulate firing a gun" at another member of Parliament. The committee's recommended suspensions drew criticism from the three Opposition parties. The Speaker said it was 'unprecedented', and that no member of Parliament has been suspended for more than three days since it first sat in 1854. He said it was important all perspectives and views were shared before a decision was made on the recommendation, meaning all MPs would be able to voice their opinion if they wished. The debate was initially set to take place on Budget Day (May 20), but Leader of the House Chris Bishop deferred it to last night.
Newsroom
3 days ago
- Politics
- Newsroom
Parliament warned of dangerous precedent set by MPs' suspensions
'Vindictive', 'unprecedented', 'disproportionate', 'arbitrary' – some of the words used by opposition MPs to describe the punishment handed down by a majority of Parliament to three Te Pāti Māori MPs. The MPs' Treaty Principles Bill haka was 'utter contempt', 'orchestrated' and 'breaking the rules', Government MPs replied. Among the impassioned speeches and barrage of interjections was a considered warning from Labour Party MP and former Speaker of the House Adrian Rurawhe. In a rare speech to the House, the senior Māori MP urged those from National and Te Pāti Māori to change their positions or risk setting a dangerous precedent that would see parliaments of the future 'without a doubt' reach for extreme penalties to punish opposition MPs. On Thursday, Parliament's debate on the punishments recommended by the Privileges Committee resumed after being postponed during Budget week. Last November, a collection of opposition MPs performed the haka Ka Mate in response to the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill, while the party vote was being counted. During the haka, four MPs left their seats, and Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi, along with MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, advanced towards the Act Party. The behaviour was referred to the Privileges Committee, which considers conduct of MPs and recommends any punishments it deems necessary. Parliament then has to vote on whether or not to accept the recommended punishment. The committee has a tradition of reaching unanimous decisions – an acknowledgement of the influence of the committee, and the importance of reaching consensus on a decision that impacts the democratic process. But that didn't happen in this case. While the Government members – who hold a slim majority – recommended a seven-day suspension for Maipi-Clarke and 21-day suspensions for both Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi, the Labour Party, Green Party and Te Pāti Māori each put forward a differing view. Since then, opposition parties have questioned the rationale behind Government members – which include former deputy prime minister Winston Peters and Attorney-General Judith Collins – recommending this level of punishment (the longest previous suspension was three days). On Thursday, the unprecedented nature of the punishment was again a central feature of the debate, and Rurawhe warned those on the other side of the House about the dangers of using their majority to impose such a penalty on a minority, opposition party. 'It's demonstrably clear to me that it is the Government that is punishing the members today, not the Parliament,' he said, pointing to the lack of consensus. 'That is a dangerous precedent.' The interjections and barrage of retorts from across the House that had been a constant throughout the previous debates stilled as Rurawhe said the Privileges Committee would have a new precedent; a new range of penalties to use against members who erred in the future. 'You can guarantee that. You can also guarantee that governments of the day, in the future, will feel very free to use those penalties to punish their opponents.' The Labour MP warned members opposite him that just because they sat on the government benches today, did not mean they would be there in the future. They too, could face this level of punishment from the parliamentary committee, now the doors had been swung wide open. During Rurawhe's speech, Green MP Steve Abel could be heard yelling 'kangaroo court'. When it was his turn to speak, Abel referred to the suggested punishment as 'not only unprecedented—it is disproportionate, procedurally flawed and democratically dangerous'. Meanwhile, Greens co-leader Marama Davidson said the decision by the committee was a 'blatant power play', which was 'parading in disguise at upholding process'. 'These dangerously precedent-setting, convention-destroying, consensus-ignoring, Tiriti-trampling, racism-whistling, democracy-mocking, narrowly supported recommendations from the Privileges Committee bring this House into more disrepute than any haka ever has.' Throughout the debate, Labour went to pains to differentiate its position from Te Pāti Māori. Those who spoke from Labour – including leader Chris Hipkins, Duncan Webb, Willie Jackson and Rurawhe – acknowledged Te Pāti Māori had knowingly broken the rules they'd signed up to, and agreed they needed to face a punishment that involved suspension for the co-leaders, but decried the process and outcome that followed. As one of the two major centrist parties, Labour MPs called for moderation. 'I think, in order for this to move forward, two parties need to change their position: Te Pāti Māori and the National Party,' Rurawhe said. Meanwhile, Labour's Jackson – someone who was often unyielding and had been kicked out of the House as a result on more than one occasion – called on Te Pāti Māori to compromise and apologise. But Te Pāti Māori pushed back, with Ngarewa-Packer saying her party was not moderate. 'We are not the incremental party; we are the transformational party, because our people are hurting so much and so are our communities. We don't have the luxury of time to do this incrementally. We all came in and said that we would be the unapologetic Māori Party.' Later, Waititi said those in Labour were constrained by being part of a 'majority Pākehā' party, and 'chained' to party politics. Winston Peters talks tā moko and DNA Speeches from most Government MPs were subdued in comparison, with members of Act, National and NZ First calling for respectful debate, respect for the rules and respect for others in the House. Again, the Speaker of the House had ordered for the public gallery to be closed for the debate. Meanwhile, Acting Deputy Prime Minister and NZ First leader Winston Peters used his speech to call Te Pāti Māori MPs 'extremists who act with utter contempt and ignorance of the process that has been accomplished'. When senior National Party ministers cleared the front benches soon after the debate kicked off, Peters moved from his new seat across the House to occupy in the Prime Minister's chair. Christopher Luxon was not in the House on Thursday afternoon – as was his usual practice – and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour was in the UK to argue the moot 'no one can be illegal on stolen land' at the Oxford Union debate. On at least two occasions Peters alluded to the theory of blood quantum, asking both Tākuta Ferris and Ngarewa-Packer about their DNA: 'What is your DNA? Mr Ferris, what is your DNA, because it ain't by a majority Māori. Stop bull-dusting your people.' At one point, Peters referred to Waititi's tā moko in response to an interjection from the co-leader: 'The one in the cowboy hat who hates colonialism – the one that's shouting down there, with the scribbles on his face; the guy that's got half the South Island hanging around his neck – can't keep quiet for five seconds.' Waititi responded to Peters' comments, explaining his stetson belonged to his grandfather – a member of the C company or 'Ngā Kaupoi' (the Cowboys). 'And the scribbles on my face represent the many of our ancestors that have been the victims of state-sponsored terrorism from this House.' Then Waititi held a noose aloft in the House. The co-leader acknowledged the prop might be confronting, then spoke about the disproportionate and wrongful punishment faced by his ancestors. 'Our tīpuna endured muskets, land wars, the theft of whenua, and being beaten for speaking our reo – a 21-day benching is nothing on their sacrifice.' Rawiri Waititi and Winston Peters went head to head, with the Te Pāti Māori co-leader holding up a noose in the House. Photo: Laura Walters Government MPs said one of the aggravating factors in the haka performed by Te Pāti Māori was what they considered an attempt to intimidate other MPs and their belief that when Ngarewa-Packer pointed to the Act MPs, she was simulating a 'finger gun'. Both Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi said that was a misinterpretation; that the Government was perpetuating a myth of Māori violence. Labour leader Chris Hipkins has previously said he also believed that was what Ngarewa-Packer was doing. 'We haven't created the violence here,' Waititi said. 'We will not be silenced. We will not be assimilated. We will not be subjugated. And we make no apology for being absolutely unapologetically, unfettered, unbridled, Māori human beings.' The co-leaders, along with Maipi-Clarke, spoke to media both before and after the debate, saying they believed this process and the outcomes showed the Privileges Committee was no longer fit for purpose, adding that the Government had abused its power in the committee for political gain. It's not about haka Takuta Ferris was the first to speak on behalf of Te Pāti Māori, and did so in defence of the haka. The mana of taonga, like haka, would never be diminished, he said. 'Not by ignorance or bigotry, nor pettiness or spite; that the enduring heartbeat of our tīpuna, that pulses in the manawataki of every haka their descendants perform, will never be stopped.' But Ferris said the debate was not about haka. 'It is not about a suspension. It's not about the interruption of a vote. It is, at its heart, about the fact that this House continues to ignore Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that this House continues to ignore Māori sovereignty, and that this House continues to ignore all of the constitutional rights that flow forth from those two things,' he said. 'You see, deep down, under layers and layers of intergenerationally refined colonisation and assimilation, this debate is about the eternal struggle for the survival of the Māori people and the survival of those people as Māori.' Like Ferris, others agreed the debate was not about the haka. Act MPs Parmjeet Parmar, Nicole McKee and Karen Chhour said the debate was not about haka, but about respect – respect for other people and respect for the office MPs held, and the duty that came with it. 'When I came to this place and I took the oath, I promised to abide by the rules of this House,' Chhour said. 'I may not agree with all the rules of this House, but I agreed to that when I stood here four-and-a-half years ago and took that oath.' NZ First minister Casey Costello said the debate wasn't about haka, it was about the rules of Parliament, and Te Pāti Māori had knowingly broken those rules. 'Hana Maipi-Clarke is a glorious individual, but she was put forward in this issue … Choices were made in that. This was not a spur-of-the-moment issue. This was an orchestrated attempt, and that could have easily been facilitated within the rules of this House.' It's a bit about tikanga Meanwhile, Labour MP Arena Williams said the debate wasn't about haka, or even disorder, 'it's about that discomfort that happens when Māori protest in a way that the House hasn't learned to accommodate'. Williams said it was a dark day for the Parliament. The world, as well as MPs' families at home, were watching. 'This is not the standard that we hold ourselves to. But let it not be the unravelling either. Let's learn from this. Let's bring tikanga into our practice. Let's do our best to understand it, so that we can represent the people who need us.' The debate on the report took place against the backdrop of a broader discussion around the role of tikanga in Parliament. Te Pāti Māori argued in its written submissions to the Privileges Committee that tikanga needed to be considered when evaluating whether they had broken Standing Orders – the rules of Parliament. 'The haka that we performed in response to the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill was not only a valid form of debate to this piece of legislative nonsense that sought to do violence to te Tiriti, it was also an action that was totally consistent with Tikanga Māori, the first law of Aotearoa,' Waititi, Ngarewa-Packer and Maipi-Clarke wrote in their joint submission. 'The coalition government laid the challenge to Māori first by taking this abhorrent piece of unconstitutional legislation to the vote. We responded to that challenge and we had a constitutional right to do so in the form of a haka as a taonga protected under Article Two of te Tiriti. The rules of this House, the Standing Orders and even the legislation passed by this house must all bend to the constitutional supremacy of te Tiriti.' MPs from the governing parties have pushed back against this argument, saying that while tikanga does have a role in Parliament, the standing orders don't allow for what Te Pāti Māori did – interrupting a vote. They have said it is the fact of interrupting the vote, not how it was done, that was the problem. Speaker Gerry Brownlee said he expected Parliament's Standing Orders Committee to look at how tikanga is reflected in Parliament, as part of its regular review of the rules. Photo: Marc Daalder 'One of [Te Pāti Māori's] arguments was that tikanga Māori and haka are not matters for the Privileges Committee to consider. On this the Committee agrees with them: it is not there to set or debate the rules of Parliament but rather to uphold the rules as they are, not as people may wish them to be,' committee chair and National Party minister Judith Collins said in her speech on the report before the Budget. 'It is not about the haka. It is not about tikanga. It is not about the Treaty of Waitangi. It is about following the rules of Parliament, that we are all obliged to follow and that we all pledge to follow.' Even Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee, who called the proposed sanction 'very severe' and 'unprecedented', has grumbled about Te Pāti Māori's tikanga argument. 'It's hard to take seriously deep concerns about disrespect for the Treaty when there is such huge disrespect for the Parliament itself shown in that submission,' he told Newsroom in April. However, Brownlee has also indicated support for reforming Standing Orders to clarify how tikanga Māori, including haka and other actions, can be integrated into Parliament's rules. 'I don't think that any one group inside New Zealand should be insisting that their way of doing things is the most appropriate for all, and that's why, on that basis, it is worth looking at the Standing Orders to see what changes might be necessary to reflect that wider interest in the proceedings of Parliament,' he said. 'On that basis, I think there is some consideration that needs to be given to the way in which an adaptive Westminster system, which is what we have with MMP, and the way in which every Westminster-based parliament is slightly different to reflect more of a particular country's needs and requirements. It's not an unreasonable thing.' But there has been considerable confusion in the halls of Parliament about how, exactly, this reform might occur. Work to consider tikanga began in the Business Committee, which oversees the day-to-day logistics of running Parliament, but it was decided this was not the right venue for the conversation. Newsroom understands some parties expected Brownlee to set up a special group or committee to consider the issue, with many thinking Labour MP and former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe would (or was already) the chair. On Tuesday, however, Rurawhe told Newsroom he hadn't heard anything about the effort from Brownlee himself. 'The last I heard was there was going to be an invitation to go to Standing Orders Committee, but that hasn't happened yet. I think it's at more of an intent stage than actually progress being made. My name's been mentioned quite often, mostly incorrectly,' he said. However, previous attempts to extract information and context from Rurawhe, including on the work he is understood to have begun during his time as Speaker, had been rebuffed. Adrian Rurawhe – a former Speaker and senior Māori MP – has joined a debate he could no longer avoid. Photo: Marc Daalder The Standing Orders Committee oversees Parliament's rules and also reviews the full rule-set each term. It's not clear whether the work would be a standalone item of business or wrapped into the regular standing orders review, which has yet to begin. On Thursday, members of both the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori referred to a specific tikanga committee, while Labour's Jackson recommended Rurawhe be asked to lead the work in that space. However, they did not elaborate on this idea of a standalone group or sub-committee. Brownlee this week declined an interview on the matter, but a spokesperson said 'the work is progressing' and confirmed the intended venue was the Standing Orders Committee. But exactly what the confluence of Standing Orders and tikanga might look like is still up in the air. Moreover, this would be a big piece of work to get right and the clock was ticking with less than 18 months left in the Parliamentary term and a summer break in between. If a review of how tikanga was incorporated or better reflected in Parliament was to be completed this term, all six parties would need to come to the table. Given the tenor of the debate and the vast differences between party ideology, it was hard to see a scenario in which the whole of Parliament was able to agree on a constructive way to amend the laws of Parliament to reflect what the Supreme Court considered to be the first law of the land. The message from Labour's Jackson was that it couldn't, really. 'Te Pāti Māori want to express our culture when the reality is this: this is a tikanga Pākeha place. That's a reality. There ain't no tino rangatiratanga here,' Jackson said last month. Parliament was not the marae, but the challenge was to get Māori culture imbued in Parliament in order for tangata whenua to be accepted as a partner to the Crown. While last month, Jackson described this as a 'challenge' and a 'journey', on Thursday, he appeared resigned to the idea that this would never eventuate. 'The reality is if you want to kōrero Māori you can speak Māori all day and night. You want to sing, if you want to do the haka, you can do all of that. Is it enough? No, it's not enough. But in terms of tikanga Pākehā, I think we have to accept that that's the reality of this place.' Another vehicle for change In lieu of a committee, made up of senior MPs from all parties, hashing out a different modern-day version of a Westminster system that more authentically reflected tikanga, Parliament's youngest MP was working on another possible avenue. Last month – the day the Privileges Committee debate was supposed to take place – Maipi-Clarke submitted a member's bill to the ballot, which would include Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the Constitution Act, mandate that all MPs undertake training in respect to te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that Parliament develop and maintain a te ao Māori strategy. Speaking in the House on Thursday, Maipi-Clarke's described herself as 'a quiet person by nature'. She acknowledged that she had been largely absent from the debate on this issue since she initiated the haka last November. 'I came into this House to give voice to the voiceless,' she said – her voice catching with emotion. 'Is that the issue here? Is that the real intimidation here? Are our voices too loud for this House? Is that the reason why we are being silenced? Are our voices shaking the core foundation of this House, the House we had no voice in building?' Maipi-Clarke said it wasn't a 'left or right issue'. 'This is about getting the foundations right first, to move forward as a country.' Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke initiated a haka last November that set this six-month process in train. Photo: Sam Sachdeva On Thursday evening the 22-year-old MP picked up her packed bags and left the Parliamentary precinct alongside her co-leaders, MP Takutai Tarsh Kemp and party staffers and supporters. But before that, she said that until te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations were understood and entrenched Parliament would continue having this debate. The process has lasted more than six months, from when the haka was performed in November to when the members were referred to the Privileges Committee in December, through the hearing and deliberation process to when the report was released in May and then to the final debate and vote in June. In the final 45 minutes of the debate in Parliament, party members moved around the House with MPs and party whips from governing and opposition parties hunching beside seats, talking in hushed tones. If the debate had not concluded on Thursday, it would have resumed at the end of June. All parties decided they wanted to draw a line under this and move on. In the end, the governing parties voted to accept the committee's recommendations, without compromise.
NZ Herald
19-05-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
MPs' property portfolios: Christopher Luxon sells investment houses, politicians with overseas interests
Among the politicians with the largest property portfolios is Labour MP and former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe. According to the 2025 register, he jointly owns a family home in Whangaehu and has interests in a large number of Māori land blocks. He has interests in 26 Māori land blocks in the Aotea district, one block in Tai Tokerau, two in Tākitimu, 11 in Waipounamu and interests in a Waipū general land block at Rātana Paa. National's Carlos Cheung jointly owns a number of properties. He jointly owns five rental properties in Auckland, as well as a family home there and another in Wellington. Act MP Parmjeet Parmar is another with a large portfolio. The register lists her as owning two residential rental properties, four residential rental town houses, a family home (owned by a trust) and a commercial property, all in Auckland. Her colleague Todd Stephenson jointly owns a family home in Queenstown as well as two apartments in Wellington plus two apartments in Australia, one in Sydney and one in Geelong. He also has an apartment held in trust in Wellington and a rental property held in trust in Te Ānau. Other MPs also have property interests overseas. For example, Labour's Camilla Belich lists a former family home (jointly owned leasehold property) in London, National's Todd McClay has a home in Belgium, National MP Mark Mitchell has a holiday house in Bali, National MP Maureen Pugh has a timeshare in New South Wales, Labour MP Jenny Salesa has two acres of lands on a 99-year lease in Tonga, and Labour MP Ayesha Verrall has a jointly owned family property in the Maldives. Green MP Ricardo Menendez March previously listed a family home in Tijuana, Mexico, but that's dropped off his 2025 list. The point of the register of pecuniary interests is to provide transparency about MPs' financial interests and strengthen public trust and confidence in the parliamentary process and decision making. It lists a wide range of interests, including MPs' interests in businesses, gifts they have received, payments to them for participating in other activities, and any debts they have. For example, the register shows the Prime Minister was given two wristwatches (one at the Nato Summit and one from Thailand's Prime Minister), NZ First's Mark Patterson has interests in a Bitcoin Trust ETF through iShares, and National's Stuart Smith has interests in a very long list of businesses. A large number of MPs got corporate tickets to sporting events, concerts and hunting trips, as well as many helicopter rides. MPs' 'real property, interests (Jan 31, 2025) Steve Abel (Green, List) Family home (jointly owned) – West Auckland Hon Ginny Andersen (Labour, List) Family home (jointly owned) – Belmont, Lower Hutt, Wellington Miles Anderson (National, Waitaki) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home (owned by Braehead Grange Trust) – Southburn Farmland (owned by Braehead Grange Trust) – Southburn Farmland (owned by Animal Scanning Services (NZ) Limited) – Southburn Jamie Arbuckle (NZ First, List) Family home (also used as short-term rental property; jointly owned) – Blenheim Apartment (jointly owned) – Wellington Carl Bates (National, Whanganui) Former family home (in trust) – Manawatū Rental property (in trust) – Whanganui Rental apartments (x2, in trust) – Wellington Family home – Whanganui Hon Andrew Bayly (National, Port Waikato) Family home (in trust) – Bombay, Auckland Farm (in trust) – Waikato Apartment (in trust) – Wellington Apartment (in trust) – Queenstown Commercial property (through Paparimu Land Limited) – Onehunga, Auckland Commercial property (in trust) – Pukekohe Camilla Belich (Labour, List) Family home (jointly owned) – Auckland Former family home (jointly owned leasehold property) – London, United Kingdom Family holiday home (discretionary beneficial interest; owned by The Belich Trust) – Waikanae Beach Glen Bennett (Labour, List) Residential property (jointly owned) – Marfell, New Plymouth Dan Bidois (National, Northcote) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home (jointly owned) – Birkenhead, Auckland Hon Chris Bishop (National, Hutt South) Family home – Days Bay, Lower Hutt Rachel Boyack (Labour, Nelson) Family home (jointly owned) – Nelson Cameron Brewer (National, Upper Harbour) Family home (jointly owned) – Hobsonville Point, Auckland Hon Rachel Brooking (Labour, Dunedin) Family home (jointly owned) – Dunedin Residential property (in family trust) – Dunedin Hon Simeon Brown (National, Pakuranga) Family home (jointly owned) – Pakuranga Family property (jointly owned) – Pakuranga Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee (National, List) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Property – Havelock, Marlborough Residential property (x2) – Ilam, Christchurch Residential property – Fendalton, Christchurch Residential property – Wellington Mike Butterick (National, Wairarapa) Family home (owned by trust) – Masterton Farmland (owned by trust) – Masterton Mark Cameron (ACT, List) Farm (owned by trust) – Ruawai, Northland Farmland – Ruawai, Northland Dr Hamish Campbell (National, Ilam) Family home – Riccarton, Christchurch Kahurangi Carter (Green, List) Family home – Christchurch Dr Carlos Cheung (National, Mt Roskill) Family home (jointly owned) – Mount Roskill, Auckland Family home (jointly owned) – Thorndon, Wellington Rental property (jointly owned) – Epsom, Auckland Rental property (x3; jointly owned) – Mount Wellington, Auckland Rental property (jointly owned) – Sandringham, Auckland Hon Karen Chhour (ACT, List) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home (jointly owned) – Auckland Hon Judith Collins (National, Papakura) Family home (owned by trusts) – Auckland Commercial and residential property (owned by superannuation scheme) – Wellington Residential property (owned by superannuation scheme) – Nelson Hon Casey Costello (NZ First, List) Family home – Pōkeno, Waikato Family home – Whangaruru, Northland Tim Costley (National, Ōtaki) Family home – Waikanae Rental property (x2) – Palmerston North Flat – Wellington Simon Court (ACT, List) Family home (jointly owned) – Waitakere, Auckland Family home (jointly owned) – Thorndon, Wellington Family home (P & S Court Trust) – Glenholme, Rotorua Family home (P & S Court Trust) – Whangaparāoa, Auckland Hon Marama Davidson (Green, List) Family home – Manurewa, Auckland Reuben Davidson (Labour, Christchurch East) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home – North Brighton Holiday home – Banks Peninsula Rental property – Christchurch Hon Matt Doocey (National, Waimakariri) Family home (owned by trust) – Rangiora, Waimakariri Residential property (owned by trust) – Merivale, Christchurch Rental property (owned by trust) – Burnside, Christchurch Benjamin Doyle (Green, List) Family home (jointly owned) – Waikato Hon Barbara Edmonds (Labour, Mana) Family home (jointly owned) – Porirua Family home (jointly owned) – Ōtāhuhu, Auckland Tākuta Ferris (Te Pāti Māori, Te Tai Tonga) Rental property (jointly owned) – Ōtaki Greg Fleming (National, Maungakiekie) Family home – Greenlane, Auckland Andy Foster (NZ First, List) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home – Wellington Paulo Garcia (National, New Lynn) Family home (jointly owned) – Parnell, Auckland Investment property – Wellington CBD, Wellington Hon Julie Anne Genter (Green, Rongotai) Family home (jointly owned) – Rongotai electorate Hon Paul Goldsmith (National, List) Family home (owned by family trust) – Remuera Apartment – Wellington House (half-share) – Waitakere Ranges Hon Nicola Grigg (National, Selwyn) Home – Prebbleton Rental property – Rolleston Shanan Halbert (Labour, List) Residential property (in trust) – Napier Ryan Hamilton (National, Hamilton East) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home (owned by trust) – Hamilton Apartment (owned by trust) – Wellington Hon Peeni Henare (Labour, List) No recorded real property Francisco Hernandez (Green, List) No recorded real property Rt Hon Chris Hipkins (Labour, Remutaka) Family home – Upper Hutt, Wellington Residential property (owned by superannuation trust) – Raumati South, Paraparaumu Hon Andrew Hoggard (ACT, List) Family farm – Kiwitea, Manawatū Hon Willie Jackson (Labour, List) Family homes (x2; jointly owned) – Māngere Bridge, Auckland Family home (jointly owned) – Rotorua Apartment (jointly owned) – Wellington City Centre Hon Shane Jones (NZ First, List) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home – Bay of Islands House – Maimaru House – Hihi, Tai Tokerau Mariameno Kapa-Kingi (Te Pāti Māori, Te Tai Tokerau) Family home – Whangārei Family rental – Whangārei Takutai Tarsh Kemp (Te Pāti Māori, Tāmaki Makaurau) Family land block – Waitōtara Valley Dana Kirkpatrick (National, East Coast) Family home – Gisborne Apartment – Gisborne Barbara Kuriger (National, Taranaki-King Country) Family home (owned by L S & B J Kuriger Trusts Partnership) – New Plymouth Family home (owned by L S & B J Kuriger Trusts Partnership) – Te Awamutu Dairy farm (owned by Shortland Farm Limited Partnership) – Ōpunake Dairy farm (owned by Shortland Farm No 2 Limited Partnership) – Ōpunake Dairy farm grazing unit (joined leasehold interest) – Ōpunake Apartment (owned by L S & B J Kuriger Trusts Partnership) – Wellington Ingrid Leary (Labour, Taieri) Family home – Kew, Dunedin Rental property – South Dunedin Hon Melissa Lee (National, List) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home – Auckland Rental property (owned by superannuation scheme) – Wellington Nancy Lu (National, List) Rental property (x2) – Pakuranga, Auckland Rt Hon Christopher Luxon (National, Botany) Residential properties (x2) – Auckland Investment property – Auckland Cameron Luxton (ACT, List) Rental properties (x2; as beneficiary of trust) – Tauranga Commercial properties (x2; as beneficiary of trust) – Tauranga Hon Jo Luxton (Labour, List) Family home (jointly owned) – Hinds, Ashburton Holiday home (jointly owned) – Akaroa Hūhana Lyndon (Green, List) Family home – Tikipunga, Whangārei David MacLeod (National, New Plymouth) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Primary residence – New Plymouth Apartment – Wellington Holiday house – Kinloch Rental property – New Plymouth Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke (Te Pāti Māori, Hauraki-Waikato) Family home (in trust) – Beach Haven Family whenua (in trust) – Bay of Islands Jenny Marcroft (NZ First, List) Family residential section – Warkworth, Auckland Hon Kieran McAnulty (Labour, List) Family home (jointly owned) – Masterton Flat (jointly owned) – Lower Hutt Grant McCallum (National, Northland) Family home – Maungaturoto Hon Todd McClay (National, Rotorua) Private home – Rotorua Home – Belgium Private home – Pukehina Laura McClure (ACT, List) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home (jointly owned) – Beckenham, Christchurch Family home (under construction) – Halswell, Christchurch Hon Nicole McKee (ACT, List) Family home (jointly owned) – Wellington Dr Tracey McLellan (Labour, List) Family home – Christchurch Rental property – Christchurch Hon James Meager (National, Rangitata) No recorded real property Ricardo Menéndez March (Green, List) No recorded real property Hon Mark Mitchell (National, Whangaparāoa) Family home – Millwater, Auckland Apartment – Thorndon, Wellington Rental property (residential) – Ōrewa, Auckland Family holiday home – Kūaotunu, Coromandel Family holiday home – Bali, Indonesia Joseph Mooney (National, Southland) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home – Central Otago Rima Nakhle (National, Takanini) Family home – South Auckland Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (Te Pāti Māori, Te Tai Hauāuru) Kāinga (home) – Ohangai, Hāwera, South Taranaki Katie Nimon (National, Napier) Family home (jointly owned) – Marewa, Napier Rental property (x2; jointly owned) – Havelock North, Hastings Hon Damien O'Connor (Labour, List) Family home – Upper Moutere Greg O'Connor (Labour, Ōhāriu) Family home – Wellington Hon David Parker (Labour, List) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home (half-share) – Auckland Holiday home (owned by trust) – Karitane, Otago Dr Parmjeet Parmar (ACT, List) Residential rental property – Remuera, Auckland Residential rental property – Half Moon Bay, Auckland Commercial property – Mount Wellington, Auckland Family home (owned by trust) – Eastern Beach, Auckland Residential rental town houses (x4) – Bucklands Beach, Auckland Hon Mark Patterson (NZ First, List) Family home – Dunedin Apartment – Wellington Tamatha Paul (Green, Wellington Central) No recorded real property Hon Chris Penk (National, Kaipara ki Mahurangi) Family home (owned by The Barkley Trust) – Waitakere, Auckland Rt Hon Winston Peters (NZ First, List) House – St Marys Bay, Auckland House – Whananaki South, Northland Land – Whananaki South, Northland Lan Pham (Green, List) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home (owned by Ngoc-Lan Pham Partnership) – Wellington Hon Tama Potaka (National, Hamilton West) Rental property (jointly owned) – Central-East Auckland Family home – Hamilton Family farm and houses (in Tatau Tatau Trust) – Rangitīkei Rental property (in Tama and Ariana whānau trust) – Hamilton Hon Willow-Jean Prime (Labour, List) Family home (jointly owned) – Pakaraka, Northland Maureen Pugh (National, West Coast-Tasman) Family home – Turiwhate Farm – Turiwhate Timeshare – Toormina, New South Wales, Australia Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan (Labour, List) Family home (jointly owned) – Onehunga, Auckland Suze Redmayne (National, Rangitīkei) Farm (owned by trust) – Turakina Family home (owned by trust) – Taupō Apartment (jointly owned with trust) – Auckland Hon Dr Shane Reti (National, Whangārei) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Residential property – Whangārei Commercial building (in Shane Reti Blind Trust) – Whangārei Rental property (in Shane Reti Blind Trust) – Kohimarama Residential property (in Shane Reti Blind Trust) – Whangārei Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe (Labour, List) Family home (jointly owned) – Whangaehu Interests in 26 Māori land blocks – Aotea District Interests in one Māori land block – Tai Tokerau District Interests in two Māori land blocks – Tākitimu District Interests in 11 Māori land blocks – Waipounamu District Interests in Waipū general land block – Rātana Paa Hon Dr Deborah Russell (Labour, List) Family home (jointly owned) – Titirangi, Auckland House (jointly owned) – Karori, Wellington Tom Rutherford (National, Bay of Plenty) Family home – Pāpāmoa, Tauranga Hon Jenny Salesa (Labour, Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) Family home (jointly owned) – Auckland Rental property (owned by Praescient Limited) – Auckland Apartment (jointly owned by Kaha'u Superannuation Fund) – Auckland Apartment (jointly owned by Kaha'u Superannuation Fund) – Wellington Two acres of land, no dwellings (99-year lease) – Haveluloto, Tonga Hon Carmel Sepuloni (Labour, Kelston) Family home – Titirangi, Auckland Hon David Seymour (ACT, Epsom) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Residential home (as discretionary beneficiary of trust) – Whangārei Holiday home (as discretionary beneficiary of trust) – Northland Section (as discretionary beneficiary of trust) – Whangārei Residential home (as beneficiary of trust) – Auckland Hon Penny Simmonds (National, Invercargill) Family home and farm (jointly owned) – Mabel Bush, Southland Farm (jointly owned) – Ryal Bush, Southland Family cribs (x3; owned by family trust) – Riverton, Southland Rental property (owned by family trust) – Invercargill Hon Scott Simpson (National, Coromandel) Land (owned by New Chums Trust) – Whangapoua, Coromandel Family home – Thames Rental property – Remuera, Auckland Family home – Kūaotunu, Coromandel Stuart Smith (National, Kaikōura) Family home (owned by Tayler-Smith Family Trust) – Dry Hills, Blenheim Apartment (owned by Tayler-Smith Family Trust) – Thorndon, Wellington Timeshare week (owned by Tayler-Smith Family Trust) – Queenstown Mews Rental property (owned by Tayler-Smith Family Trust) – Redwood, Blenheim Apartment (half-share owned by Tayler-Smith Family Trust) – Frankton, Queenstown Lemauga Lydia Sosene (Labour, Māngere) Family home (jointly owned) – Favona, Auckland Hon Erica Stanford (National, East Coast Bays) Family home – Ōkura Residential property, holiday home (owned by family trust) – Whangamatā Todd Stephenson (ACT, List) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home (jointly owned) – Queenstown Apartments (x2; jointly owned) – Wellington Apartment (jointly owned) – Sydney, Australia Apartment (jointly owned) – Geelong, Australia Apartment (held in trust) – Wellington Rental property (held in trust) – Te Ānau Chlöe Swarbrick (Green, Auckland Central) Apartment (jointly owned) – Auckland Central Cushla Tangaere-Manuel (Labour, Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) Family home – East Coast Interest in one land block – Rangitukia, East Coast Hon Jan Tinetti (Labour, List) Family home – Mātua, Tauranga Apartment – Wellington Central Teanau Tuiono (Green, List) Family home (jointly owned) – Manawatū Whānau home – Manurewa Hon Phil Twyford (Labour, Te Atatū) Family home (owned by family trust) – Te Atatū Peninsula Sam Uffindell (National, Tauranga) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home (owned by trust) – Paengaroa Tanya Unkovich (NZ First, List) No recorded real property Hon Louise Upston (National, Taupō) Family home (jointly owned) – Cambridge Apartment (jointly owned) – Wellington Tangi Utikere (Labour, Palmerston North) Family home (jointly owned) – Palmerston North Tim van de Molen (National, Waikato) Horticultural property (owned by Caritim Limited) – Tamahere, Waikato Residential houses (x2; owned by van de Molen Family Trust) – Tamahere, Waikato Hon Brooke van Velden (ACT, Tāmaki) Family home – Auckland Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall (Labour, List) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home (jointly owned) – Wellington Family property (jointly owned) – Malé, Maldives Celia Wade-Brown (Green, List) Family home and native forest – Wairarapa Rental property – Island Bay, Wellington Rawiri Waititi (Te Pāti Māori, Waiariki) Family home (jointly owned) – Whakatāne, Eastern Bay of Plenty Hon Simon Watts (National, North Shore) Family home (owned by trust) – North Shore Residential section (owned by trust) – Cambridge Commercial property (owned by trust) – Cambridge Holiday home (owned by trust) – Waihi Beach Hon Dr Duncan Webb (Labour, Christchurch Central) Family home (owned by trust) – Christchurch Share in family home (owned by trust) – Wellington Catherine Wedd (National, Tukituki) Family home (jointly owned) – Havelock North Apartment – Wellington Dr Vanessa Weenink (National, Banks Peninsula) Advertisement Advertise with NZME. Family home (x2; jointly owned) – Christchurch Apartment – Wellington Helen White (Labour, Mt Albert) Home (owned by Puriri Trust) – Sandringham, Auckland Arena Williams (Labour, Manurewa) Family home (jointly owned) – Manurewa, Auckland Family home (jointly owned) – Te Aro, Wellington Hon Nicola Willis (National, List) House (jointly owned) – Karori, Wellington House (owned by Appledore Trust) – Kelburn, Wellington House (owned by Appledore Trust) – Riversdale, Wairarapa House (owned by Appledore Trust) – Wānaka Scott Willis (Green, List) Family home (jointly owned) – Waitati, Dunedin Hon Dr Megan Woods (Labour, Wigram) House – Hillmorton, Christchurch Home (jointly owned) – Hillmorton, Christchurch Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan (Green, List)
Scoop
25-04-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Employment Relations (Collective Agreements In Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill First Reading – 9 April 2025 Sitting date: 9 Apr 2025 First Reading HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I move, That the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill. I, first of all, want to thank Adrian Rurawhe and Marja Lubeck for bringing this bill to the House, and I have inherited it from them. This bill is, essentially, about making sure that New Zealand workers have enough to eat and can actually provide for their families. In New Zealand, we've had a real issue with keeping our wages up, and we've ended up with a gap between rich and poor that is a real concern. But I want to just go through how we got there before I go to how this bill tries to address that situation. In the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, the real wages of New Zealanders fell 25 percent. In the mid-2000s to 2010— Grant McCallum: Who was in power then? HELEN WHITE: Yes, I take the point from the speaker who just interrupted. He said, 'Who was this?' I think this is something that actually every—every—party in this House has to face. What has happened in this country, with regard to wages, has been a disaster for our people. It has ended up with a situation where people cannot meet their ordinary bills. In a cost of living crisis, we need to face that fact—all of our parties—and we need to put it right. So I'd like to continue. In the mid-2000s to 2010, there was modest growth of real wages, but there was much less growth of wages than there was of productivity. There wasn't a decent share of that wealth with the workers of this country. In 2023, we get the first real average, ordinary time increase—6.9 percent—and that's not perfect, but it looks like something is going right for workers in this country. Let's talk about what that really means in terms of wages. In June 2024, the median wage of a man in this country is $33.56. The median wage of a woman in this country is $32.08 per hour. The work that I did as an employment lawyer got me across a lot of different industries. I saw the difference for people who earned well and had all the respect that came with that and had all the self-dignity that came with that. I worked for industries like the Dairy Workers Union. The dairy workers earn good money, and they're about 98 percent unionised. It's a really good business, but it shares with its workers the actual profit in that way. Ninety-eight percent unionised meant good terms and conditions. That was something where the workers of this country participate in the wealth. But I also had other industries, which were not well organised and didn't have that kind of agreement, and some of those were the labour hire companies. They did not earn well, and as a result, the Government ends up topping up those wages. But also, people live in a state of constant insecurity. They're the people who go to the supermarket and can't necessarily get what they need to feed their families. It's a constant state of stress. What this bill does is say that, for people who are in a triangular relationship, which is a relationship where there is an employer—say it's the port—and then there's a labour hire company on site—say it's a stevedoring company—if they don't actually have a contract of their own, a collective agreement, but they're doing the same work as the port workers when they're brought in, they are entitled to ask to be on those terms and conditions that the primary employer is actually offering its own workers. It's just a way of making sure that workers doing the same work get the same pay. And what could possibly be wrong with that? An employer signed a collective agreement saying it can pay $40 an hour to its workers. If it brings in labour to do exactly the same work and they do not have the protection of that agreement, they should be offering the same money. And that's the difference between a decent wage and one that won't pay the bills. That's what is achieved in this piece of legislation, and I ask all the parties in this House to really consider that. Do we want a New Zealand where we've got a constant dipping down of wages to the lowest common denominator, or is it time for us to use what we have in this House, the ability to structure the way that people work in a way that means that people can work with dignity, they can pay their bills? That's what this is about today. It would make a difference to all those workers who are coming in in that second tier. It would make a difference to their families. We talk a lot in this House about self-responsibility. It comes up a lot. Well, I know that my life is a lot easier simply because I know that I have a decent income. It means I can pay my mortgage. It means I can plan for the future. The labour hire people who would be most affected by this—that's our cleaners, that's our seagulls, that's all those kinds of people who come in and top up in our medical areas. Often, it's our health workers. All those areas of sort of second-tier workers coming into a workforce which is already controlled and it is already a workplace where people are doing the same work—they will have a real bonus if you vote for this tonight. They will be able to earn the same money that that employer can clearly afford. It stops a use of contract labour which is not desirable from anyone's point of view. That use is to undermine the amount of wages that they share with their workforce. That's what it does. It stops that misuse. And it means that New Zealand workers can survive on their own two feet. They're doing the same work. That labour hire person is standing there next to someone doing exactly the same work, and they should be entitled to the same pay. It's as simple as that. So I ask you tonight to think about our role in setting the system up, making sure that people are on a level playing field, but I also ask you to think about whether you could make ends meet on the kinds of money we're talking about here. It is often the difference between $40 and minimum wage. That's the reality. What actually ends up happening is that, if people earn a decent amount, they have a decent KiwiSaver; we don't end up picking up the pieces in our criminal system, in our welfare system, and, actually, at the end of their working career, at the time of their retirement. So we will be doing this country a favour, but we will also be doing all the families and workers who depend on this work a favour if we just adopt this tonight. Thus, I ask you to support this bill to its first reading. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill. I read the title out because you could be forgiven for not knowing what this bill was about. The member who spoke prior to me, Helen White, talked a lot about increasing wages and really taking aim at labour hire companies. Really, this does something quite different to that based on what the bill is proposing. It's very, very niche, and if the purpose, based on what the previous speaker has said, is to increase wages, surely there are many other ways to achieve this other than targeting labour hire companies in such a way. It is our firm belief that this will have a far more perverse impact on small businesses. Yes, there might be large companies that make use of labour hire companies, whether it's a port, whether it's a mill. There are various reasons why companies engage with contractors, but at the end of the day, this is going to change the behaviour, the way the contractors operate, and that is going to have a strong onflow effect. I will just run members through it. This bill seeks to ensure that employees employed by one employer but working under the control or direction of another business or organisation—for those that don't understand what a triangular relationship is—are not deprived of the right to coverage of a collective agreement covering the work being performed for that other business or organisation. Now, that's making the assumption that those labour hire companies are then contracting out their workers to companies that have staff covered by a collective agreement. That's not always the case. But, of course, now those labour hire companies are going to have to change their behaviour, if this bill were to become law, in situations that aren't covered by collective agreements, because they're going to have to apply the same terms and conditions across all of the workplaces that they work with. The purpose of this bill, as is written in the bill but not obviously stated to us in the House by the previous speaker, is to provide greater security and rights to workers in such arrangements by ensuring that collective bargaining rights are extended beyond the direct employer in the employment relationship. So to hear that it's about driving up wages makes me think that this is a solution looking for a problem, as is often the case with members' bills from the opposite side. We just want to go through some of these potential perverse outcomes, which I think are really important to run through because I think it's important for people to understand. A very niche bill can only do one thing and that is take aim at an industry, and that is exactly what this is doing. That industry exists because there is a need for it. It is a need to serve businesses whose seasonal work ebbs and flows, whose contracts ebb and flow, and who need to take on contractors. All this is going to do is hamstring them and make our productivity more problematic, which is the opposite. So this is, as I mentioned, likely to disproportionately affect small businesses and employers who rely on labour hire contractors. That is exactly the opposite of what we want to do. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! If the Opposition members want to have a conversation between themselves, can they please take it out into the lobby, thank you. I'm sorry for interrupting the member. KATIE NIMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As we often get the chance to say, at the moment, National's values are of limited government and personal responsibility. And again, this bill is another step in the direction of overstepping government, getting involved in the relationship between the employer and the employee, which we do not agree on. More to the point, our focus on productivity and economic growth would tell us that we need to oppose this bill, because it's likely to impose unreasonable burdens on businesses. Now, again, what this is going to do is change the behaviour, the way we contract an event and the way we contract seasonal work, and all of these things are absolutely necessary to our economy—to our tourism economy, to our horticultural economy. Every time we engage in this kind of work, it is for a reason. The Opposition are trying to make it sound like people use contractors to get away with having to use proper terms and conditions for their staff—it is completely baseless. Come to Hawke's Bay for a summer harvest and see why they have to use labour hire contractors for the seasonal work. Go to a wonderful concert, whether it's at Eden Park in Auckland or whether it's a Mission concert in Taradale—these are seasonal event-based contracts that need this kind of employment relationship. Now, we always talk about the unintended consequences because these niche bills that aim to do one thing actually end up doing a number of others. As it stands, it means that if an employee is a union member and their work falls under a collective agreement that that employer is party to, the employer can be bound by that agreement and enforce that agreement against the employer, against the employer's preference, against the employer's structure of employment. Now it's going to then bring in those businesses into a collective agreement relationship, whether it's bargaining. A company that has no involvement in a third party's collective agreement or union arrangements then becomes involved. There are so many companies around New Zealand that do this as a service to our productive economy, to give employees freedom and flexibility, and, actually, in so many cases, the fact that they are working contract hours—they are working and earning more than others because they are on a contract arrangement. I would love to know the research behind the assumption that every person working for a labour hire company is earning significantly less. Because that is not the case. So at the end of the day—and we have made this very clear—this is not a bill we support. This is a solution looking for a problem, and all we see this doing is discouraging businesses from hiring workers through third-party organisations. It is taking aim at an industry. It will have a perverse impact on small businesses. It will affect the seasonal and event-based industries that we thrive on in New Zealand and that are the backbone of most of our economies, especially in the regions, and this is a very important thing for us to make clear. We do not commend this bill to the House, we do not recommend that it go to select committee, and with that I will take my seat. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens, in support of the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill in the name of Helen White, and I acknowledge the previous members who she received this bill from, as well. The Greens see this as a practical, targeted reform that addresses a growing issue in our workforce, which is the exploitation of workers in triangular employment relationships. I do want to agree with the member Helen White in terms of her comments around the inadequacy of the minimum wage and how wages are going down in real terms. We've just had the new minimum wage come in, and the increase is a measly 35c—it's a measly 35c; $23.50 is what that is. What are workers going to do with their 35c? Actually, what we should be talking about in this context—in all of the contexts—is the living wage. Here I want to acknowledge the Unite union. I had the honour and privilege of attending one of their Poverty is No Joke, 1 April, union gatherings. I'm sure some of the members on this side of the House were able to spend some time with them, talking about the living wage, as well. So I wanted to put my acknowledgment of that on the record. For those that don't know what the living wage is: 'A Living Wage is the income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life. A living wage will enable workers to live with dignity and to participate as active citizens in society.' So this is what we should be focusing on, folks. Under the current law, we have workers who are technically employed by one company but are based under the direction of another, often through labour hire firms. We heard some comments from both sides of the House about that. They can miss out on the protections of a collective agreement. So what that means, for the people that are listening, is that someone can do exactly the same job as their workmates, under the same conditions, and they might be excluded from union protections just because of who signs their contract. That's not right—that's not right at all. So this bill seeks to amend the Employment Relations Act to fix that. It does that in two ways, as I understand it. It expands the definition of employees who can be covered by a collective agreement to include those in triangular employment relationships. It seems straightforward and a sensible thing to do, to me. It also ensures that if those workers are union workers, they can benefit from the terms and protections of a collective agreement already in place at the workplace that they're directed by. So if you have a bunch of workers at a particular place and you've got one lot on a collective agreement, another lot come in and they're doing exactly the same job, surely for a hard day's work, a fair day's pay, they should be getting all the same conditions. It's this kind of pitting workers against each other which is why real wages are being driven down. That is something that this particular corner of the House—and I'm sure I can say that for the other Opposition parties as well—will oppose. This is something that falls within the ambit of our workplace policy, which is that we support legislative protection for people employed by labour hire agencies and preventing triangular relationships from being used to dodge workplace rights. That's the corner here: that people are going to try to find kind of nifty ways, via contracting, to not pay people properly. So this is what, I think, the member is trying to do, and that is something that the Greens will certainly support. This is, I think, also about equity. Labour hire and triangular relationships are disproportionately used in sectors that rely on Māori, on Pasifika, and on migrant workers, often low-paid sectors. So making sure that there are those protections in place is really, really important for Māori, Pasifika, and low-paid migrants. So we will be supporting this bill. Thank you. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm taking this call on behalf of ACT on the first reading of the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill, which is a member's bill, Helen White's bill. Congratulations for the bill being drawn from the ballot. We gave thorough consideration to this bill and we have concluded that we will not be supporting this bill. We are not supporting this bill because we know that this bill is actually not going to do what the member thinks; it is actually going to be contrary to what the member thinks. It's actually going to create a lot of implications for employers—and employees, as well. What this bill does is, basically, it just extends the powers of unions to third parties in triangular work relationships. What we note is that the policy statement of this bill says it 'seeks to ensure that employees employed by one employer but working under the control or direction of another business or organisation are not deprived of the right to coverage of a collective agreement covering the work being performed for that other business or organisation.' So here this bill actually really undermines the flexibility that we have in our labour market through triangular work arrangements that exist. Also, there is this assumption that somehow anybody who is employed should be in full-time and permanent employment; there should be no casual contracts and there should be no temporary filling up of positions. But the reality is quite different from both sides. From the employer side, sometimes employers need some positions to be filled on a temporary basis because there might be a sick leave that has come up, all of a sudden, and there is a position that needs to be filled that cannot be left without any person being at that position. For example, receptionists are important at businesses and some admin work people are important at businesses. And also, for employees, a lot of people become employees of labour hire companies only because they want flexibility. We know that people's circumstances vary. Some people might have responsibilities like young children or maybe an elderly person they're looking after. Or it could be just a matter of choice and that they don't want to work full time, nine to five, Monday to Friday, or seven days. That kind of flexibility should be available to employees and that kind of flexibility is available through the triangular arrangements that work. So this bill, as I said, is going to deliver contrary to what the member thinks. This bill is not going to deliver anything in regard to pay parity. But what it will do is it will create more cost for employees because if there is a claim, there are then two parties to deal with that claim rather than one party to deal with that claim. When there are two parties involved, we know it is going to take longer, it is going to be expensive, and there is going to be this big legal risk that the employee will have to go through as well. So we do not believe it's going to deliver for employees. As I've said, we know that it is going to deliver for unions, because this bill is just about extending the powers of unions to third parties. We see that there are a lot of potential economic and operational risks with this bill if it goes through. We also know that labour hire companies actually do a great job. They fill in that gap that is needed in the labour market. With this legislation going forward—if it goes forward—then some companies, to avoid or to mitigate this cost that I have talked about before of that extended period of dealing with the claim, instead of two parties involved, those who can deal with it in a quicker manner, now, with this bill, if it goes through, there will be three parties. So, obviously, the process is going to take longer. To avoid that there might be some businesses who would go out and try to hire staff directly instead of going through labour hire companies. So it's not going to actually help the labour hire companies that the member cited. Actually, it is going to provide a lot of disadvantage to labour hire companies because they won't be able to survive because there will be businesses not wanting to hire staff through labour hire companies. It's very important that flexibility is important, because what we want to see is—we want to improve efficiency. We want to improve productivity, and that comes with the flexibility that we have in the labour market. Making things rigid and making everything about unions is not going to improve efficiency and it's not going to improve productivity. So we need to be mindful of this, that unions, of course, they come in between the employer and employees. But employees can talk directly to employers if there are any issues, they don't need to always pick up the phone and call a third person to get involved to resolve any issues they might have with the employers. So we do not support this bill because this bill is not going to deliver what actually the member thinks it's going to deliver. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It's a pleasure to rise for New Zealand First on this particular Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First always takes a very fair perspective on these bills. We agree with the member Helen White that's proposing the bill. We do want to see real wages rising in this country, but we also quite profoundly believe in flexibility in the labour market. So I guess we try to balance those two aspects out. We have modestly described ourselves as Switzerland in these issues between the great blocs of the left and the right. We have previously supported the primary Act that came to pass in 2019. I was actually on the Education and Workforce Committee when that bill came through and it was clear that we did have to tidy up these triangular employment relationships. That particular bill gave some accountability to the labour hiring company, to their workers, so that when they were contracted out they could not be badly treated and not have any comeback on the actual labour hire company. So it did clarify some of those terms and conditions. We're proud to bring that forward. We heard some pretty disturbing stories, as I recall, on that committee. Jan Tinetti was on that committee as well and that was a good bill. That was a bill that identified a problem and put forward a solution. However, we believe on balance this time that the flexibility in the labour market that contract work and that these labour hire companies and those arrangements add to the employment ecosystem; that's important. It's really important. There are businesses that need to scale up for short periods of time. We heard Katie Nimon talking about the horticultural sector. It is probably the biggest user of these types of contracts. That's an absolutely fair, and reasonable, and good thing to have within our employment relations ecosystem. So we don't want to add complexity into that, to add a three-way type thing where there's all of a sudden a collective agreement with a third party that's separate or in addition to the relatively simple mechanism that we have now where the labour hire company and the employee are the mechanisms that fit together, that's where the employment relationship is, and then they are contracted out separately to a third-party employer. So it is quite a simple arrangement now. We think this adds unnecessary complexity. We have not seen any evidence presented to date that this will add to wages, to what would be our primary driver if we were to support this to lift wages, because I think in a lot of times these temporary workers are actually paid—there's a premium. To get someone in at short notice, you actually have to pay a premium. So those workers are very valuable to those businesses that need some surge capacity, so often there will be a premium. So what actually is the evidence here is that some are paid in net. We are actually making some gains in adding this extra complexity. We don't think that bar has been crossed by the member in bringing this bill forward, as well-intentioned as it is. There might be a suspicion that, as some of my colleagues over here have alluded to, this is more about appeasing a union base and trying to gain them more influence—which is fair enough; they are the Labour Party after all—but it doesn't mean that we necessarily have to buy into that narrative or into that purpose. So on balance, we think this bill adds complexity to something that's relatively straightforward, if possible, for a not defined outcome. So New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. Thank you. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I stand this evening as the spokesperson for workers' rights for Te Pāti Māori but also as a wahine Māori and as a grandmother, a mother, and a daughter of a hapori who carries the weight of the country on their backs in the hospitals, on the building sites, in the factories, and in the fields. This bill, the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill, might sound technical on the surface, but, make no mistake, it goes right to the heart of mana tangata: the dignity, worth, and rights of every worker across Aotearoa. Right now, too many of our whānau are stuck in the shadows of the employment system, not because they don't work hard and not because they lack skills, but because the system was never built to protect them. The bill seeks to change that. Let me put a human face to this issue. Let me tell you about Hēmi. Hēmi is a Māori labourer. He's employed by a labour hire agency. He does the same mahi as everybody else on the construction site. Every day, he walks on to the construction site run by a large firm—let's call it Big Build Ltd. Hēmi doesn't wear a different uniform and he's not doing easier work, but, in fact, he's hauling the same timber, pouring the same concrete, and taking the same risks as the workers directly employed by Big Build Ltd. But while those Big Build workers are covered by a union collective agreement with higher pay rates, proper cultural leave, and overtime compensation and safety protections, Hēmi gets none of that. Why? Because, he's technically employed by someone else. He is doing the same mahi in the same direction, and is treated as less than. That's the injustice, and that's exactly what this bill addresses. Under this bill, if Hēmi is a union member and he is doing work that falls under a collective agreement of the controlling company, then that agreement should apply to him. No more back doors for employers to undercut workers, no more tiered workforce, and no more treating contractors as disposable labour. Let me be very clear: this bill comes at a time when workers' rights in Aotearoa are under full-scale attack. Since this Government took power in 2023, we have seen the repeal of fair pay agreements, a move that stripped away collective bargaining power; they've brought back the 90-day trial periods for all businesses, allowing any employer to fire a worker without cause or consequence; they've proposed removing the right to challenge unjustified dismissal for those earning over $180,000, setting a dangerous precedent that links rights to income; and, more recently, they've introduced changes to the Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme that will deepen the exploitation of migrant workers—workers who already face tough conditions in the orchards and the vineyards of this country. These changes will make it harder for those workers to leave abusive jobs or to speak out about mistreatment, trapping them in silence. These actions are not isolated; they are coordinated ideological attacks on the working class, on tangata whenua, on migrants, on women—on those with the least power and the most to lose. Because we believe in kotahitanga and collective strength and because we believe in a future where every worker—no matter where they come from or who they work for—has the right to dignity, protection, and fair treatment, to every Hēmi out there, this bill says, 'We see you, we value you, and we will fight for you.' Te Pāti Māori stands in full support of this bill, and we call on every member of this House to stand with the workers across Aotearoa. Tēnā koutou. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I'd like to start by acknowledging my colleague Helen White and congratulate her on bringing this bill to the House; and, prior to her, my colleague Adrian Rurawhe who had the bill drawn from the ballot; but really, really want to acknowledge former colleague Marja Lubeck, who saw some issues in the triangular relationship and had this bill drafted to ensure that we were moving in the right direction. I'd like to just say that, yes, I was part of that select committee that the member the Hon Mark Patterson mentioned, and I think you're right about 2019. We did hear, during that time, some terrible, terrible stories around what was happening in that triangular relationship. We heard about people who were entering into workforces where they were alongside people who were on collective agreements, doing exactly the same work—exactly the same work—and earning less money but being treated, as the member rightly pointed out, with terrible conditions and much worse conditions. At that time we sorted that out, but there is still something missing—and that is the pay conditions. It is not right that two people can be working on the same work site and doing exactly the same job and earning completely different pay. That is fundamentally wrong in this country, and that needs to be sorted. If this bill doesn't go through tonight, then I would hope that members would collectively come together and think of a solution. Because it is absolutely wrong. To say that 'Oh, it's not really happening; companies aren't doing that.', that is wrong as well. We unfortunately have some companies—and I'm not saying all companies—who are going through and making the promises through collective agreement bargaining and then, unfortunately, using labour hire companies to then withdraw on their promises that they made throughout that collective bargaining time. That is fundamentally wrong. We need to protect our workers. We need to protect them to ensure that they have the same rights, the same pay as the workers doing the same job as them in the same company. Now, to say that 'The collective agreement is extending the rights of the collective agreement to all is just not right' is unbelievable to me. The collective agreement protects workers' rights and pay conditions. It stops the race to the bottom. It stops workers being exploited. Surely every single member in this House wants to see workers protected. Yes, we want to see growth, but we want to see the workers protected—growth not at the expense of workers. So I urge people to think carefully about that; I urge people to think that if this doesn't go through tonight, we still have a problem tomorrow and it still needs a solution. Thank you. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I get to the matter at hand, I just thought it was appropriate to thank the member of the press gallery who's retiring very shortly, Claire Trevett. I think she's done a great job at servicing our democracy. So she's now got her name officially on Hansard. There we go. To the matter at hand— Hon David Parker: What did you say about the cow? GRANT McCALLUM: Ha, ha! No, I'm not going to say that, Hon David Parker—that's not the part that she would want in Hansard. Ha, ha! Very good, thank you—no. Look, let's get to the guts of the matter here. I find it really ironic that I'm standing here now after having the mover of the bill stand up and talk about the damage that was done to people's wages in the late 80s. Well, guess who was in power in the late 80s? Oh, that's right: it was the Labour Party. It was a Labour Government, and that is what the mover was referring to. At that point, by the way, they had compulsory unionism, and let's not kid ourselves here: this is, by stealth, trying to quietly bring back more and more compulsion around the union movement. So I just have to wonder: who actually wrote this member's bill? Ooh, might it be the Council of Trade Unions? I would have to think there's a high chance of that, wouldn't you? What are we going to achieve by actually bringing this in? Well, the member talked about the cost of living and the struggles that workers have because of situations like this. Well, actually, what affects the cost of living more than anything else? Inflation. When this Government came into power, the inflation rate was over 7 percent. That's what makes it hard for households to balance their budgets. The other thing that we had to deal with was high interest rates. That makes the mortgage payments high and high rents, and those are the sorts of things that will make a real difference to people, not just fiddling around with trying to bring back compulsory unionism by stealth. If we go back and think about that, you know, the challenges that we would have if we went down this track of trying to work out who gets paid what for what, in a lot of cases when you employ contract labour like that, you end up—because it's a short-term employment, you pay them more. That is so often the case; I've seen it happen many, many times. You've got to remember, also: who is actually going to be the group that's going to struggle the most with dealing with these issues, working out what they can and can't do? I'll tell you who it'll be: it'll be small business, because it's small business that struggle, that have to deal with more paperwork, more red tape. Of course, that is what the Opposition specialise in: bringing in things to make it harder for business and to introduce more red tape. That will not advance the cause of workers, and it will certainly not advance the cause of businesses. And guess what? Employees need successful businesses, and for a business to employ a contract worker, it means that they have to be doing well. You want your businesses to do well; you don't want to make it harder for them and make restrictions on them growing. So that is something we have to keep in mind—really, really important. But I just would like to remind everyone that we are in the Government that is focused on the things that really matter, which is growing the real wages of people and, as we've said, getting inflation under control and getting interest rates down. That is what is actually making a difference in this country, not bringing in this extra red tape so that we can then, by stealth, bring back compulsory unionism by stealth. That is not what we need in this country. Hon James Meager: No. GRANT McCALLUM: I certainly hear that support from this side of the House, and I thank the support of the other parties to do what we have to do with this bill, and that is to kick it back—back into the dim, dark past where it belongs. On that note, I do not commend this bill to the House. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to take a call on this bill tonight, and I want to acknowledge my colleague, Helen White, for bringing it to the House. I want to take a moment to just counter some of the comments that have been made from the other side, that, quite frankly, are just really, really wrong. So I might start, first of all—and I do acknowledge the member from New Zealand First, Hon Mark Patterson, and I acknowledge that New Zealand First have supported a bill that was brought by the Labour Party recently. I do acknowledge that. There's one particular area in his speech that I wanted to follow up on, and that was around the cost to employers, in that employers pay a premium for labour hire workers. They do. They pay a premium to the labour hire company. My experience having—and I'll get to some of the types of employers that use labour hire companies, because again, there's been some interesting facts presented from the other side that I'd say actually aren't factual. Yes, employers do pay a premium for labour hire workers. But that doesn't get passed to the worker. There's a ticket-clipping exercise for the labour hire company. And the experience I've had is talking to workers who are standing alongside permanent employees who are being paid less, but the employer is actually paying more for that worker because there is a percentage being passed on to the labour hire company. So that's the first thing. Related to that, I wanted to talk about the time frames that these people are working for these companies. I have spoken to workers, actual workers in my electorate, who have worked for the same labour hire company at the same large sawmill in Nelson for years—years. This is not about seasonal work. The seasonal workers in Nelson at Sealord are actually part of a collective agreement, for the record. So Katie Nimon could come and learn a little bit about that. But we're talking about large sawmills, working there for years, the sawmill paying more money than they would to a permanent employee through a labour hire company. The most recent examples of this in Nelson have actually been exploited migrant workers. So it was in the employer's interest to leave those people working for a labour hire company. Unfortunately, those workers are then unable to access the visas they need. So there's a whole system tied up here that actually leads to exploitation. So I just want to counter some of the arguments presented on the other side with actually what happens in the real world. Other members talked about choice. I've never, ever, ever talked to a labour hire worker—and I've talked to many of them—who doesn't want a permanent job, who hasn't asked the employer to be employed permanently. Hon Karen Chhour: I was a labour worker. Didn't want a permanent job. RACHEL BOYACK: Well, you often haven't talked to them! I've talked to lots of them in my electorate. They work in processing companies, they work in fish processing, they work for sawmills, they work in the horticulture sector. They want permanent employment. This is not about a choice. They go to a labour hire company as the choice of last resort. The last thing is that there's been a lot of comment about this hurting small businesses, and that it's going to add all this red tape. The member's been very clear: this only applies when a collective agreement is in place, and the majority of collective agreements are, at large, employers. It doesn't add any other, extra party to this. All it's doing is implying the same wages and conditions, so that John who's standing here working in the sawmill, and Jane standing next to him, doing the same job, get the same pay. Katie Nimon started to talk about, 'How dare we talk about lifting wages?'. Well, for goodness' sake! We're the Labour Party. We believe in people being paid a decent wage for a fair day's work. That's what we stand for. That's why I'm a member of the Labour Party. That's why I am a Labour MP. Because I fundamentally believe that if an employer can afford to pay somebody the same for doing the same day's work, they should do that. And an employer who's paying a premium to a labour hire company, literally for years, can actually afford to take that person on permanently and pay them the proper wages and conditions. Laura McClure: They usually do, when they're good. RACHEL BOYACK: The funny thing is, I've talked to so many of them and actually done this as a job for years. They don't. They actually don't. This law needs to change. Congratulations to Helen White, and I'd encourage Mark Patterson to maybe re-think New Zealand First's position, because I think you've made the wrong call on this one, mate, and I know we can get you there tonight. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill this evening. Whenever we talk about employment law in this House—anything to do with workers, with businesses, with employment relationships—the Opposition couches it as 'We're for the worker, and everyone else isn't.' They couch it as 'A fair day's work for a fair day's pay.', which we agree with. The difference is we don't think we know exactly what that amount of money is for every employee in the country. We don't believe we should be getting in the middle of the employment relationship and telling the employee, 'Hey, this is what you should negotiate with your boss.' Nor do we think we should be getting in there and telling the employer, 'This is the way you've got to run your business.' Surprisingly enough, you can choose not to take a side in the debate. You can choose to be for New Zealand. You can choose to take views on what's right in terms of employment law. You can choose to determine what's right in an employment relationship in the context of what is right for a place we call home, for a place we call New Zealand. We believe that people have the right to make choices themselves, that businesses have the right to negotiate, and, ultimately, we want them doing this to the benefit of this country. We want productivity and we want growth in New Zealand, and this bill counters that. This bill goes against that. This bill adds red tape. You hear the Labour Party want to say, 'Hey, we don't know what that red tape is.' Well, all of a sudden, every small business in New Zealand that is providing some form of labour to other employers for a temporary basis has to go, 'Hold on a minute. What's your relationship with your employer? What's your relationship with your employee? Do we now have to pay our staff more because you've got some different relationship with your employees?' I'd be interested to know: if the Labour Party thought that those employees were earning more than the employees at the controlling employer's workplace, would it go the other way? Or does Labour have a one-way view on the cost of employment and a one-way view on productivity— downwards, of course—in this country? Earlier in this discussion, Labour couched this as being about putting food on the table. Do you know what? I'm getting a bit sick of the Opposition talking about their interest in the average New Zealander, when they voted against things that literally put money on the table of those employees in this House last year. Tax cuts, tax cuts and tax relief, for the average New Zealander who would have then been helped by, supposedly, in their opinion, this bill. They could have just avoided the complication that this bill would bring to this House and simply voted for tax relief and put more money in the pockets of the average worker. But no, they chose not to do that because they think that they know best. They think they know best for the employee. They think they can get their head into the game of every employment relationship in this country and make it not only more complicated but make the decision for business, make the decision for employees. On this side of the House we have a different view. We have a view that we need to create employment relationships in this country that can be negotiated between employers and employees and can help us grow the average wage, the average salary, the productivity of this nation. There is a role that flexibility plays for employees and for employers. There is a need for employment relationships that aren't fixed, that allow what they are calling controlling employers to have employees come for a season, for a short period of time; maybe sometimes that's for a long period of time—I don't know what the business decision or the employment relationship decision is behind that particular example, because I'm not trying to get in the heads of every employer in the country and tell them how they need to run their business. And I'm not trying to get in the heads of every employee in this country who chooses to work for one of these businesses—and it is a choice. It is a choice that they make, and therefore we do not commend this bill to the House. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you for the contributions that everybody has made tonight. I remember an employer coming to talk to me in my capacity as an employment lawyer, and they wanted to know what they needed to pay workers in New Zealand who they were employing for a short time. They, first of all, asked what they had to pay for their casual workforce. I told them 'Well, actually, there's the minimum wage, but you don't have to pay them anything extra.' They were shocked because, in Australia, they pay them 20 percent more and they have an award so people get paid on top of the award and then they get a weighting for being a casual. Then, they asked me what they would have to pay them for things like holidays. There was so little in the pot for workers in this country, I was ashamed and they were shocked—they were completely shocked at how little they had to pay our workers. I tried to tell a story from the 1980s through to now in New Zealand about what has happened to wage growth in this country. The only part of that that the current Government were interested in was a bit that didn't actually land on their watch. That was the only part they wanted to know about. That seems to me a little bit like arrogance, doesn't it? We are supposed to learn from history. We are supposed to learn what works and what doesn't. What did this country in, in a big way, was the Employment Contracts Act because it failed to recognise the reality of life, and, actually, it damaged New Zealand and New Zealand workers to such an extent that we are still mopping up—we are still mopping up. This was supposed to be a little bit of that mop up, because what it said was that workers doing the same work who were being hired by labour hire companies could actually opt to go on the same terms and conditions. We were told that it was complicated and it was red tape. Well, I'm sorry, how silly are people? That's not red tape. We have employment in this country, and it's pretty simple: you calculate the amount that you pay the hire company based on the terms and conditions you pay your own workforce. That isn't that hard. Our employers are pretty much smart enough to do that. That way, people who are doing that work can pay their bills. They can pay and, actually, the taxpayer doesn't have to top them up. That is actually what's really happening. There is this myth that somehow the National Party are the people who understand economics. This shows the problem with the myth—it shows the problem—because it's false economy if you underpay workers, if they never get a share of the wealth of the country, and it all goes offshore and it all goes to the 1 percent, then we end up with a mess of a country. We end up with crime. We end up with mental health issues. We end up with violence. We end up with all of those things because it is a very stressful place to live. It might not happen on somebody's farm that they inherited from their parents in the North—it might not happen there—and it might not even happen for their kids, but it's happening to our kids in this country. It's happening because they cannot pay their bills. So this was actually an attempt to do that tonight, just a little nudge that people are paid the same amount. It's not that hard. When I was once involved as a lawyer out at the steel mill, they had something called an equalisation clause. It worked in a very similar way. It said, 'If you come on site and you're a contractor, you should be paid the same amount as the people who are there.' Guess what! Actually, the world didn't cave in. We still made steel. People just got paid a decent amount. People retired better. We need to start being smart in this House and stop this absolute garbage, that fills the head, of an ideology that just cannot see past the word 'union', because that's what's going on. Thank you for listening to me. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion not agreed to.
Scoop
25-04-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Employment Relations (Collective Agreements In Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Sitting date: 9 Apr 2025 EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS IN TRIANGULAR RELATIONSHIPS) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I move, That the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill. I, first of all, want to thank Adrian Rurawhe and Marja Lubeck for bringing this bill to the House, and I have inherited it from them. This bill is, essentially, about making sure that New Zealand workers have enough to eat and can actually provide for their families. In New Zealand, we've had a real issue with keeping our wages up, and we've ended up with a gap between rich and poor that is a real concern. But I want to just go through how we got there before I go to how this bill tries to address that situation. In the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, the real wages of New Zealanders fell 25 percent. In the mid-2000s to 2010— Grant McCallum: Who was in power then? HELEN WHITE: Yes, I take the point from the speaker who just interrupted. He said, 'Who was this?' I think this is something that actually every—every—party in this House has to face. What has happened in this country, with regard to wages, has been a disaster for our people. It has ended up with a situation where people cannot meet their ordinary bills. In a cost of living crisis, we need to face that fact—all of our parties—and we need to put it right. So I'd like to continue. In the mid-2000s to 2010, there was modest growth of real wages, but there was much less growth of wages than there was of productivity. There wasn't a decent share of that wealth with the workers of this country. In 2023, we get the first real average, ordinary time increase—6.9 percent—and that's not perfect, but it looks like something is going right for workers in this country. Let's talk about what that really means in terms of wages. In June 2024, the median wage of a man in this country is $33.56. The median wage of a woman in this country is $32.08 per hour. The work that I did as an employment lawyer got me across a lot of different industries. I saw the difference for people who earned well and had all the respect that came with that and had all the self-dignity that came with that. I worked for industries like the Dairy Workers Union. The dairy workers earn good money, and they're about 98 percent unionised. It's a really good business, but it shares with its workers the actual profit in that way. Ninety-eight percent unionised meant good terms and conditions. That was something where the workers of this country participate in the wealth. But I also had other industries, which were not well organised and didn't have that kind of agreement, and some of those were the labour hire companies. They did not earn well, and as a result, the Government ends up topping up those wages. But also, people live in a state of constant insecurity. They're the people who go to the supermarket and can't necessarily get what they need to feed their families. It's a constant state of stress. What this bill does is say that, for people who are in a triangular relationship, which is a relationship where there is an employer—say it's the port—and then there's a labour hire company on site—say it's a stevedoring company—if they don't actually have a contract of their own, a collective agreement, but they're doing the same work as the port workers when they're brought in, they are entitled to ask to be on those terms and conditions that the primary employer is actually offering its own workers. It's just a way of making sure that workers doing the same work get the same pay. And what could possibly be wrong with that? An employer signed a collective agreement saying it can pay $40 an hour to its workers. If it brings in labour to do exactly the same work and they do not have the protection of that agreement, they should be offering the same money. And that's the difference between a decent wage and one that won't pay the bills. That's what is achieved in this piece of legislation, and I ask all the parties in this House to really consider that. Do we want a New Zealand where we've got a constant dipping down of wages to the lowest common denominator, or is it time for us to use what we have in this House, the ability to structure the way that people work in a way that means that people can work with dignity, they can pay their bills? That's what this is about today. It would make a difference to all those workers who are coming in in that second tier. It would make a difference to their families. We talk a lot in this House about self-responsibility. It comes up a lot. Well, I know that my life is a lot easier simply because I know that I have a decent income. It means I can pay my mortgage. It means I can plan for the future. The labour hire people who would be most affected by this—that's our cleaners, that's our seagulls, that's all those kinds of people who come in and top up in our medical areas. Often, it's our health workers. All those areas of sort of second-tier workers coming into a workforce which is already controlled and it is already a workplace where people are doing the same work—they will have a real bonus if you vote for this tonight. They will be able to earn the same money that that employer can clearly afford. It stops a use of contract labour which is not desirable from anyone's point of view. That use is to undermine the amount of wages that they share with their workforce. That's what it does. It stops that misuse. And it means that New Zealand workers can survive on their own two feet. They're doing the same work. That labour hire person is standing there next to someone doing exactly the same work, and they should be entitled to the same pay. It's as simple as that. So I ask you tonight to think about our role in setting the system up, making sure that people are on a level playing field, but I also ask you to think about whether you could make ends meet on the kinds of money we're talking about here. It is often the difference between $40 and minimum wage. That's the reality. What actually ends up happening is that, if people earn a decent amount, they have a decent KiwiSaver; we don't end up picking up the pieces in our criminal system, in our welfare system, and, actually, at the end of their working career, at the time of their retirement. So we will be doing this country a favour, but we will also be doing all the families and workers who depend on this work a favour if we just adopt this tonight. Thus, I ask you to support this bill to its first reading. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill. I read the title out because you could be forgiven for not knowing what this bill was about. The member who spoke prior to me, Helen White, talked a lot about increasing wages and really taking aim at labour hire companies. Really, this does something quite different to that based on what the bill is proposing. It's very, very niche, and if the purpose, based on what the previous speaker has said, is to increase wages, surely there are many other ways to achieve this other than targeting labour hire companies in such a way. It is our firm belief that this will have a far more perverse impact on small businesses. Yes, there might be large companies that make use of labour hire companies, whether it's a port, whether it's a mill. There are various reasons why companies engage with contractors, but at the end of the day, this is going to change the behaviour, the way the contractors operate, and that is going to have a strong onflow effect. I will just run members through it. This bill seeks to ensure that employees employed by one employer but working under the control or direction of another business or organisation—for those that don't understand what a triangular relationship is—are not deprived of the right to coverage of a collective agreement covering the work being performed for that other business or organisation. Now, that's making the assumption that those labour hire companies are then contracting out their workers to companies that have staff covered by a collective agreement. That's not always the case. But, of course, now those labour hire companies are going to have to change their behaviour, if this bill were to become law, in situations that aren't covered by collective agreements, because they're going to have to apply the same terms and conditions across all of the workplaces that they work with. The purpose of this bill, as is written in the bill but not obviously stated to us in the House by the previous speaker, is to provide greater security and rights to workers in such arrangements by ensuring that collective bargaining rights are extended beyond the direct employer in the employment relationship. So to hear that it's about driving up wages makes me think that this is a solution looking for a problem, as is often the case with members' bills from the opposite side. We just want to go through some of these potential perverse outcomes, which I think are really important to run through because I think it's important for people to understand. A very niche bill can only do one thing and that is take aim at an industry, and that is exactly what this is doing. That industry exists because there is a need for it. It is a need to serve businesses whose seasonal work ebbs and flows, whose contracts ebb and flow, and who need to take on contractors. All this is going to do is hamstring them and make our productivity more problematic, which is the opposite. So this is, as I mentioned, likely to disproportionately affect small businesses and employers who rely on labour hire contractors. That is exactly the opposite of what we want to do. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! If the Opposition members want to have a conversation between themselves, can they please take it out into the lobby, thank you. I'm sorry for interrupting the member. KATIE NIMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As we often get the chance to say, at the moment, National's values are of limited government and personal responsibility. And again, this bill is another step in the direction of overstepping government, getting involved in the relationship between the employer and the employee, which we do not agree on. More to the point, our focus on productivity and economic growth would tell us that we need to oppose this bill, because it's likely to impose unreasonable burdens on businesses. Now, again, what this is going to do is change the behaviour, the way we contract an event and the way we contract seasonal work, and all of these things are absolutely necessary to our economy—to our tourism economy, to our horticultural economy. Every time we engage in this kind of work, it is for a reason. The Opposition are trying to make it sound like people use contractors to get away with having to use proper terms and conditions for their staff—it is completely baseless. Come to Hawke's Bay for a summer harvest and see why they have to use labour hire contractors for the seasonal work. Go to a wonderful concert, whether it's at Eden Park in Auckland or whether it's a Mission concert in Taradale—these are seasonal event-based contracts that need this kind of employment relationship. Now, we always talk about the unintended consequences because these niche bills that aim to do one thing actually end up doing a number of others. As it stands, it means that if an employee is a union member and their work falls under a collective agreement that that employer is party to, the employer can be bound by that agreement and enforce that agreement against the employer, against the employer's preference, against the employer's structure of employment. Now it's going to then bring in those businesses into a collective agreement relationship, whether it's bargaining. A company that has no involvement in a third party's collective agreement or union arrangements then becomes involved. There are so many companies around New Zealand that do this as a service to our productive economy, to give employees freedom and flexibility, and, actually, in so many cases, the fact that they are working contract hours—they are working and earning more than others because they are on a contract arrangement. I would love to know the research behind the assumption that every person working for a labour hire company is earning significantly less. Because that is not the case. So at the end of the day—and we have made this very clear—this is not a bill we support. This is a solution looking for a problem, and all we see this doing is discouraging businesses from hiring workers through third-party organisations. It is taking aim at an industry. It will have a perverse impact on small businesses. It will affect the seasonal and event-based industries that we thrive on in New Zealand and that are the backbone of most of our economies, especially in the regions, and this is a very important thing for us to make clear. We do not commend this bill to the House, we do not recommend that it go to select committee, and with that I will take my seat. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens, in support of the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill in the name of Helen White, and I acknowledge the previous members who she received this bill from, as well. The Greens see this as a practical, targeted reform that addresses a growing issue in our workforce, which is the exploitation of workers in triangular employment relationships. I do want to agree with the member Helen White in terms of her comments around the inadequacy of the minimum wage and how wages are going down in real terms. We've just had the new minimum wage come in, and the increase is a measly 35c—it's a measly 35c; $23.50 is what that is. What are workers going to do with their 35c? Actually, what we should be talking about in this context—in all of the contexts—is the living wage. Here I want to acknowledge the Unite union. I had the honour and privilege of attending one of their Poverty is No Joke, 1 April, union gatherings. I'm sure some of the members on this side of the House were able to spend some time with them, talking about the living wage, as well. So I wanted to put my acknowledgment of that on the record. For those that don't know what the living wage is: 'A Living Wage is the income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life. A living wage will enable workers to live with dignity and to participate as active citizens in society.' So this is what we should be focusing on, folks. Under the current law, we have workers who are technically employed by one company but are based under the direction of another, often through labour hire firms. We heard some comments from both sides of the House about that. They can miss out on the protections of a collective agreement. So what that means, for the people that are listening, is that someone can do exactly the same job as their workmates, under the same conditions, and they might be excluded from union protections just because of who signs their contract. That's not right—that's not right at all. So this bill seeks to amend the Employment Relations Act to fix that. It does that in two ways, as I understand it. It expands the definition of employees who can be covered by a collective agreement to include those in triangular employment relationships. It seems straightforward and a sensible thing to do, to me. It also ensures that if those workers are union workers, they can benefit from the terms and protections of a collective agreement already in place at the workplace that they're directed by. So if you have a bunch of workers at a particular place and you've got one lot on a collective agreement, another lot come in and they're doing exactly the same job, surely for a hard day's work, a fair day's pay, they should be getting all the same conditions. It's this kind of pitting workers against each other which is why real wages are being driven down. That is something that this particular corner of the House—and I'm sure I can say that for the other Opposition parties as well—will oppose. This is something that falls within the ambit of our workplace policy, which is that we support legislative protection for people employed by labour hire agencies and preventing triangular relationships from being used to dodge workplace rights. That's the corner here: that people are going to try to find kind of nifty ways, via contracting, to not pay people properly. So this is what, I think, the member is trying to do, and that is something that the Greens will certainly support. This is, I think, also about equity. Labour hire and triangular relationships are disproportionately used in sectors that rely on Māori, on Pasifika, and on migrant workers, often low-paid sectors. So making sure that there are those protections in place is really, really important for Māori, Pasifika, and low-paid migrants. So we will be supporting this bill. Thank you. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm taking this call on behalf of ACT on the first reading of the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill, which is a member's bill, Helen White's bill. Congratulations for the bill being drawn from the ballot. We gave thorough consideration to this bill and we have concluded that we will not be supporting this bill. We are not supporting this bill because we know that this bill is actually not going to do what the member thinks; it is actually going to be contrary to what the member thinks. It's actually going to create a lot of implications for employers—and employees, as well. What this bill does is, basically, it just extends the powers of unions to third parties in triangular work relationships. What we note is that the policy statement of this bill says it 'seeks to ensure that employees employed by one employer but working under the control or direction of another business or organisation are not deprived of the right to coverage of a collective agreement covering the work being performed for that other business or organisation.' So here this bill actually really undermines the flexibility that we have in our labour market through triangular work arrangements that exist. Also, there is this assumption that somehow anybody who is employed should be in full-time and permanent employment; there should be no casual contracts and there should be no temporary filling up of positions. But the reality is quite different from both sides. From the employer side, sometimes employers need some positions to be filled on a temporary basis because there might be a sick leave that has come up, all of a sudden, and there is a position that needs to be filled that cannot be left without any person being at that position. For example, receptionists are important at businesses and some admin work people are important at businesses. And also, for employees, a lot of people become employees of labour hire companies only because they want flexibility. We know that people's circumstances vary. Some people might have responsibilities like young children or maybe an elderly person they're looking after. Or it could be just a matter of choice and that they don't want to work full time, nine to five, Monday to Friday, or seven days. That kind of flexibility should be available to employees and that kind of flexibility is available through the triangular arrangements that work. So this bill, as I said, is going to deliver contrary to what the member thinks. This bill is not going to deliver anything in regard to pay parity. But what it will do is it will create more cost for employees because if there is a claim, there are then two parties to deal with that claim rather than one party to deal with that claim. When there are two parties involved, we know it is going to take longer, it is going to be expensive, and there is going to be this big legal risk that the employee will have to go through as well. So we do not believe it's going to deliver for employees. As I've said, we know that it is going to deliver for unions, because this bill is just about extending the powers of unions to third parties. We see that there are a lot of potential economic and operational risks with this bill if it goes through. We also know that labour hire companies actually do a great job. They fill in that gap that is needed in the labour market. With this legislation going forward—if it goes forward—then some companies, to avoid or to mitigate this cost that I have talked about before of that extended period of dealing with the claim, instead of two parties involved, those who can deal with it in a quicker manner, now, with this bill, if it goes through, there will be three parties. So, obviously, the process is going to take longer. To avoid that there might be some businesses who would go out and try to hire staff directly instead of going through labour hire companies. So it's not going to actually help the labour hire companies that the member cited. Actually, it is going to provide a lot of disadvantage to labour hire companies because they won't be able to survive because there will be businesses not wanting to hire staff through labour hire companies. It's very important that flexibility is important, because what we want to see is—we want to improve efficiency. We want to improve productivity, and that comes with the flexibility that we have in the labour market. Making things rigid and making everything about unions is not going to improve efficiency and it's not going to improve productivity. So we need to be mindful of this, that unions, of course, they come in between the employer and employees. But employees can talk directly to employers if there are any issues, they don't need to always pick up the phone and call a third person to get involved to resolve any issues they might have with the employers. So we do not support this bill because this bill is not going to deliver what actually the member thinks it's going to deliver. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It's a pleasure to rise for New Zealand First on this particular Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First always takes a very fair perspective on these bills. We agree with the member Helen White that's proposing the bill. We do want to see real wages rising in this country, but we also quite profoundly believe in flexibility in the labour market. So I guess we try to balance those two aspects out. We have modestly described ourselves as Switzerland in these issues between the great blocs of the left and the right. We have previously supported the primary Act that came to pass in 2019. I was actually on the Education and Workforce Committee when that bill came through and it was clear that we did have to tidy up these triangular employment relationships. That particular bill gave some accountability to the labour hiring company, to their workers, so that when they were contracted out they could not be badly treated and not have any comeback on the actual labour hire company. So it did clarify some of those terms and conditions. We're proud to bring that forward. We heard some pretty disturbing stories, as I recall, on that committee. Jan Tinetti was on that committee as well and that was a good bill. That was a bill that identified a problem and put forward a solution. However, we believe on balance this time that the flexibility in the labour market that contract work and that these labour hire companies and those arrangements add to the employment ecosystem; that's important. It's really important. There are businesses that need to scale up for short periods of time. We heard Katie Nimon talking about the horticultural sector. It is probably the biggest user of these types of contracts. That's an absolutely fair, and reasonable, and good thing to have within our employment relations ecosystem. So we don't want to add complexity into that, to add a three-way type thing where there's all of a sudden a collective agreement with a third party that's separate or in addition to the relatively simple mechanism that we have now where the labour hire company and the employee are the mechanisms that fit together, that's where the employment relationship is, and then they are contracted out separately to a third-party employer. So it is quite a simple arrangement now. We think this adds unnecessary complexity. We have not seen any evidence presented to date that this will add to wages, to what would be our primary driver if we were to support this to lift wages, because I think in a lot of times these temporary workers are actually paid—there's a premium. To get someone in at short notice, you actually have to pay a premium. So those workers are very valuable to those businesses that need some surge capacity, so often there will be a premium. So what actually is the evidence here is that some are paid in net. We are actually making some gains in adding this extra complexity. We don't think that bar has been crossed by the member in bringing this bill forward, as well-intentioned as it is. There might be a suspicion that, as some of my colleagues over here have alluded to, this is more about appeasing a union base and trying to gain them more influence—which is fair enough; they are the Labour Party after all—but it doesn't mean that we necessarily have to buy into that narrative or into that purpose. So on balance, we think this bill adds complexity to something that's relatively straightforward, if possible, for a not defined outcome. So New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. Thank you. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I stand this evening as the spokesperson for workers' rights for Te Pāti Māori but also as a wahine Māori and as a grandmother, a mother, and a daughter of a hapori who carries the weight of the country on their backs in the hospitals, on the building sites, in the factories, and in the fields. This bill, the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill, might sound technical on the surface, but, make no mistake, it goes right to the heart of mana tangata: the dignity, worth, and rights of every worker across Aotearoa. Right now, too many of our whānau are stuck in the shadows of the employment system, not because they don't work hard and not because they lack skills, but because the system was never built to protect them. The bill seeks to change that. Let me put a human face to this issue. Let me tell you about Hēmi. Hēmi is a Māori labourer. He's employed by a labour hire agency. He does the same mahi as everybody else on the construction site. Every day, he walks on to the construction site run by a large firm—let's call it Big Build Ltd. Hēmi doesn't wear a different uniform and he's not doing easier work, but, in fact, he's hauling the same timber, pouring the same concrete, and taking the same risks as the workers directly employed by Big Build Ltd. But while those Big Build workers are covered by a union collective agreement with higher pay rates, proper cultural leave, and overtime compensation and safety protections, Hēmi gets none of that. Why? Because, he's technically employed by someone else. He is doing the same mahi in the same direction, and is treated as less than. That's the injustice, and that's exactly what this bill addresses. Under this bill, if Hēmi is a union member and he is doing work that falls under a collective agreement of the controlling company, then that agreement should apply to him. No more back doors for employers to undercut workers, no more tiered workforce, and no more treating contractors as disposable labour. Let me be very clear: this bill comes at a time when workers' rights in Aotearoa are under full-scale attack. Since this Government took power in 2023, we have seen the repeal of fair pay agreements, a move that stripped away collective bargaining power; they've brought back the 90-day trial periods for all businesses, allowing any employer to fire a worker without cause or consequence; they've proposed removing the right to challenge unjustified dismissal for those earning over $180,000, setting a dangerous precedent that links rights to income; and, more recently, they've introduced changes to the Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme that will deepen the exploitation of migrant workers—workers who already face tough conditions in the orchards and the vineyards of this country. These changes will make it harder for those workers to leave abusive jobs or to speak out about mistreatment, trapping them in silence. These actions are not isolated; they are coordinated ideological attacks on the working class, on tangata whenua, on migrants, on women—on those with the least power and the most to lose. Because we believe in kotahitanga and collective strength and because we believe in a future where every worker—no matter where they come from or who they work for—has the right to dignity, protection, and fair treatment, to every Hēmi out there, this bill says, 'We see you, we value you, and we will fight for you.' Te Pāti Māori stands in full support of this bill, and we call on every member of this House to stand with the workers across Aotearoa. Tēnā koutou. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I'd like to start by acknowledging my colleague Helen White and congratulate her on bringing this bill to the House; and, prior to her, my colleague Adrian Rurawhe who had the bill drawn from the ballot; but really, really want to acknowledge former colleague Marja Lubeck, who saw some issues in the triangular relationship and had this bill drafted to ensure that we were moving in the right direction. I'd like to just say that, yes, I was part of that select committee that the member the Hon Mark Patterson mentioned, and I think you're right about 2019. We did hear, during that time, some terrible, terrible stories around what was happening in that triangular relationship. We heard about people who were entering into workforces where they were alongside people who were on collective agreements, doing exactly the same work—exactly the same work—and earning less money but being treated, as the member rightly pointed out, with terrible conditions and much worse conditions. At that time we sorted that out, but there is still something missing—and that is the pay conditions. It is not right that two people can be working on the same work site and doing exactly the same job and earning completely different pay. That is fundamentally wrong in this country, and that needs to be sorted. If this bill doesn't go through tonight, then I would hope that members would collectively come together and think of a solution. Because it is absolutely wrong. To say that 'Oh, it's not really happening; companies aren't doing that.', that is wrong as well. We unfortunately have some companies—and I'm not saying all companies—who are going through and making the promises through collective agreement bargaining and then, unfortunately, using labour hire companies to then withdraw on their promises that they made throughout that collective bargaining time. That is fundamentally wrong. We need to protect our workers. We need to protect them to ensure that they have the same rights, the same pay as the workers doing the same job as them in the same company. Now, to say that 'The collective agreement is extending the rights of the collective agreement to all is just not right' is unbelievable to me. The collective agreement protects workers' rights and pay conditions. It stops the race to the bottom. It stops workers being exploited. Surely every single member in this House wants to see workers protected. Yes, we want to see growth, but we want to see the workers protected—growth not at the expense of workers. So I urge people to think carefully about that; I urge people to think that if this doesn't go through tonight, we still have a problem tomorrow and it still needs a solution. Thank you. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I get to the matter at hand, I just thought it was appropriate to thank the member of the press gallery who's retiring very shortly, Claire Trevett. I think she's done a great job at servicing our democracy. So she's now got her name officially on Hansard. There we go. To the matter at hand— Hon David Parker: What did you say about the cow? GRANT McCALLUM: Ha, ha! No, I'm not going to say that, Hon David Parker—that's not the part that she would want in Hansard. Ha, ha! Very good, thank you—no. Look, let's get to the guts of the matter here. I find it really ironic that I'm standing here now after having the mover of the bill stand up and talk about the damage that was done to people's wages in the late 80s. Well, guess who was in power in the late 80s? Oh, that's right: it was the Labour Party. It was a Labour Government, and that is what the mover was referring to. At that point, by the way, they had compulsory unionism, and let's not kid ourselves here: this is, by stealth, trying to quietly bring back more and more compulsion around the union movement. So I just have to wonder: who actually wrote this member's bill? Ooh, might it be the Council of Trade Unions? I would have to think there's a high chance of that, wouldn't you? What are we going to achieve by actually bringing this in? Well, the member talked about the cost of living and the struggles that workers have because of situations like this. Well, actually, what affects the cost of living more than anything else? Inflation. When this Government came into power, the inflation rate was over 7 percent. That's what makes it hard for households to balance their budgets. The other thing that we had to deal with was high interest rates. That makes the mortgage payments high and high rents, and those are the sorts of things that will make a real difference to people, not just fiddling around with trying to bring back compulsory unionism by stealth. If we go back and think about that, you know, the challenges that we would have if we went down this track of trying to work out who gets paid what for what, in a lot of cases when you employ contract labour like that, you end up—because it's a short-term employment, you pay them more. That is so often the case; I've seen it happen many, many times. You've got to remember, also: who is actually going to be the group that's going to struggle the most with dealing with these issues, working out what they can and can't do? I'll tell you who it'll be: it'll be small business, because it's small business that struggle, that have to deal with more paperwork, more red tape. Of course, that is what the Opposition specialise in: bringing in things to make it harder for business and to introduce more red tape. That will not advance the cause of workers, and it will certainly not advance the cause of businesses. And guess what? Employees need successful businesses, and for a business to employ a contract worker, it means that they have to be doing well. You want your businesses to do well; you don't want to make it harder for them and make restrictions on them growing. So that is something we have to keep in mind—really, really important. But I just would like to remind everyone that we are in the Government that is focused on the things that really matter, which is growing the real wages of people and, as we've said, getting inflation under control and getting interest rates down. That is what is actually making a difference in this country, not bringing in this extra red tape so that we can then, by stealth, bring back compulsory unionism by stealth. That is not what we need in this country. Hon James Meager: No. GRANT McCALLUM: I certainly hear that support from this side of the House, and I thank the support of the other parties to do what we have to do with this bill, and that is to kick it back—back into the dim, dark past where it belongs. On that note, I do not commend this bill to the House. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to take a call on this bill tonight, and I want to acknowledge my colleague, Helen White, for bringing it to the House. I want to take a moment to just counter some of the comments that have been made from the other side, that, quite frankly, are just really, really wrong. So I might start, first of all—and I do acknowledge the member from New Zealand First, Hon Mark Patterson, and I acknowledge that New Zealand First have supported a bill that was brought by the Labour Party recently. I do acknowledge that. There's one particular area in his speech that I wanted to follow up on, and that was around the cost to employers, in that employers pay a premium for labour hire workers. They do. They pay a premium to the labour hire company. My experience having—and I'll get to some of the types of employers that use labour hire companies, because again, there's been some interesting facts presented from the other side that I'd say actually aren't factual. Yes, employers do pay a premium for labour hire workers. But that doesn't get passed to the worker. There's a ticket-clipping exercise for the labour hire company. And the experience I've had is talking to workers who are standing alongside permanent employees who are being paid less, but the employer is actually paying more for that worker because there is a percentage being passed on to the labour hire company. So that's the first thing. Related to that, I wanted to talk about the time frames that these people are working for these companies. I have spoken to workers, actual workers in my electorate, who have worked for the same labour hire company at the same large sawmill in Nelson for years—years. This is not about seasonal work. The seasonal workers in Nelson at Sealord are actually part of a collective agreement, for the record. So Katie Nimon could come and learn a little bit about that. But we're talking about large sawmills, working there for years, the sawmill paying more money than they would to a permanent employee through a labour hire company. The most recent examples of this in Nelson have actually been exploited migrant workers. So it was in the employer's interest to leave those people working for a labour hire company. Unfortunately, those workers are then unable to access the visas they need. So there's a whole system tied up here that actually leads to exploitation. So I just want to counter some of the arguments presented on the other side with actually what happens in the real world. Other members talked about choice. I've never, ever, ever talked to a labour hire worker—and I've talked to many of them—who doesn't want a permanent job, who hasn't asked the employer to be employed permanently. Hon Karen Chhour: I was a labour worker. Didn't want a permanent job. RACHEL BOYACK: Well, you often haven't talked to them! I've talked to lots of them in my electorate. They work in processing companies, they work in fish processing, they work for sawmills, they work in the horticulture sector. They want permanent employment. This is not about a choice. They go to a labour hire company as the choice of last resort. The last thing is that there's been a lot of comment about this hurting small businesses, and that it's going to add all this red tape. The member's been very clear: this only applies when a collective agreement is in place, and the majority of collective agreements are, at large, employers. It doesn't add any other, extra party to this. All it's doing is implying the same wages and conditions, so that John who's standing here working in the sawmill, and Jane standing next to him, doing the same job, get the same pay. Katie Nimon started to talk about, 'How dare we talk about lifting wages?'. Well, for goodness' sake! We're the Labour Party. We believe in people being paid a decent wage for a fair day's work. That's what we stand for. That's why I'm a member of the Labour Party. That's why I am a Labour MP. Because I fundamentally believe that if an employer can afford to pay somebody the same for doing the same day's work, they should do that. And an employer who's paying a premium to a labour hire company, literally for years, can actually afford to take that person on permanently and pay them the proper wages and conditions. Laura McClure: They usually do, when they're good. RACHEL BOYACK: The funny thing is, I've talked to so many of them and actually done this as a job for years. They don't. They actually don't. This law needs to change. Congratulations to Helen White, and I'd encourage Mark Patterson to maybe re-think New Zealand First's position, because I think you've made the wrong call on this one, mate, and I know we can get you there tonight. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill this evening. Whenever we talk about employment law in this House—anything to do with workers, with businesses, with employment relationships—the Opposition couches it as 'We're for the worker, and everyone else isn't.' They couch it as 'A fair day's work for a fair day's pay.', which we agree with. The difference is we don't think we know exactly what that amount of money is for every employee in the country. We don't believe we should be getting in the middle of the employment relationship and telling the employee, 'Hey, this is what you should negotiate with your boss.' Nor do we think we should be getting in there and telling the employer, 'This is the way you've got to run your business.' Surprisingly enough, you can choose not to take a side in the debate. You can choose to be for New Zealand. You can choose to take views on what's right in terms of employment law. You can choose to determine what's right in an employment relationship in the context of what is right for a place we call home, for a place we call New Zealand. We believe that people have the right to make choices themselves, that businesses have the right to negotiate, and, ultimately, we want them doing this to the benefit of this country. We want productivity and we want growth in New Zealand, and this bill counters that. This bill goes against that. This bill adds red tape. You hear the Labour Party want to say, 'Hey, we don't know what that red tape is.' Well, all of a sudden, every small business in New Zealand that is providing some form of labour to other employers for a temporary basis has to go, 'Hold on a minute. What's your relationship with your employer? What's your relationship with your employee? Do we now have to pay our staff more because you've got some different relationship with your employees?' I'd be interested to know: if the Labour Party thought that those employees were earning more than the employees at the controlling employer's workplace, would it go the other way? Or does Labour have a one-way view on the cost of employment and a one-way view on productivity— downwards, of course—in this country? Earlier in this discussion, Labour couched this as being about putting food on the table. Do you know what? I'm getting a bit sick of the Opposition talking about their interest in the average New Zealander, when they voted against things that literally put money on the table of those employees in this House last year. Tax cuts, tax cuts and tax relief, for the average New Zealander who would have then been helped by, supposedly, in their opinion, this bill. They could have just avoided the complication that this bill would bring to this House and simply voted for tax relief and put more money in the pockets of the average worker. But no, they chose not to do that because they think that they know best. They think they know best for the employee. They think they can get their head into the game of every employment relationship in this country and make it not only more complicated but make the decision for business, make the decision for employees. On this side of the House we have a different view. We have a view that we need to create employment relationships in this country that can be negotiated between employers and employees and can help us grow the average wage, the average salary, the productivity of this nation. There is a role that flexibility plays for employees and for employers. There is a need for employment relationships that aren't fixed, that allow what they are calling controlling employers to have employees come for a season, for a short period of time; maybe sometimes that's for a long period of time—I don't know what the business decision or the employment relationship decision is behind that particular example, because I'm not trying to get in the heads of every employer in the country and tell them how they need to run their business. And I'm not trying to get in the heads of every employee in this country who chooses to work for one of these businesses—and it is a choice. It is a choice that they make, and therefore we do not commend this bill to the House. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you for the contributions that everybody has made tonight. I remember an employer coming to talk to me in my capacity as an employment lawyer, and they wanted to know what they needed to pay workers in New Zealand who they were employing for a short time. They, first of all, asked what they had to pay for their casual workforce. I told them 'Well, actually, there's the minimum wage, but you don't have to pay them anything extra.' They were shocked because, in Australia, they pay them 20 percent more and they have an award so people get paid on top of the award and then they get a weighting for being a casual. Then, they asked me what they would have to pay them for things like holidays. There was so little in the pot for workers in this country, I was ashamed and they were shocked—they were completely shocked at how little they had to pay our workers. I tried to tell a story from the 1980s through to now in New Zealand about what has happened to wage growth in this country. The only part of that that the current Government were interested in was a bit that didn't actually land on their watch. That was the only part they wanted to know about. That seems to me a little bit like arrogance, doesn't it? We are supposed to learn from history. We are supposed to learn what works and what doesn't. What did this country in, in a big way, was the Employment Contracts Act because it failed to recognise the reality of life, and, actually, it damaged New Zealand and New Zealand workers to such an extent that we are still mopping up—we are still mopping up. This was supposed to be a little bit of that mop up, because what it said was that workers doing the same work who were being hired by labour hire companies could actually opt to go on the same terms and conditions. We were told that it was complicated and it was red tape. Well, I'm sorry, how silly are people? That's not red tape. We have employment in this country, and it's pretty simple: you calculate the amount that you pay the hire company based on the terms and conditions you pay your own workforce. That isn't that hard. Our employers are pretty much smart enough to do that. That way, people who are doing that work can pay their bills. They can pay and, actually, the taxpayer doesn't have to top them up. That is actually what's really happening. There is this myth that somehow the National Party are the people who understand economics. This shows the problem with the myth—it shows the problem—because it's false economy if you underpay workers, if they never get a share of the wealth of the country, and it all goes offshore and it all goes to the 1 percent, then we end up with a mess of a country. We end up with crime. We end up with mental health issues. We end up with violence. We end up with all of those things because it is a very stressful place to live. It might not happen on somebody's farm that they inherited from their parents in the North—it might not happen there—and it might not even happen for their kids, but it's happening to our kids in this country. It's happening because they cannot pay their bills. So this was actually an attempt to do that tonight, just a little nudge that people are paid the same amount. It's not that hard. When I was once involved as a lawyer out at the steel mill, they had something called an equalisation clause. It worked in a very similar way. It said, 'If you come on site and you're a contractor, you should be paid the same amount as the people who are there.' Guess what! Actually, the world didn't cave in. We still made steel. People just got paid a decent amount. People retired better. We need to start being smart in this House and stop this absolute garbage, that fills the head, of an ideology that just cannot see past the word 'union', because that's what's going on. Thank you for listening to me. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Motion not agreed to.
