PARLIAMENTARY REPORT
NEW ZEALAND
THIRD READING: NEW ZEALAND
Employment Relations Amendment Bill The Employment Relations Amendment Bill changes the requirement in the Employment Relations Act for employers and unions to conclude a collective agreement unless there is good reason not to. It also changes existing entitlement rules to encourage employers and employees to negotiate rest and meal breaks. Hon. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, MP, (National) introducing the third reading on 30 October 2014 on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, said: “At its core, this Bill is about ensuring employers have the confidence to compete and expand while maintaining key protections for employees.” Opposing the Bill, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway,
MP, (Labour) said that it “works to undermine collective bargaining … to undermine unions’ efforts for industry standards. … It says that employers can just walk away from collective bargaining.” However, Mr Jonathan Young, MP, (National) said: “The Bill changes the duty of good faith, so that it no longer requires parties to conclude a collective agreement—but only under certain conditions.” Ms Marama Fox, MP, (Co-leader–Māori Party) said: “Although we welcome the new measure that requires … good faith, it is the fact that the principle of collective bargaining is threatened that we are particularly concerned about.”
In response the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Hon. Michael Woodhouse, MP, (National) said: “The Employment Relations Authority has to be satisfied that good faith has been undertaken before a decision to conclude the bargaining process is made, and that, of course, for 60 days at least, prevents the right to strike. It also prevents the right of an employer to lock workers out. It goes both ways.” Also opposing the Bill, Mr Clayton Mitchell,
MP, (New Zealand First) said: “National is trying to reassure us that all workers will remain entitled to reasonable rest and meal breaks … We remain unconvinced of that. Supposed safeguards … ignore the reality that in many workplaces those affected are unaware of, or unable to assert, their rights”. Mr Woodhouse
50| The Parliamentarian | 2015: Issue One
countered: “For generations, similar types of practical accommodations were able to be made where the circumstances required them.” The Bill passed its third reading by 62 votes
to 58.
Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill The Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill had its third reading on 4 December 2014. The Bill amends section 240 of the Crimes Act 1961 to make explicit the criminal nature of match fixing.
The Minister in charge of the Bill, Dr the Hon. Jonathan Coleman, MP, (National) referred to “the important place that sport holds in the hearts of all New Zealanders”, informing the House that “the economic, social, health, and personal benefits of sport and recreation to New Zealand have been estimated at $12.2 million per annum.” Dr Coleman also explained that “the Bill is part of a package of initiatives designed to address match-fixing risks.” Speaking in support of the Bill, Labour member Ms Carmel Sepuloni added that “match fixing would significantly damage the integrity, value, and growth of New Zealand sport.” Both the government and the opposition stressed the need for the legislation to pass before the summer adjournment. “There are time constraints because on 14 February next year the Cricket World Cup will start in Christchurch,” Labour member Mr Kris Faafoi explained at the second reading, on 27 November 2014.
The passage of the legislation did, however, draw some criticism from opposition members. Hon. Trevor Mallard, MP, (Labour) stated that although his party supported the Bill, the legislation “does not go as far as it should. It is badly inconsistent with the various sporting codes.” Also, the wider issue of problem gambling was raised by the Green Party, with Greens member Mr Kevin Hague claiming the Bill “does not get to the heart of the problem” and Ms Denise Roche, MP, (Greens) stating that “sports betting is the latest gateway drug.” The Bill was passed unanimously.
The Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill The Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill was passed unanimously at the conclusion of its third reading on 4 November 2014. The Bill provides for emergency safeguard measures, including temporary duties, to be applied at New Zealand’s border, in addition to existing trade remedies, against certain imports that may injure New Zealand industries.
The then Minister of Commerce Hon. Craig Foss, MP, (National) had introduced the third reading on 15 April 2014, prior to the dissolution of Parliament ahead of the general election, saying that the Bill “aims to provide for a more efficient process for taking safeguard action … to allow time for structural adjustment by New Zealand manufacturers to sudden increases in competition from imported goods.” Mr Foss also said that the Bill “provides a new safeguards regime that is consistent with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules” and described the legislation as “an important safety mechanism” at a time when New Zealand’s remaining tariffs are being further reduced by free-trade agreements.
When the debate resumed on 4 November, Greens member Mr Steffan Browning described the legislation as saying: “Yes, we will give you a little bit of a break, a little bit of an adjustment, but too bad. This stuff is coming in. Get ready, and adjust to it.”
Although speaking in support of the legislation, opposition members commented on the length of time it took the government to move the legislation through the House. Mr David Shearer, MP, (Labour) stated that the Bill “was put forward by the Labour government back in 2008” and that despite its being “a pretty simple piece of legislation” and “agreed upon by just about everybody in this House” it sat on the Order Paper for a long time. Mr Stuart Nash, MP, (Labour) said: “It has taken a long time for New Zealand to recognise its WTO obligations … There has been a National government, there has been a Labour government, and there has been another National government since the time that this was actually ratified in Marrakesh by the WTO in 1994.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80