Q+A: Corin Dann Interviews Simon Bridges
Sunday 9 June, 2013
Labour Minister
suggests new workplace law will prevent protracted disputes
like the one that crippled the Ports of Auckland
Labour Minister Simon Bridges said the
Employment Relations Amendment Bill before Parliament is
‘moderate, centre right law’.
Changes will
allow employers to walk away from collective bargaining if
it’s not working.
“Frankly, at the Ports of
Auckland where you have medieval war of attrition basically
where the last person standing gets to right the rules. It
goes on forever,” he told TVNZ’s Q+A programme today.
Mr Bridges conceded that the amendments are
‘fairer for employers”. But that was a shift back from
the ‘significant move to the left’ of the last Labour
administration’s Employment Relations Act. ‘We are
simply moderating that,” he said.
“If we
have more fair, more flexible law, it creates more
efficiency and productivity and flows through to profits and
actually is the best, most sustainable way of getting higher
wages for workers. “
Mr Bridges was confident the
Government would have the numbers to pass the bill, despite
Peter Dunne’s resignation on Friday.
“This is
MMP politics. We work with what we’ve got,” he said.
Former National Party President Michelle Boag says
every time this government makes changes to labour laws,
“The unions cry it’s going to be the end of the world
and I think they’ve just got to the point where they’re
crying wolf. I don’t think the world is going to end with
these changes either. I think it’s just part of the
gradual development of our labour market and our labour
market is becoming much more flexible.”
Former
Labour Party President Mike Williams says the changes are
“part of a pattern of relentless downward pressure on
wages by this government, and it’ll end in
tears”.
Williams says this is a bosses’
government, “The core of Simon Bridges’ argument, and
I’m normally quite impressed with him, is nonsense –
that by reducing wages, you will ultimately increase
wages.”
Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV
ONE and one hour later on TV ONE plus 1.
Repeated Sunday evening at 11:30pm. Streamed live at
www.tvnz.co.nz
Thanks to the support from NZ On
Air.
Q+A is on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/NZQandA#!/NZQandA
and on Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/NZQandA
Q
+ A
CORIN DANN INTERVIEWS SIMON
BRIDGES
CORIN
Well, Minister, thank you very much for joining
us. And I don’t want to dwell on the Peter Dunne issue,
but it’s relevant in this case in that this bill passed
its first reading in Parliament largely thanks to the
support of United Future. You may not have that support in
future.
SIMON BRIDGES – Labour
Minister
Well, we’ll
see. I mean, I’m confident we’ll pass the bill. In
one shape or form, we’ll have United Future and ACT or, I
think as the panel was saying, a National MP, so I think
we’ve got the numbers. I think it’s good
law.
CORIN But
if you had to have a by-election, for example, there could
be quite a big delay.
SIMON
Well, look, I think that’s
very speculative. Let’s see what Peter Dunne does. I
mean, ultimately, those are questions, I think, for him, but
today we have the numbers. We passed it at first
reading. I think it’s good law, and I think we’ll
continue to pass
it.
CORIN It
must be disappointing, though, because it does highlight
that you don’t have a big majority.
SIMON
Well, you know, look, I think we
have a majority, but this is MMP politics. We work with
what we’ve got. National’s the biggest in the
Parliament, the most popular party in Parliament by a long
way and, you know, this example of, I think, putting forward
moderate, centre-right law.
CORIN But that’s
the issue. The unions don’t believe this is moderate or
centre-right. They see it as far more divisive than that,
so wouldn’t it be helpful for you to have a bigger
majority to pass legislation which the unions feel is
radical?
SIMON Oh, of course
a bigger majority is always better, but in the end, law is
law, and passing law still becomes good law. I think
we’ve had the numbers and will continue to have the
numbers. I think the reality is when it gets thrashed out
at select committee, as it ultimately will, I’ll be proven
right – this is moderate, centre-right government law.
It’s not something like the official — that the unions
said.
CORIN
Where is the need for this? Where is the need to
tamper with our employment law? It’s working at the
moment, isn’t it?
SIMON
Well, it’s working in a way.
I think I could go through all of the discrete changes and
point out to you parts of it that are unworkable, parts of
it that are sloppy, parts that are creating real problems.
But ultimately, if we have more fair, more flexible law, it
creates more efficiency and productivity that flows through
to profits and actually is the best, most sustainable way of
getting higher wages for workers.
CORIN How
will this help, though, the gap between the rich and poor in
this country?
SIMON
Well, I think over time, actually, it will.
Primarily, it’s about fairness and flexibility, and what I
mean by that is fairness is a two-way
street.
CORIN But how will
it reduce that
gap?
SIMON Well,
because, ultimately, with the series of discrete law changes
we’re making— I’m not saying it’s going to save the
world, but the changes that we are making, fundamentally—
I could dress it up in economic language,
but fundamentally mean that employers
and employees are spending more time on ICT if they’re an
ICT business, on getting containers into ships if they’re
a port, rather than mucking round on protracted
issues.
CORIN
So the businesses are going to be more profitable;
they’re going to make more money. What is to guarantee
that that money is then going to be passed on to the
workers? Because they’re losing their ability to
negotiate those pay rise, because this, according to the
unions, will reduce their ability to collectively
bargain.
SIMON
I simply don’t accept that. The reality is if
you look at the history of labour law in this country, we
had, I think, a rather purist approach with the Employment
Contracts Act. We then got a significant move to the left
with the Employment Relations Amendment law that Labour
brought in. We are simply moderating that in some ways,
yes, we think are fairer for employers. That’s the facts
of the matter.
CORIN
But they’ll be now able— for example, let’s
take one issue; they will be able to walk away from
bargaining.
SIMON
Because that’s not good for anyone, what
we’ve seen happening, frankly, at the Ports of Auckland,
where you have medieval war of attrition, basically, where
the last person standing gets to write the rules. It goes
on forever. We’re recognising what Labour actually
recognised when they brought that law in originally, which
is that sometimes parties with the utmost good faith just
can’t agree. And we say, ‘Look, get back to doing your
business rather these protracted
disputes.’
CORIN But that’s
one case. That’s one case, but if we look at the overall
workplace stoppages in this country, they’ve declined. I
think there was 12 last year. Strikes aren’t an issue in
this
country.
SIMON But,
fundamentally, that’s actually my point as well.
That’s why we’re not throwing the baby out with the bath
water.
CORIN So was
it because of the Auckland Port issue that you’ve done
it?
SIMON Well,
no. I mean, we’re not throwing the baby out with the
bath water. We’re not going back to some purist
contracts model with no place for the unions. We’re
keeping good faith as fundamental. We’re keeping freedom
of association. These are moderate changes that in a
series of areas make, I think, positive
reform.
CORIN
I’ll come back to the issue around, I guess, the
lowest-paid workers, because they’re always the most
vulnerable. And these changes always end up looking good
and making sense, but for the vulnerable workers who might
not be able to defend themselves or stand up for themselves,
it weakens their position, and surely they’re the ones
that should be being looked after?
SIMON
We see that, for example, in 6A
– that’s a reform there in relation to cleaners and so
on – where the law had a good purpose, which is to protect
vulnerable workers and give them continuity. Well, again,
despite many businesses saying we should, we’re not
throwing that law out. But there are a series of areas
where it’s just unworkable, where businesses don’t know
whose holiday pay they’re transferring over and the
like. So that is pragmatic reform that we think works and
does mean, actually, ultimately businesses can spend more
time looking after their workers and doing good business,
yes, making more profit, because, I don’t know about you,
but in my life, whenever I’ve earned more, it’s because
my business has been doing better.
CORIN Yeah, but
those people on the bottom are earning minimal wages –
$13.50 an hour. A lot of them are struggling. How on
earth is that going to help
them?
SIMON Well, I’ll
come back to it. Look, I think, ultimately, this is
moderate, centre-right law. It is about fairness and
flexibility, and when I talk about fairness, there are a
number of areas where the unions have had a lot of fairness
and, actually, we want to level up the playing field because
we do think the employers also have some rights to
proportionate responses. Where there’s a strike, for
example, at the moment, the employer’s options are really
suspension or lockout. Well, why shouldn’t they if
it’s a partial strike be able to say, ‘No, we are going
to stop pay for half a day’? That’s more proportionate
than having to go to some nuclear options, if you like.
CORIN And tea
breaks and meal breaks has been one issue that’s sort of
cropped up and people have talked about. So, effectively,
an employer can now say to a worker, ‘Because of the
nature of your work, we don’t want you leaving your
workplace, your desk or whatever. I’m going to take away
your right for a tea break or a 10-minute, you know,
cigarette break.’ That seems pretty
draconian.
SIMON
Well, that’s not quite right. Now, if you
believe the unions, that’s what they’re saying.
They’re saying no one’s going to have a meal or tea
break any more. Simply nonsense. Actually, the vast
majority of workers, I think, won’t notice any
difference.
CORIN
I accept your point – the unions are probably
seeing it from an extreme point of view. But, technically,
an employer can do that if they think they’ve got a
reasonable case for it.
SIMON
Well, no, I doubt they could,
actually. I think the courts would interpret it in
different way, because fundamentally the law says they have
to act reasonably, it has to be necessary, and where there
are changes, there needs to be compensatory measures. But,
you know, there have been a number of examples where
someone’s on sole guard in a sole position where there
does need to be some flexibility over what was a reasonably
rigid, prescriptive model, and that’s what we’re
changing. But I don’t think we’re going to see for the
vast majority of people any feeling of change in that
specific area.
CORIN
Flexibility’s the big word here. You’re sort
of saying that flexibility is required here to increase
profitability, to boost the economy, to grow it for
everyone, and that will help people hire more staff. I
understand that argument, but, really, isn’t it about
demand? That’s what’s going to drive jobs in this
economy – demand for goods and services. Flexibility –
these are minor things.
SIMON Oh, sure, I
agree with that. I actually don’t— I would
not—
CORIN
So why do we need these
changes?
SIMON
I would not overstate the significance of this law,
but is it a good thing? Yes, it is. Does it make a
series of discrete changes that will improve efficiency,
productivity and, therefore, profitability so that workers
can get more, yes I
do?
CORIN And
it’s not just some ideological battleground issue that the
business lobby groups have been in your ear about?
SIMON No.
Look, if it was that, I can tell you it would be a much
stronger, different bill than this
one.
CORIN So you’ve
pushed them back a bit, you’re
saying?
SIMON Oh, look,
businesses will always want changes in this area. As I
say, look at the history of this, and I think that gives the
lie to the union position. Employment Contracts Act,
Employment Relations – this really is a series of minor
amendments to that to improve it, to, I think, yes, even up
the balance somewhat for employers, because I think we did
go too far in the favour of unions. But I think it’s
nevertheless moderate, pragmatic law
change.
CORIN
Simon Bridges, Labour Minister, thank you very much
for your time.
SIMON
Thank
you.
ENDS