National Party Leader John Key will visit Kaiapoi on Monday 22^nd September. Together, with Local MP Kate Wilkinson and National Party Spokesman for Agriculture, David Carter, he will visit XCELL Breeding Services Ltd in Kaiapoi and drop in on local businesses on Williams Street, before opening Ilam MP Gerry Brownlee’s new Electorate Office in Bryndwr at 11.30am.

“I am delighted that John is able to visit Waimakariri on his flying visit south. We are an innovative little region and I’m pleased to be able to introduce John to the team at XCELL – world leaders in animal reproductive techniques.  

“The presence of National Party MP’s in Waimakariri over recent months has been strong and very well received. Having the Leader of the National Party visit, so close to the election is the icing on the cake.”

Posted by staff in News at 09:50

“So does National.  These unions are deliberately seeking to misrepresent National’s policy and we expected that.  

“National has a carefully considered position on the 90-day probation period.”

National’s policy says that during the trial period, either party may terminate the employment relationship for performance, without a personal grievance claim being brought.

“Personal grievance provisions would still apply for matters not related to performance.  Good-faith provisions will apply, as will rights to sick leave, holidays, and health and safety provisions.  Rules of natural justice and human rights legislation will be enforced and mediation will be available in disputes.

“New Zealand is almost the only country in the OECD that does not have a probationary period for new employees who employers might consider risky at first glance.

“This is an effort by National to give opportunities to people who might not otherwise be given a chance to get on the employment ladder.  The EPMU employs staff on a six month probationary period, so clearly that union thinks these are useful.”

Ms Wilkinson says the pamphlet also makes misleading claims about restricting workers’ rights to onsite representation, and that workers would be under pressure to sacrifice one week of their holidays.

“The claim about representation is quite untrue, and on holidays, National has made it clear that any proposal to exchange a week's holiday for cash has to be at the employee's request.”

Ms Wilkinson says instead of running a relentlessly negative campaign based on the arguments of yesterday, the union movement should be focused on what  New Zealand needs for tomorrow.

“That’s a growing economy, increased after-tax wages, higher standards in education, safety in our communities, and an infrastructure programme that will clear some of the gridlock in our economy.”

Posted by staff in News at 10:13

National Party Industrial relations spokeswoman Kate Wilkinson says the Labour-affiliated EPMU must be embarrassed by news that it supports probationary periods for new employees but attacks them for small business.

“The next Labour Party president, Andrew Little, has sought to defend his union’s embarrassing double standard by again attempting to misrepresent National’s carefully considered 90-day probationary employment period.”

Mr Little’s main claim is that he opposes a ‘no rights’ policy.

“Well, so do we.  Mr Little should read National’s policy.  We are moving to protect workers who agree to a 90-Day probation period from bad faith practices. The policy will be restricted to businesses with fewer than 20 staff.”

National’s policy says that during the trial period, either party may terminate the employment relationship for performance, without a personal grievance claim being brought.

“But personal grievance provisions would still apply for matters not related to performance.  Good-faith provisions will apply, as will rights to sick leave, holidays, and health and safety provisions.  Rules of natural justice and human rights legislation will be enforced and mediation will be available in disputes.

“New Zealand is almost the only country in the OECD that does not have a probationary period for new employees, which employers might consider risky at first glance.

“This is an effort by National to give opportunities to people who might not otherwise be given a chance to get on the employment ladder.  Clearly the EPMU thinks probationary periods are useful, otherwise they wouldn’t be using them.”

Posted by staff in News at 10:09

National Party Industrial Relations spokeswoman Kate Wilkinson is welcoming the EPMU’s decision to embrace probationary periods for new employees.

“The union, which is an affiliate of the Labour Party, has campaigned strongly against any plans for a probationary employment period, despite the fact that almost all OECD countries have one.

“The EPMU says small businesses of less than 20 staff should not be allowed 90-day probationary periods, even though the union itself hires staff on a six-month probation.”

Ms Wilkinson says the details of the probationary period were contained in documents released yesterday, relating to the row over the sacking of an Act Party candidate.

“I’m not going to get into the rights and wrongs of that particular case, but it is very interesting indeed that the EPMU privately supports probationary periods for itself, but not for anyone else.”

Ms Wilkinson says National’s plan for a 90-day probation period could be invoked only by agreement, and would include good faith bargaining requirements which expressly prohibit rolling 90-day contracts.

“National wants to give small businesses the opportunity to take a chance on workers who they might consider risky at first glance.  After the EPMU’s endorsement of probationary periods, we look forward to their support on National’s carefully considered policy.”

Posted by staff in News at 10:01

I rise to speak on the third reading of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill, which we probably should be calling the “Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding and Sneaky KiwiSaver) Amendment Bill”. However, we are voting, of course, in favour of the third reading of this bill, despite the fact that we vehemently opposed the Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the KiwiSaver provisions.
The bill should have been relatively uncontroversial. Of course National believes that employees should be given meal breaks and tea breaks, and by all accounts common sense prevails and this actually does happen. Employers want to retain good employees; they will do what they can to do so, and they will work in with employees to make sure the workplace is a happy environment. Rest breaks and meal breaks are not there just for health and safety issues, of course; they are also there for the socialising impact between employees so that they can get to know each other and it can be a happy and productive workplace, and we certainly support that.

Obviously, the bill was drafted with two—well, it is now three—relatively separate and discrete issues. Firstly, one was to deal with meal breaks and rest breaks, which most people did think was already covered in the law; it was certainly arguable that it is already covered in the health and safety legislation. But this bill, to a certain extent, codifies what happens with rest breaks and meal breaks, and for that reason it should be relatively uncontroversial. Secondly, the bill deals with the requirement for the employer to provide breastfeeding breaks and facilities. We did ask at the time why those two matters, which are relatively discreet and separate, were included in the one bill. The answer that was given to us was that it was to make it politically difficult for National. I have to say that National has not found it politically difficult to debate in favour of giving meal breaks and tea breaks to employees, because we believe in fairness in the workplace. We believe in balancing what is fair to employees with what is fair to employers. [Interruption] We have said that all along, I say to Mr Fairbrother, even though the member may not have heard it.

What we did oppose, though, is Supplementary Order Paper 229, which shows the unfairness of this Labour Government, the arrogance of this Labour Government, and, actually, its bad faith. The Employment Relations Act is based on good faith, and this is one of the most classic examples of this Government exhibiting bad faith. The relevance of KiwiSaver to breaks and infant feeding still eludes most common people. That was dealt with in the House yesterday—apparently by motion—surreptitiously and sneakily. The amendment has not been subject to proper scrutiny: it has not been subject to consultation, and it has not been subject to proper scrutiny of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The public have not been permitted to submit on it, and to give their views. It has been snuck through, under urgency, at the eleventh hour, and I have to say that I think that is a sad, sad day for democracy in this country. I think it is a disgrace, and an abuse of process.

Already this Parliament has been criticised by a New York University professor for the recklessness of its lawmaking and for the irresponsible lawmaking that can happen, and this is an example of that. I find it very disappointing that this Government is so arrogant and so ignorant of the process of legislation, and just overrides common sense, common decency— we did not vote for the amendment—in fast-tracking legislation, which the professor himself described as disgraceful by world standards. This is reckless legislative process. It is a typical example of bills being rushed through under urgency in a deserted Chamber. Members are subservient to the executive, there are constant closure motions, there is no quorum, and there is no second Chamber, which is why we do have a robust select committee process. But this Government just ignores that. There were no checks and balances on Supplementary Order Paper 229 for KiwiSaver. I have to say that the duty of care was not being properly exercised when this was snuck through.

This undermines the effectiveness of the select committee process. It actually undermines the confidence that New Zealanders can have in the democracy of our country. I think that that democracy, unfortunately, is not as robust and not as stable as one would expect. It is tenuous, and when we have a Government like we have, after 9 long years one realises just how tenuous democracy really is. There is no concern, whatsoever, for common decency, for democracy. It is just power at all costs: “We want to get in; we will do what we have to to stay in power, not what is best for New Zealanders.”
What is best for New Zealanders is to have a proper consultation process. What is best for businesses is that they should be consulted on these far-reaching KiwiSaver amendments. What is best for New Zealanders is that the very people that this Labour Government pretend to be supporting, the lower-paid and elderly workers—those workers who cannot afford to enter into the KiwiSaver scheme—are those workers who have not been consulted. Has the impact of the KiwiSaver legislation been referred to them? No, it has not. On the day that this House went into urgency a sneaky amendment was introduced, bearing no relevance whatsoever to a meal breaks bill, a tea breaks bill, and a breastfeeding facilities bill—bearing no relevance whatsoever—with no consultation and no submission to a select committee, and I think it is atrocious and an outrage that it has been done in this manner.

We did oppose the KiwiSaver amendment, because we do not think it is fair. We think that providing meal breaks and tea breaks is more than fair. We think that providing breastfeeding facilities and breaks is more than fair when reasonable and practicable, but the KiwiSaver Supplementary Order Paper 229 is not fair. Why should it—and this has not been answered by the Minister—be unlawful to offer employees different salary packages because they are or are not members of KiwiSaver? Why should one employee be treated less favourably than another because that employee has made a different private savings decision? This amendment is a case of bad faith.

It is really interesting that the Government specifically allowed for employers to include employer KiwiSaver contributions as part of that total remuneration package when it passed the KiwiSaver Act. Now this Government has flip-flopped, done a U-turn, and has reversed that decision. At the time, the Minister of Finance said the Government expected that the phase-in of compulsory matching employer contributions would be taken into account in wage and salary bargaining. The Government was quite comfortable that there would be trade-offs between pay rises and KiwiSaver contributions. What has happened since then? What has happened is that the Minister has decided that it is unlawful for employers to deduct the employer contributions from employees without first giving them a pay rise of at least that amount. But that is already unlawful under existing KiwiSaver legislation. That did not need to be sneaked through as a Supplementary Order Paper to the meal breaks and rest breaks legislation.

The KiwiSaver Act provisions made it quite clear that after 13 December 2007 the question of whether compulsory employer contributions are in addition to current remuneration or can be offset in part against pay rises is subject to mutual agreement between employers and employees. That provision was specifically inserted by Government members on the select committee, and this Government has now reversed its stance. Good faith is a requirement of the Employment Relations Act provisions. It seems that good faith is not a requirement of the Labour Government.

Posted by staff in Speech at 09:53