Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) : I move, That the Employment Relations (Breaks, Infant Feeding and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This is a bill with relatively non-controversial parts to it. Right at the beginning I acknowledge the very good work of my parliamentary colleague Sue Moroney in the early stages of this legislation. I also thank Steve Chadwick for the expertise that she has shown. Those two members from the Waikato and the Bay of Plenty have made an enormous contribution to Parliament, and I thank them for getting into the law something that is very, very reasonable.

There was a fairly small amendment on the question of KiwiSaver that did not take a lot of debating late last night and early this morning. Essentially, the amendment organises the law in the way that people thought it should be organised. In fact many of us thought—other than from the actions of some unreasonable employers—that that was what was occurring under the law anyway.

Craig Foss: Why didn’t you fix it when they submitted?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, basically it was because I did not believe any employer would be so unreasonable as to take KiwiSaver employer contributions from the wages of a worker and at the same time collect the employer subsidies. That is a sad state of affairs, and it is clear that Craig Foss has more experience of working with unethical employers than I have. He could well be one himself. That is something that the National Party, to its shame, stood up for. National members stood up for employers who were taking the employer contribution out of the wages of their employees. That was absolutely wrong, and I think it is sad.

But I think it is fair to say that National members did not stand up for it for very long. They did not oppose the motion to incorporate the amendment regarding KiwiSaver in the bill, which is something that I was slightly surprised about, and they voted for it at each stage. They voted for Parts 1 and 2 of the bill, notwithstanding those changes. They voted for the second reading, and I understand that they are voting for the third reading.

So I am very pleased to say we have a unanimous decision of the Parliament to treat employees properly as to their meal breaks and rest breaks, and to treat breastfeeding mothers, and those mothers who are expressing milk, with much more dignity than has been the case in the past. I think that is very important. Furthermore, we have had the clarification around KiwiSaver, which I understand will be passed unanimously as part of the third reading of the bill, and I want to thank all members of the House for that.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : 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—

Hon Trevor Mallard: The member voted for it.

KATE WILKINSON: —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.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : People say that timing is everything. I think it is very appropriate that at roughly 8 minutes past 10, when a lot of workplaces throughout this land are in the middle of having morning tea, we are here in the third reading of the very bill that brings that provision into law and makes it compulsory for workplaces to recognise that workers have the legal right to—not just the right to negotiate—decent breaks at work. As a member of Parliament who was involved in drafting the parts of this bill that refer to the right for workers to have those decent breaks at work, I feel very pleased to be able to stand up here, as most of the nation is having its morning tea break, to vote in favour of the third reading of this bill.

I shall talk a little bit about the history of why, as a new member of Parliament, I chose to make this an issue that I wanted to put before this Parliament. It was because of my experiences, as I campaigned in the last election, when this issue was brought to my attention. I remember one particular instance very clearly. A group of young men who were working in a service station in the Waikato came to see me because their staffing arrangements had changed. Their service station had cut the number of staff it was employing. We all know the story that when we pull into service stations these days we do not have someone come out to fill up our car for us; we prepay and we do it all ourselves. The cutting back of staffing numbers at that service station meant that those workers were not getting a lunch break. They were not getting a lunch break at all. They were working 12-hour shifts, and because there was a requirement to have one person available for forecourt duties at any given time, the service station did not have the staff to allow any of them to go off to have a lunch break. Those young men said to me: “This can’t be right. Surely there’s a law against this.” When I looked into it, sadly I found that there was no law that safeguarded them. That was the very beginning of my thinking very seriously about this issue.

As I kept thinking about this issue I found that those young men are not alone in their predicament; there are a range of workers for whom tea breaks, rest periods, and meal breaks are not the norm in their working day. They are invariably young people, they are invariably workers in small workplaces, and they are invariably the most vulnerable in our workforce who have been suffering this fate. But as a result of this bill being passed, they will suffer no longer.

Another situation that came before our select committee demonstrates the need—yes, the need—for this bill. I know that National Party members have said they do not think the bill is necessary, but we had many stories coming before our select committee that demonstrated that it was. One example was from a young worker in Hamilton East, where I come from. He had been working for Subway, and told us about being sacked for daring to take a meal break of half an hour during a 12-hour shift. He was sacked for that. I observed that National Party members at the time—

Kate Wilkinson: He deserted the workplace!

SUE MORONEY: —and I notice Kate Wilkinson is saying something quite different now—said to this young man that that was illegal and that he could take a personal grievance. Yes, under the current laws he can take a personal grievance and he is, in fact, taking a personal grievance. But the National Party is proposing a 90-day probationary period bill that it wants to bring in if it is the Government. That policy would completely take away this young man’s right to take a personal grievance over that issue, because this young man was in the first 90 days of his employment with Subway. There were some very nice sentiments from National Party members opposite but absolutely no ability to understand that their policies would have taken away that young man’s right to contest that unfair dismissal over the right just to have a reasonable lunch break while at work.

The next situation I want to talk about is with regard to the KiwiSaver aspects brought into this bill. I fully endorse the Government acting at the earliest opportunity to stop that unfairness in the workplace, because there is an unfairness in the workplace. What has been happening is that some employers—and I would call them mean-spirited employers—have taken away and reduced workers’ take-home pay because they dare to be some of those workers who look to the future and save for their retirement. They have been discriminating against workers because they dare to save for their retirement—and that is wrong. This Government was not going to stand by for another minute longer and let that unfairness continue to happen in our workplaces in this country.

I feel confident that fair-minded New Zealanders resile from this practice, because I have had pay clerks come to see me because they do not want to implement their employers’ mean-spirited views on this. The people coming to see me are not those who are disadvantaged by it, but the pay clerks who are saying they are being told to do that, and they do not want to do it because it is unfair and is just not right. If that is the view of a pay clerk, who is not the person who is going to be disadvantaged at all, then I feel confident that fair-minded New Zealanders will see the basic unfairness.

Members should have seen the look on the pay clerk’s face when I told her that the situation was even worse than she expected. When I informed her that her employer was getting a $20 a week tax credit for every single employee involved in the KiwiSaver scheme and that that was more than the 1 percent the employer was knocking off employees’ wages, then she could see straight away that the employer was double-dipping—taking taxpayer money for having employees involved in KiwiSaver and then taking money off those workers to pay for the employer contribution that was already being paid for by the taxpayer. That was completely unfair.

The National Party cannot see that, at all. It voted against the Supplementary Order Paper that said that that was wrong and would not be tolerated in this country—because the National Party does not care. The National Party thinks that that sort of unfairness at work, and that sort of double-dipping into taxpayers’ and workers’ pockets at the same time, is fine. It has no problem with it—“Let’s not fix it up; let’s just keep it going.” Well, that will not happen under a Labour-led Government. We will not stand by for another minute longer and let that unfairness continue in the workplace.

I will not go into great details about my own personal experiences of infant feeding. Suffice it to say that expressing milk in a toilet cubicle is not a very dignified thing to be doing in one’s workplace, but that is certainly the experience I have had in the past as a young mother in the workplace. Again, I congratulate my colleague the Hon Steve Chadwick, who had the foresight to ensure that this bill also included the right to have some dignity in infant feeding in the workplace, and I think that is a very appropriate thing to do.

In closing I also thank the Minister and the officials for their work on this bill. It is a very important bill, it will make a difference to a significant number of New Zealanders, and it will ensure fairness in our workplaces. Thank you.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : I will speak on three issues in relation to the third reading of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. The first issue is the general principles of the bill, which the previous Government speaker, Sue Moroney, spoke about. Then I will speak specifically about KiwiSaver issues. Thirdly, I will speak about process and procedure—the way legislative issues are dealt with.

On the first issue, let me make it completely clear to listeners, to governing party members, and to other parties that National supports this bill. The reasons we support this bill are the reasons that were given by Sue Moroney. We believe that people—women, in particular—must have dignity in the workplace in respect of breastfeeding, and so forth. That is why we support the bill. We had an extensive discussion in our caucus, and we understood that fairness requires that employees have proper opportunities for meal breaks and that mothers breastfeeding must have dignity in appropriate circumstances. So National is supporting the bill and I assure listeners that the reasons we are doing so are ones of fairness. The reason this bill is being passed into law today is that there is a consensus in Parliament. I know that the Government would like us to be voting against the bill. That would suit its agenda, and I could tell that from Sue Moroney’s speech. I could tell that she was kind of disappointed that National is supporting this bill. She really wanted to be able to go out into Hamilton East and say that David Bennett does not understand the circumstances of workers needing tea breaks and that he does not understand the circumstances of mothers breastfeeding. Well, she will not have that opportunity.

Perhaps in the past the National Party may not have supported this bill. I can think of a National Party that may not have supported the bill, but the truth is that our party has shifted to some extent on some of these issues. That is why we have taken a much more moderate stand around employment relations generally, and I congratulate my colleague Kate Wilkinson in respect of that. We understand that New Zealanders expect fairness in the workplace and that the law must reflect that, as well. That is why we are not saying there will be wholesale and dramatic changes made to the Employment Relations Act. Clearly, we will make some changes, and they will be moderate and reasonable changes that are the norm in the OECD. The standard operating practice, if you will, across OECD countries is essentially where National is pitching itself, because we are taking a balanced and fair view in relation to employment relations.

Peter Brown: Same old philosophy!

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I know that New Zealand First will be interested to know that we are taking a fair and balanced view on that particular issue. That is a particular stake in the ground that I want to put: National has shifted on this issue.

The other two issues I will talk about relate more fundamentally to issues of, firstly, KiwiSaver, and, secondly, process. National has voted against the Supplementary Order Paper in relation to KiwiSaver. We believe that the situation is actually quite different from the way in which the Government expresses it. The way the Government expresses it is to say that it is unfair that someone who is in KiwiSaver potentially might receive less in his or her take-home pay than someone who is not. Actually, if members look at it the other way around they will see that it is also unfair, because the Government is also saying, by that statement, that it is fair that the person who is not receiving KiwiSaver would get less money, in terms of total remuneration purposes. That is the philosophical objection that National has. We say that employers and employees start from a total remuneration perspective, and then from there they will work out how it is delivered. The vast majority of it will be received as a cash payment via salary and wages. Some people might choose to take, for instance, a company car. Others may take other fringe benefits. Others will take superannuation, and all of that needs to be calculated. I certainly appreciate that clearly there is value in cash received right now, as opposed to the deferment in terms of KiwiSaver.

The way we view this is philosophically different from the way the Government sees it. We start from the point of total remuneration. The Government simply does not see that, and that is why it has never really understood the objection of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern), which looked into this particular issue very carefully; it simply refused to understand it. We can understand the point that has been made about the tax credit, and there is some merit in that, but, of course, that gets taken into account in any event in negotiations on total remuneration. That is the proper starting point in the contemporary workforce around how one receives one’s salary—part in cash, part in superannuation, and part, no doubt, in many instances, in other fringe benefits.

The third issue I want to deal with is the process of Supplementary Order Paper 229. It is actually a broader principle, anyway, because in the last 24 hours we have seen a pattern whereby the Government introduces Supplementary Order Papers in a way that does not allow for proper consideration. I could understand a Supplementary Order Paper on this particular bill, for instance, being introduced last week, giving time for a dialogue, time for members of Parliament to talk to the relevant parties affected and so forth, and time for a more considered debate, but to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper on—essentially—a new topic on the day the bill comes before the Committee of the whole House is, I believe, an abuse of the process.

I refer Government members back to a former Labour Prime Minister’s book, Unbridled Power—published some 29 years ago, in fact—in which he spoke of these kinds of issues. The way the New Zealand Parliament was characterised back then was that it was the fastest lawmaker in the West. What are the characteristics of being a fast lawmaker? It is actually about the House being in urgency all the time, or at least on a regular basis, in relation to bills. It is about introducing large Supplementary Order Papers, which is the case in respect of the emissions trading scheme, into the select committee process at a time when they can no longer be properly considered.

In relation to the emissions trading scheme, 700 amendments were introduced at the very point in time that the bill was to be debated. I read many of those amendments yesterday. Some of them were actually complex in their own right. They had to be referred back to both the bill itself and the prior Supplementary Order Paper. Members had to mesh all that together during the debate in the Committee of the whole House. Some of the amendments clearly were just technical. I guess there is no real objection about a minor technical amendment such as, for example, schedule one being described as “schedule 1” as opposed to “schedule one”. Clearly, no one has concerns about that. But other amendments were not of that character at all, particularly around some of the trading issues.

I use that as an example, because just very recently—and it has been recorded in both the major legal publications in New Zealand—Professor Jeremy Waldron of the New York University school of law spoke in New Zealand of the “terribly irresponsible” view of our parliamentary institutions that has “enabled the debasement”—and I want this to be noted specifically—“of deliberation.” Bear in mind that this Parliament does not have a second Chamber. Second Chambers, historically, are for deliberation and scrutiny. A single Chamber such as this—the legislature, as in Australia and other countries—tends to operate more quickly. That is OK when there is a more deliberative process, but in our jurisdiction we do not have that, so it behoves Governments to be a little bit more careful to allow that debate to take place. I have to say to the parties that are here because of our MMP system of representation that MMP has not actually changed that aspect of our parliamentary institution. It has changed other aspects—and I must say from my own perspective that it is generally for the good—but that particular aspect has not changed at all. Anyone who was a member of Parliament in the 1970s or 1980s under first past the post would see today’s legislative processes as being essentially the same.

It seems fundamentally wrong that in 2008 we are still beset with exactly the same set of problems that Sir Geoffrey Palmer referred to 29 years ago in his book Unbridled Power. So many members on the other side of the Chamber pride themselves on their constitutionalism and their care for parliamentary procedure. At least, they say that in theory; in practice, they abuse it. National is putting on the record our dissatisfaction of the way the Supplementary Order Paper for this bill was introduced. We need that on the record, because, frankly, this Parliament, for the benefit of the nation, needs to do better.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I listened to Wayne Mapp’s speech with quite some interest. I was genuinely taken aback—amazed—by his statement that the National Party has changed and now wants to be fair to people in the workforce. I do not doubt that the member himself is genuine, but I could not help asking myself what some of his colleagues at a convention would say to a man with a tape recorder—probably if they did not know he had one. But I welcome the National Party saying it wants to be fair, because, as Wayne Mapp has implied, it has been a long way short of that in the past.

This bill is a very simple bill. I think it will go through the House with total support. In the first instance it encourages employers to provide breastfeeding facilities for women in the workforce where it is reasonable and practicable. What is wrong with that? It is very sensible and very fair.

Hon Mita Ririnui: They don’t like it.

PETER BROWN: I suspect that some of those members do not like it, but they tell us they will vote for it.

We think that that is quite a big step forward for society. This bill goes on to formalise the requirement for employers to provide employees with meal and rest breaks. I have to say that before the bill came up I thought it was mandatory for an employer to provide for meal and rest breaks, and I was quite amazed to find that it is not written into legislation. Obviously, if it is written into employment contracts it gets acted upon. When the bill was before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and we heard, in particular, the young man from Hamilton telling us his story, we had to think that we do need legislation like this to ensure that people do get their meal breaks and rest breaks.

David Bennett likes to throw a spanner in the works. During the Committee he implied that the workers who received longer rest breaks or meal breaks than this legislation provided for could lose those breaks. Is that correct? Have I understood the member correctly?

David Bennett: Yes.

PETER BROWN: The member was on the select committee, was he not?

David Bennett: That’s why they changed it.

PETER BROWN: Well, let me read out new section 69ZG(1), to be inserted by clause 5: “This Part does not prevent an employer providing an employee with enhanced or additional entitlements to rest breaks and meal breaks (whether specified in an employment agreement or otherwise) on a basis agreed with the employee.” That provision was amended by the select committee.

David Bennett: Exactly! That’s what I’m saying.

PETER BROWN: Well, why did the member not make that clear when he addressed this Parliament a few moments ago?

David Bennett: I did. If you check the Hansard you will read it.

PETER BROWN: Well, I might well check the Hansard. That change is clearly written into new section 69ZG.

The final part of the bill that has upset the National Party to some degree amends the KiwiSaver legislation to give further encouragement for people to save. New Zealand First has been a strong advocate of people in this country saving. We were saying that when the party was formed in 1993, and we are still saying it. This is a move in the right direction. Unfortunately, it will capture some genuinely reputable employers, and they will have some difficulty implementing this change over a reasonable time frame and changing from the total remuneration package to this package, whatever it will be called—there is probably a name for it. But the change will present some difficulty for some employers. I know one employer who will move heaven and earth to get this rectified, but it will take a bit of time. I am hopeful that that time will be given.

This part also protects employees from the situation outlined by Sue Moroney. I did not know that that was occurring, and Sue outlined it very, very clearly a few moments ago. That sort of situation obviously creates a need for us to amend the current legislation pretty promptly. That is being done by way of a Supplementary Order Paper that is outside the scope of the main bill and that has been put forward, as National members have said, more or less at the last moment, which perhaps puts a question mark over it. We debated this amendment long and hard in New Zealand First, and we decided that the issue had to be addressed and had to be addressed speedily. So we are supporting this bill totally.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : I was a bit disappointed, Mr Assistant Speaker, that you did not give me the call earlier, but given that you are showing your Scottish heritage we will forgive you today.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is nice of you.

DAVID BENNETT: It is interesting that although the Labour Government is amending the Employment Relations Act with this legislation, it is not amending the title of the bill to include the word “KiwiSaver”. Why did Labour not include KiwiSaver as part of the amendments? It did not do that because that would be far too honest, open, transparent, and accountable for this Government. It prefers the sneaky approach of just putting through a Supplementary Order Paper and having in it something quite irrelevant to the original legislation—something that deals with a mistake it has made.

This legislation is symbolic of the mistakes that Labour has made. Labour has a continual process of making quick, cheap solutions, and not thinking through the full and final outcomes of what it puts forward. That is the case with the KiwiSaver legislation. There was a loophole in the KiwiSaver Act that some employers were taking advantage of, to the detriment of some employees. The Government has sought to address that loophole through a Supplementary Order Paper to a completely alien bill, the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. By doing that, Labour has shown its true colours to the public of New Zealand. It has shown that it is not willing to draft legislation that is good for New Zealand, that is good for workers, and that will build this country stronger. Labour just drafts legislation on the hop when it feels it is right and how it feels it is right, and it does so for political convenience.

That is not the way to run this Parliament. It is not the message to send the people of New Zealand. The people of New Zealand will rectify that message in a few months’ time, because they will deliver a message back to Labour that they are not happy with the process that it is engaged in, with the way it does things, and with the outcomes that it has achieved.

In terms of the outcomes of this bill, we can see that a pretty quick job was done on it by Labour when the bill came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Labour had not really thought out what it wanted to achieve with it. In fact, the bill was detrimental to some employees. Labour, in its wisdom, was going to pass legislation that took away rights from employees. Why would it do that? The reason is that it does not care about employees. Employees are not its mandate. Its mandate is to stay in power. Michael Cullen has said that. He has said: “Our job is to win this election and to stay in power.” It is not about the people of New Zealand. It is not about the employees out there. It is not about the mothers out there. It is all about staying in power.

Why are we in urgency? To stay in power. Why are we passing this legislation? To stay in power. Why are we passing the emissions trading scheme legislation? To stay in power. Why are we passing the emissions trading scheme? To give Labour something that says it was in power. That is what it is all about for Labour; it is not about the actual requirements of our country, our workers, and our people. It does not care, and it has never cared. It is a Clayton’s promise to say that Labour cares for our people. All it is interested in is self-fulfilment and fulfilling its ambitions of power. That is what one sees time and time again with Labour.

If Labour had really cared, it would not have taken away employees’ rights in the first place. It would have put forward a bill that took into account employees’ rights. It was only the National members who stood up at the select committee and said that this legislation would take away some workers’ rights. When National members told that to the officials, the officials said that some agreements provided for more open meal breaks than this legislation would provide for. Labour members then went back to their offices and decided to rewrite the legislation and put it back through the select committee with changes. That is the reality of what happened in this case. It was the National Party that looked after workers in the circumstances. It was the National Party that provided the incentive for New Zealanders to have the right solutions to their problems. It was not Labour that did so.

Labour will take the credit for the National Party time and time again, and this is another example of that happening. We stood up in that select committee and said that this legislation should not be ideological but practical, and that it should provide for people in their time of need in their working environment. That is something that the National Party is very proud of, and we will stand behind that position at any election forum. We can stand up and say we were genuinely after the workers’ rights in this case, unlike Labour, which was after self-fulfilment and re-election by putting out policies in the last month of its 9 years of campaigning.

Why would you put in a KiwiSaver amendment to the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill? Why would you not put up your own KiwiSaver Amendment Bill? That would be the normal, natural process that you would go through, but why would you not do that?

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know the member has not been here for very long, but he knows not to bring the Speaker into the debate, and he has done that on about four occasions now in the last minute or so of his speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must not use the word “you”. It actually brings the Speaker into the debate.

DAVID BENNETT: Why would the Labour - New Zealand First Government—married and tied together like we will never see in any other political arrangement—put forward an amendment of that kind to this bill?

The Government does not want to admit that it got it wrong with its KiwiSaver scheme. KiwiSaver was one of the Government’s flagship policies. It went out there and talked about how great the scheme was, but the scheme took away rights from workers again. KiwiSaver had a hole in it that actually hurt workers. So the Government needed to reinvent its legislation, and the only way it could do that without going through a formal process of select committee hearings, and creating public awareness of the mistakes that it had made with KiwiSaver, was to amend it by means of this bill. That is the crux of what is going on.

The select committee members from Labour and New Zealand First do not want to admit to their mistakes, so they are trying to hide it by means of this bill. In doing so they are showing, once again, that they are not acting in the best interests of New Zealand workers or the New Zealand economy. All they have regard for is the necessity for them to get through an election campaign. If they were honest, open, and transparent they would put up a separate bill to amend the KiwiSaver Act—called the KiwiSaver Amendment Bill—and they would detail the nature of the issue and look for some solutions.

I believe that Labour members do not know what is going on in the KiwiSaver environment. They are just reacting to what they see as circumstances that may arise in the workplace over time. If they were to take a more progressive approach and get submissions from the public and those concerned, they might find there are other areas in the KiwiSaver environment that need to be amended as well, to look after workers’ rights. That is not likely to happen in a Government that will not admit to failure and that pretends that everything is hunky-dory with its flagship policies.

The Government knows in its heart of hearts that this policy is not successful and that the policy of KiwiSaver has some issues and needs to be refined. That cannot be done by means of this 3-page Supplementary Order Paper to amend the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. The heart of that bill now is the amendment to the KiwiSaver scheme. But this amendment should be in a separate bill and be sent to a different select committee—the Finance and Expenditure Committee, not the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

Kate Wilkinson: The Supplementary Order Paper didn’t go to any select committee.

DAVID BENNETT: It did not go to through any select committee, but if it had gone through a proper process, then the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee would have been the wrong committee for that amendment.

The Government of the day has abused the processes of this House. It has taken advantage of this House by using urgency to put through this sneaky little amendment. It should not do that. The Government has made a deliberate use of the political process for its own gain. Members of this House should not be able to do that in good conscience. This House should be able to say that it has consulted on issues, that it has given the public of New Zealand the ability to have their say, and that it has given New Zealanders the chance to debate the issues of the day in the public forums of the media and also in the select committees.

If a Government does sneaky little amendments to legislation, as in this case, then it is denying the public the right to justice. The Labour - New Zealand First Government may want to deny the public the rights to justice, which is something it has done on numerous occasions, but it should not have done so in this situation. It should have been up front, it should have admitted its mistakes, and it should have used the appropriate processes to deal with them. It should not have taken advantage of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill to do so. That devalues this bill. It says that this bill is being used just for political purposes. It does not show that the Labour Government is committed to the intent of the legislation, and that is a shame for this Parliament.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I rise, on behalf of United Future, to support the third reading of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill, but I start by explaining, making very clear, and putting on record why we have opposed Supplementary Order Paper 229, which amends the KiwiSaver provisions. We have done so for three reasons.

The first, and perhaps the most important reason we are opposing the amendment, is that it represents extremely shoddy process in this House. I think the National member Wayne Mapp articulated that particularly well in this debate. This amendment, put up by the Government, is important but it should have enjoyed a full submission process and full parliamentary consideration. To bring it into the House under urgency in this way we consider completely unacceptable. Our second objection to this amendment is that we believe the Government is trying to solve a problem that it may well have created itself with KiwiSaver. We believe that the Government has been the author of some very mixed messages that were contained in speeches during the introduction of the KiwiSaver legislation, and that could well have created the concerns the Government is now seeking to address. The third reason we are opposing the amendment is that we currently remain unconvinced that it is necessary, and would go so far as to say that Labour, by moving this amendment, has disadvantaged some of the lowest-income wage earners in New Zealand—the very people whom this Government, heading into an election campaign, would say it is there to advocate for. United Future would have liked the opportunity to see this amendment go before a select committee and to hear the arguments both ways—

Craig Foss: And the costings.

JUDY TURNER: —and the costings, making sure that it was the right way forward. This amendment is not just a little technical change; it is an amendment of substance.

However, we see the overall bill as reflecting family-friendly practices. The Department of Labour has put out a rather interesting document for employers on the issue of breastfeeding and I notice a section called “Frequently asked questions”, which covers some really good points: what it will cost employers to comply and the amount of space they will have to make available, if their employees require breastfeeding considerations. There are some really good answers to questions about potential issues for employees who are Māori or Pacific, or from a different religious background, in terms of the need to breastfeed discreetly with cultural considerations. There is a section called “Is this good for business?”, which I think is the most relevant question that the department traverses in this document. I want to reinforce the answer given, because I think the benefits to business of having good employment practices and of being family friendly are very clear for business and are very good for employees. It is certainly clear in this day and age, when we have a very different employment environment from even one or two decades ago, that employers need to realise that the benefits of increased productivity, staff retention, and a number of other very tangible benefits of these types of family-friendly policies will be make-or-break issues in terms of the ongoing success of their business.

United Future thinks this provision is long overdue. The Labour member Sue Moroney traversed the issue very well when she talked about the fact that many of us had always understood that breaks were an entitlement that the law covered. We, like others in the House, were quite surprised to discover that this was an area of law that needed strengthening and we certainly support the strengthening of that provision. United Future thinks this bill is timely, but we are disappointed in the Supplementary Order Paper amendment that has gone through today. We will be interested to see how history will judge this amendment and whether it creates its own set of unexpected and unintended consequences that a future Government has to work on and fix, but we certainly want to make it very, very clear that we support the third reading of this bill.

• Bill read a third time.