Andersen Ginny; van Velden BrookeHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Mr Chair—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just hold on to that member. I have been watching the debate for the last hour so I'm well aware of where we're up to. Just the presence of a new person in the Chair doesn't actually change much. So carry on the way you have been. Start the clock again please.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you very much Mr Chair. Well just to pick up where I was likely to continue previously is that I've actually got another proposed amendment. There's another proposed amendment and that is a new clause 6 which has been presented to the House. So the new clause 6 that is proposed to amend this bill is that the Royal assent of the bill is contingent on a review by the International Labour Organization (ILO) ensuring that New Zealand is compliant with all international obligations including ILO conventions and free-trade agreements. So it's really important that we take into consideration those ILO which will ensure how we're complying.One of the points I'd like to pick up is the fact that one of the things alleged in the first and the second readings is that fair pay agreements would actually result in strikes. I'd like to clarify that point right now that there is no ability with the proposed fair pay agreements that would result in strikes. So that's actually misinformation and it's one of the points that the ILO picked up. They actually felt that we should have fair pay agreements that would enable workers to strike. So that's something that we did not comply with in terms of what those ILO specifications would have been.So there's been a lot of discussion in this Chamber and allegations from those members opposite that the introduction of fair pay agreements would not only introduce the opportunity for more striking but it's actually been alleged by in fact Nicola Willis when I was on Newstalk ZB with her last week that it would make all those who were part of a fair pay agreement required to be part of a union and that's just not true. That's not true at all. It is true that unions would negotiate these agreements but all workers would benefit from the negotiation that takes place and it doesn't necessarily mean that the workers who benefit from a fair pay agreement would have to be a member of a union. So I think it's really important that we specify those differences and it's really important that we understand the benefits of what fair pay agreements would have actually done for New Zealand in terms of workers' rights and also by I guess rewarding and encouraging and supporting good employers.We've heard many stories from members opposite about what a good employer looks like. We've heard from Mark Patterson tonight about—was it 16 years that a manager has worked for him? And we know that there are good employers out there and we want to encourage people like Mark Patterson who has had a manager working for him for 16 years.So how do we do that? We do that by encouraging good wages and good working conditions right across a sector and we don't do that by having a race to the bottom of who can pay their workers the least and have the most restrictive working conditions possible. That's not how we encourage market flexibility for our labour force and that's not how we increase productivity. Because at the heart of the Employment Relations Act is the fact that there is an employee-employer relationship and that is based on good faith and that is based on having a good working relationship between an employee and an employer. And fair pay agreements seek to extend that over a whole sector so we can work well within our working environments and we can both have mutual benefits out of thatSo what this bill does what this change does is it takes away that good faith. It takes away that across a sector and it means that there will be big differences with bus drivers with manufacturers with hospitality workers with a whole range of different areas where we have poor and bad employers who exploit their workers. We've seen this in New Zealand recently with immigration—those who exploit them. Those good employers are dragged down for the fact that poor employers drag their name down. So that's the loss in this legislation. The loss in this legislation is those good hard-working employers who have employed people for many years and supported many people off their own shoulders. Those are the ones that are also penalised.But we should not forget that the ones that are most penalised in this are those people that clean our floors that look after our children that drive our buses that will be earning less this Christmas that will afford less on their table fewer Christmas presents. They will have less money because of the selfishness and the self-interest that this bill inflicts upon New Zealanders.Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I usually allow a range of members to speak before I respond but I must respond to that statement. Nobody will be worse off this Christmas because there have not been any fair pay agreements finalised. Nobody will be having lower wages because of the repeal of this Act.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I just remind members particularly those on my left that a presentation at this stage would generally end with a question for the Minister in the chair.