Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I've got a few more questions for the Minister on this part first in relation to clause 13 which relates to prohibition on preference. This legislation has very many lofty words in it around the fact that a pair fay agreement (FPA) can't be used to confer on a person because the person is or isn't a member of a union any preference in obtaining employment or preference in relation to terms of employment. It says you can't in a misnamed fair pay agreement" give any preference to someone because they're in a union.Then the next subclause says "However a fair pay agreement may provide that a union member payment [is] paid". How does the Minister reconcile those two things? We're going to stand up here and we'll say look there's no way that any of these fair pay agreements can give preference to union members but you can give them an extra thousand bucks or two thousand bucks because they're members of the union—in fact probably give them the exact amount that the union charges as the union fee. So please explain to me how that is not a preference and how that is not a completely muddled confused contradictory and absurd piece of legislation. How can it not be that the allowance of paying union members an extra thousand bucks is not a preference?I'd just like the Minister to explain how he justifies to an employer—again I take as an example the poor little superette owner in the Hokianga who may have two members of staff; one of them is a member of a union and the other isn't. The Minister and his Government through this legislation is forcing the employer the little superette owner in Hokianga to pay one employee an extra thousand bucks—or it might be more; it might be 1500 bucks—to the union member to pay for the union member's union fee effectively. Notwithstanding the fact that he stands up there puffs his chest and says "I've passed legislation that prohibits any preference in terms of employment to members of unions" it is I think rather absurd and I'd be interested to see how he explains it.Secondly on the issue of right to strike did he consider one of the suggestions made by employment lawyers that I spoke to and one which I raised with the select committee—he says "Yes yes you can't strike during a fair pay agreement". But we all know and everybody understands that there are many other things that you can strike over under the normal course of events under the Employment Relations Act 2000 coincidentally at the same time. Look I don't claim to be a great fan of the union movement although sure they've done many great things over the course of history and I am grateful for the previous Green member's concern about my wellbeing and general attitude to life. But I've got no doubt that over the years the union membership has had many clever people involved in the union movement and I don't for a moment underestimate their ingenuity and their ability to figure out ways around particular circumstances so that they could engineer a strike through other means at the time of an FPA being considered.When I look across the House at virtually every Labour member here who was a former union representative of some sort—virtually everyone; not everyone but virtually everyone. I look at Marja Lubeck; she is cunning. There's no question she is cunning she is clever and she wouldn't have any trouble whatsoever in coming up with a way around this in order to engineer a strike during the normal course of events using the normal legislation at the same time as a misnamed "fair pay agreement" was being organised.One of the things that was considered or suggested was—well OK if you're really honest and serious about not having strikes going on during the misnamed "fair pay agreement" negotiations then the Minister would have made an amendment to the Employment Relations Act itself banning strikes during the period of a fair pay agreement negotiation full stop. Therefore there wouldn't have been the opportunity for clever union organisers like Marja Lubeck to come up with clever schemes and timings so as to in effect add striking pressures during the negotiations. So I wonder whether he'd given any thought to that or considered it and if not why not? Why didn't he if he was genuine about not having strikes going on at the same time? Because as I say there is genuine fear out there particularly amongst employer groups that this will lead to more strike action in particular because of the context. It is an increasingly adversarial approach to unions.I also wanted to respond to the Green member's comments. We're not suggesting for a moment that this is going to destroy businesses in the country. If this law passes it's not going to destroy businesses; all it's going to do is just add another layer of cost complexity and rigidity to New Zealand businesses. They'll survive but it will be harder and that's the only point we're making—it will be harder. If you're operating in a competitive world trying to stay afloat to be able to provide goods and services at a cost that people can afford or trying to remain competitive with international competitors it's just another layer of cost.The Minister in many many answers has come and said "Well yes but there is a floor that we all agree in terms of the minimum wage and sick leave entitlements." Of course we agree with that and we're not disputing that in any way shape or form. What this legislation does is it raises the floor substantially in many areas and introduces a floor into other different areas whether it comes to enforcing penal rates on weekends or different hours—a whole lot of things. So it raises the floor in various levels all over the place and that's the debate we're having. The debate we're having is: is imposing that higher floor and the additional costs that are implied in it a good thing and an appropriate thing at this time or at any time in a world where New Zealand businesses are struggling to compete?The third point I wanted to make in relation to this part related to this whole question of when parties are deadlocked—this is clause 19 subclause (3)(d). I suppose the only question I have here is in this legislation—the select committee in their wisdom changed paragraph (d) and it made the point that if bargaining parties have come to a standstill or reached a deadlock about a matter they are not forced to keep on being deadlocked or whatever. What happens is that they can stop but it says here that they need to continue to bargain about any other matters that they haven't reached a deadlock on. So that process goes on until such a time as there is a deadlock but it's all a little bit irrelevant. It's meaningless because the bill also provides that if an agreement cannot be reached then the Employment Relations Authority steps in and sets the terms of agreement. I just wonder what the point of that is saying that you've got to carry on keep bargaining and if you're deadlocked in one area keep going until you're deadlocked in all the areas. In the end the outcome is set and final and that is it goes off to this little group of people in Wellington or Auckland who are sitting around the desk who apparently have the wisdom of Solomon and they can work out what businesses up and down the country large and small need want and deserve. I'd be interested in what he thought he was achieving with that particular paragraph."