10. Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and SafetyTEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyQuestion No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety10 TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she believe employees are ever wrongly categorised as contractors; if so what remedy do they have to change their contract status?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes I'm aware that miscategorisation of worker status has been occurring for years and I believe this uncertainty is an issue for both workers and businesses. Workers who believe they've been miscategorised can challenge their status under section 6 of the Employment Relations Act. The Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court use a series of tests under the common law to decide whether a person is an employee or contractor. While in many instances it can be very obvious to both the business and worker whether a worker is an employee or contractor the world is a complicated place and sometimes there is genuine uncertainty. The member will be aware I will be making decisions on how to clarify this distinction and provide certainty to both workers and businesses. Teanau Tuiono: Will the Minister commit that her work to clarify the status of contractors will allow employers to exploit an imbalance of power to require employees to agree to describe what is in truth an employment relationship as something else.Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The legal status quo has created uncertainty for contractors and businesses because of contractors' ability to challenge their employment status if they believe they should be classified as employees. While I'll still be considering advice on options—and those haven't yet gone all the way through Cabinet—we want to clarify the original intent of contracting parties' arrangements while minimising any risk of exploitation. But I'd also like to make the point to the member that most contractors are actually very happy with their status. Stats New Zealand reports 90 percent of contractors are happy with their current arrangements. Teanau Tuiono: What does the Minister believe the implications of the recent Court of Appeal decision are for the coalition agreement commitment to maintain the status quo that contractors who have explicitly signed up for contracting arrangements can't challenge their employment status in the Employment Court."? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I will make it clear to that member that what this Government is intending to achieve is clarity for both parties to a contract about what was the original intent of their agreement. But I'd also just like to make the point that my understanding is that one party to the Court of Appeal decision has filed for an application for appeal and I'd just point the member to Standing Order 116 which suggests that this would be out of scope for Parliament to be talking about.Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister acknowledge that the Court of Appeal's decision ensures Uber drivers will now be recognised as employees thereby securing rights like minimum wage sick leave and holiday pay?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I would once again just refer to Standing Orders 117 and 116 which make it clear that in any case where notice of appeal is given Standing Order 116 has effect from the time when the notice is given until the appeal has been decided. It would be improper for me to comment on that member's question. Teanau Tuiono: Point of order Mr Speaker. I'm just seeking some clarification here. The appeal was dismissed on the Monday and so in that context the Minister should be free to comment. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General might like to comment. Hon Judith Collins: Thank you Mr Speaker. It might be helpful—the point too is that the Minister cannot be asked to give legal advice on to the meaning of the court decision but also if this is subject to appeal then she's quite right that we need to be very careful as to how this is discussed in Parliament. SPEAKER: OK so without losing that question do you want to reword it just to have another crack at it and can the Minister state if it can't be an answer given in the public interest—state just that. You don't need a list out of the book.Teanau Tuiono: Will the Minister respect—can I put it that way?—the Court of Appeal decision around removing the rights of unsecured gig workers wrongly classified as contractors to challenge their employment status?Hon David Seymour: Point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker the Standing Orders are actually very clear that to raise such matters in a supplementary question—a supplementary question is listed in the Standing Order. You've now got a member who is getting up and in my view mischaracterising the court's finding. It's very very difficult for a Minister to respond to that when he's breaching the Standing Orders for the question.SPEAKER: Yeah that's true but the Minister can make it very clear about what the answer is. Everyone should know in the House that you don't discuss matters that are currently before the courts—in this case potentially before the courts—because of the presumably usually 40 days for appeal but that would be too long for there to be no discussion. I'll ask the member to ask his question again. The Minister can answer it by saying exactly as the Hon David Seymour has suggested.Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister commit to not legislating over the Court of Appeal decision in removing the rights of insecure gig workers wrongly classified as contractors to challenge their employment status?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I do not wish to pre-empt any decision that may be found by any court of law in this House. However I'll simply make it clear that the intent of this Government is to clarify the boundaries between employment and contract agreements.Camilla Belich: Notwithstanding the Uber case will the Minister guarantee that New Zealanders will still have the right to go to court to clarify their employment status under this Government and if not why not?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: This Government hasn't yet made any decisions on where we will land in order to adopt the coalition agreement which is to uphold the intent of both parties when they're signing up to a contract."