Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): So following up those questions from my colleague Erica Stanford in relation to clause 30 and 30A in how the how the chief executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is supposed to deal with an application and what evidence is supposed to be forwarded.So I've made the point—and the Minister didn't really sort of give a coherent answer to it—as to why we believe that not having 50 percent of a workforce agreeing with it is not a reasonable hurdle to start a process that cannot be finished and why he thinks that 10 percent or less than half of 1 percent or even less than that if there's a public interest test met is good enough. And just saying that the working group said that that was good enough doesn't strike me as a good answer.But moving on from that the question is well how do you determine that 10 percent threshold has been met? As Erica Stanford said there's no clear way of doing that particularly in the very complicated circumstances of people doing multiple jobs and getting over that threshold. If over 25 percent of your work is in then you're in it and so how on earth this great logistical exercise is supposed to occur so that we know how many people we're dealing with in order to work out whether 10 percent have been engaged.But the question I have is of course there is no prescribed way in which the chief executive of MBIE can satisfy himself or herself that the union initiation claim has been met. And why is that? Of course the legislation is kind of silent on that. So the chief executive gets it the initiating union claims they've got 10 percent and that they'll come up with whatever justification they come up with.Then as far as I can see from the legislation it's just up to the judgment of the chief executive of MBIE as to whether that's met or not. And why did he not consider the Minister and the Government actually being a little bit more explicit about that so that people could reassure themselves that it had been met?Next question is around clause 31 where it says the coverage of the proposed fair pay agreement (FPA) must be clear enough to enable all employees and employers to determine whether or not they'd be covered and that will be defined in regulations. Now of course you know the regulations can be changed by Order in Council very swiftly by the Government. So it creates an enormous amount of uncertainty about what's in and what's out and how that's going to be defined. So I'd be interested from the Minister as to how he thinks that's going to aid the general business certainty context that we're operating in.Thirdly around clauses 32 and 32A: applications to initiate bargaining. It says that MBIE will have a maximum of 30 days extendable to 45 days to assess applications to initiate fair pay agreements. But that time frame will come into force six months after the main parts of the bill. So I'm just curious as to that. I hope it doesn't mean that there is no maximum prior to that six months. Or does he not think that there will be applications through? I'd like him to explain the sort of thinking behind that element of it. But the absurd part it relates to—it says that MBIE may invite public submissions when considering applications. For example in relation to the public interest test whose opinion is that it's in the public interest? And you know that's a highly debateable thing. Of course as you know I've already used the example of the Mayor of Auckland Wayne Brown thinking he's low paid on a $300000 salary. So where that line is drawn is a highly subjective thing. So it's a possibility that the chief executive of MBIE may seek public submissions. If he does or she does then there's a maximum of 30 working days to do that however. So he's got 30 working days—or she's got 30 working days—to invite submissions. But the chief executive also only has a maximum of 30 working days to review and decide upon the application. Which is you know kind of farcical isn't it? So the chief executive comes in she gets the application to initiate got 30 working days but you know can include some public submissions which also could be 30 working days. But it's all got to be within 30 working days. It seems very odd. I suppose if you were of a cast of mind where you were thinking that perhaps this Government wasn't genuine about its desire to have genuine public consultation on whether or not this thing should be done or not then perhaps you could draw that conclusion by the fact that somehow you're supposed to have had a period of public submissions of no more than 30 working days within an overall process—where don't forget you know the chief executive has to reassure himself or herself that the union has either sort of crossed the threshold or 10 or whether it's in the public interest to go ahead with this fair pay agreement because of one of four criteria being met. So how that timing works is a bit of a mystery to me and how genuine public submissions are to be included.I might add why the Minister has regarded that as an optional thing for the chief executive of MBIE. Because if you get to the point so you haven't met the 10 percent threshold—which we think should be 50 percent; you haven't met the 1000 employees but you've gone for a public interest test. Why on earth would you not in every circumstance offer the opportunity for public submissions on that question?I think it should be that the chief executive must invite public submissions when considering applications because you know these things—as we said right from the start—once it's initiated once it started there is no stopping it. There will be an FPA. So the starting of it is important.So I'd be interested in responses to those questions in relation to clauses 30 31 and 32.