edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Chris Baillie's amendments to Part 8 set out on Supplementary Order Papers 266 and 270 are out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee.The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith's tabled amendments to clause 190 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 8 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 8 as amended agreed to.
Fair Pay Agreements Bill — In Committee—Part 8
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Jan Logie's tabled amendment replacing clause 160A is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The question is that Part 7 as amended be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That Part 7 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 7 as amended agreed to.
Fair Pay Agreements Bill — In Committee—Part 7 (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is That the Minister's amendments to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith's tabled amendment to clause 114(1) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith's tabled amendment to clause 115 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 6 as amended agreed to.
Fair Pay Agreements Bill — In Committee—Part 6
8. Question No. 8—WomenSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for WomenQuestion No. 8—Women8. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for Women: What reports has she seen on progressing women in leadership in New Zealand?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): Today our Parliament and the people of New Zealand are celebrating that we have reached 50 percent representation of women in Parliament. With New Zealand leading the world with women winning the right to vote in 1893 it wasn't until 1933 that we had our first female member of Parliament and it has taken until 2022 that women finally have an equal share of seats in this House. I'd like to extend my warm welcome to new Labour MP Soraya Peke-Mason who has joined us for the first time in the House today.Sarah Pallett: How has the 50 percent representation of women in Parliament been achieved?Hon JAN TINETTI: As a country we can be proud of the representation we have here in this House today. With the two largest parties in the House having a 59.4 percent and 33.3 percent female representation respectively we are moving in the right direction. I also commend the Greens ACT and Te Paati Māori for their efforts. The evidence points to the importance of strong selection processes reducing discriminatory barriers and concerted efforts to encourage candidates who represent the diversity of their communities or those who might not have run without encouragement.Sarah Pallett: What evidence has she seen on how to increase diversity and inclusion in leadership roles?Hon JAN TINETTI: Change requires leadership. For example over four years ago this Government set a target to reach 50 percent of women's participation on public sector boards. We have not only met that target; we are also now at 55.8 percent of women holding senior leadership positions in the Public Service. Research also shows that we need to reduce barriers to female leadership which is why initiatives seen in this House to support parents combat misogynistic attitudes and increase the number of women representatives are clearly making a difference—but there is more work to do.Sarah Pallett: How does New Zealand compare globally?Hon JAN TINETTI: According to the World Economic Forum New Zealand is currently ranked number four in the world as the most gender-equal country behind Iceland Finland and Norway. While this is great news I know that many women in this country experience gender-based discrimination every single day. That is why this Government has prioritised critical work such as our pay equity legislation which has seen seven claims settled and removed gender-based pay discrimination for at least 104000 people. But as I have already said there is still more work to do.
Fair Pay Agreements Bill — In Committee—Part 10A
Dean JacquiCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members I can guarantee that this is going to be the most popular speech of the evening: the committee is suspended and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. for the extended sitting. Good evening.Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday).
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I would not want the member Penny Simmonds to leave this committee feeling perplexed about this matter so allow me to assist. The important thing I think for the member to be aware of here is that these provisions are not know to the employment relations system. They're more or less lifted from the existing Employment Relations Act where these provisions have been used for about 22 years to organise paid union meetings across New Zealand.I remember when I was for example an organiser with the finance sector union and we were responsible for bargaining with Westpac which had about 220 branches across the country. We would sit down with the employer we would work out a schedule of meetings over a period of a couple of weeks. We would do that in such a way to enable the business to continue operating and we would work out times that were manageable for everyone. It is something that can be done with a bit of goodwill and a bit of organisation.The member specifically asks: could the member travel for half the day or all of the day to get to one of these meetings? The obligation in the Act is for two hours to be paid; no more than that. If an employer wanted to release someone for more than that then they could but the obligation is only for two hours. In my experience these things are generally organised to be one-hour meetings that would usually allow for travel time either side to keep it neatly within those two hours. So as I say this is a well-known provision. It is one that is generally able to be organised in a reasonably efficient way it allows businesses to continue operating and it is strictly for two hours only.I do also note that this particular provision clause 228O that we're talking about is not an additional entitlement over and above paid union meetings earlier in the legislation.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The member Simon Watts is right that to a large degree these are operational questions that would be for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) once the legislation is in place. But just in order to provide some level of comfort to the member support has been provided through Budgets 2021 and 2022 for MBIE to be able to resource the implementation of fair pay agreements (FPAs). As is appropriate I believe we have provided MBIE with some flexibility to determine how that support should be allocated across the organisation. There is additional support that be applied—for additional members of the Employment Relations Authority to mediation services to bargaining support people and to the production of resources for parties to use. That information is in Budget documents and I don't have that to hand for the purposes of this debate but I do have real confidence that there is an appropriate level of resources which is put in here.I do note of course that it is likely that FPAs will take a little bit of time to commence. So once the legislation takes effect from December there'll be an initial step whereby unions need to initiate for fair pay agreements. There'll then be a process of them being considered before bargaining gets under way. So we won't go straight from zero to 100 overnight once the bill has passed the House; there'll be time for things to ramp up. I know that MBIE are very focused on trying to front-load good support information and education so that parties know what their obligations are and know how these steps work before they start engaging in these processes. So yes I acknowledge there will be some increased demand but we have resourced that. I do also note though that it could well be that a range of employment relationship issues get worked through as a result of fair pay agreements that then don't need to get worked through in other parts of the employment relations system. So there may be some meting out but overall yes we have provided additional resourcing and I think it will be appropriate.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Clause 209 is an important part of Part 10 relating to institutions because it is about providing proactive support to parties to navigate what is a new process for everyone. I can provide assurance to all members of the committee that through decisions taken by the Government in Budget 2021 and Budget 2022 t the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has been provided with resourcing to be able to provide good support. That is via information and education via specialist support services to ensure that there will be active support and advice available to people before they enter into the fair pay agreement (FPA) process but also to be able to provide support to people who are actively involved in the bargaining process as well. That is described in clause 209(2) which talks about the different ways in which MBIE will provide that support. I'm not entirely sure that I do agree with the member Simon Watts that they'll be a broader cohort than MBIE currently provides support to. MBIE currently provides—through its Employment New Zealand services—support to a very very wide cross-section of society across both employers and employees dealing with issues in collective and individual employment relationships. I don't know if it'll necessarily be wider but it will be very important and will need to be specific to FPAs under the terms of clause 209. Those services are provided quite flexibly so I'm comfortable that they will work for people in different locales around New Zealand. The services provided by MBIE—including mediation; Employment Relations Authority services—do work on a circuit basis but also increasingly be flexible in terms of phone-based service and the use of Zoom to provide support to people as well.So yes in respect of clauses 208 and 209 I agree with the member that those services will be important for the relatively smooth roll-out of this new process. But I am confident that the range of services that are described in this part and then have them backed with support from the Government will considerably assist parties.
Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. It was 11 May last year when the Prime Minister said that We anticipate we may have three or four of these fair pay agreements" and it's become quite obvious through the debate and over the last wee while that the unions are gearing up for—quite a few of them are and so we're going to have a real influx. At this stage if I can get the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to have a look at the tabled amendment 228BI(2) restriction on applying for determination and the authority may not make any determination on any issue that is currently before the authority—the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) an independent body determining fair pay agreement—where there is effectively only one bargaining party that may make decisions on employment matters that are otherwise being heard in other cases. And this clause would remove the likelihood of parties using fair pay agreements in other industries to try and force decisions on other cases that are currently going on before the ERA—if you consider that thanks."
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I'm very happy to respond to some of the questions from the member Penny Simmonds. In respect of her last question she is correct that a fair pay agreement process with all things being equal is likely to take longer than a single-employer collective employment agreement bargaining process. That is one of the reasons why we have set the term of a fair pay agreement to be between three and five years as compared to collective agreements which are between one and three years under the Employment Relations Act to acknowledge that there is a bit more time involved in the bargaining process.I do note in respect of the member's questions more generally that fixing" under clause 218 is a step that will only really occur after quite a lot has already happened: after the parties have been involved in good-faith bargaining for a reasonable time after reasonable efforts have been made to try and work through the issues themselves and after one of the parties themselves makes an application to the authority.There are a couple of important parts within that that go to questions the member asked. As to what is a reasonable time that will always be fact-specific dependent on the particular nature of that bargaining its complexity the relationships between the parties and a judgment that the authority will make. I note that this clause 218 is only triggered if a party applies for it so by definition things have got to a point where a party believe that they are just not going to make any further headway by engaging in direct bargaining. That is quite a high threshold. Any party that wants to trigger that is effectively themselves recognising that they will no longer have the direct role in helping to set the terms and conditions. So I think a party on either side is only likely to undertake that step if they genuinely believe that the current bargaining process has become relatively fruitless and non-constructive.The member asks whether the authority can effectively make the parties go back and try and work it out further. I direct the member to clause 216 which identifies that the authority must direct use of mediation before making determination of recommendation. So the authority as it does under the existing Employment Relations Act has the ability to say to the parties "Go back to mediation." or "Go back to other dispute resolution mechanisms before we will take this issue further." That's set out fairly comprehensively in clause 216."
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I'm happy to address the couple of points the member the Hon Paul Goldsmith makes in respect of clause 218. There are a couple of points in which he is point of fact wrong.The member claims that the Employment Relations Authority—firstly the authority rather than the court—does not currently have these abilities. The Employment Relations Authority does currently have the ability to determine collective agreements. It has not been exercised often but it is a power they have and has recently been exercised. In respect of the ability and capabilities to undertake these duties the Government has provided specific resourcing the Employment Relations Authority to be able to do so.The member also claims that clause 218 will function without the input of employers". That is not accurate; clause 218 will occur when there has been effectively a breakdown—some sort of a stalemate—within the bargaining process. The authority in determining terms will take representation from both bargaining sides in this process.When the member claims that this is "Eastern European" I'd suggest it's more like something out of East Sydney. This process is if anything comparable to the Fair Work Commission in Australia which actually in some respects has greater powers in which it determines the minimum terms and conditions across whole sectors without there haven't been the proceeding bargaining process as we have proposed."
Uffindell Sam; Wood Michael; Utikere TangiSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Chair. I almost lost my bit there—anyway that was lucky. So on clause 196 I was reading through this and it says Penalty for non-compliance with obligation when bargaining" and I thought to myself hold on a minute are you actually subjected to potential penalties when bargaining—so when you're not actually a party to the agreement? If you are that raises concerns—so that's just a direct question there Minister. Under clause 196 it looks as if you are open to be penalised—is that the case?—during the bargaining process when you're not yet a party to it and you've been forced into it. I was also quite curious around the penalties for clauses 196 and 197 because for clause 196 when you're not actually a party to it the penalties are higher there than they are when the fair pay agreement is in force. Is that an effort just to push people into it and why is there that inconsistency? I would have thought that the penalties under the so-called fair pay agreement would occur when it's actually in force. I thought that they would be higher than when it's not in force. So those are my two specific questions in relation to that.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): It is correct that obligations apply to parties right throughout the process from the point of initiation and it's a basic and not novel principle in law that when obligations apply to parties and those parties do not meet those obligations to the detriment of others there can be penalties in place to encourage compliance. So yes the member is correct in observing that enforcement and penalties can and do apply during bargaining. Then in respect of his question about the fact that the penalties are in fact slightly higher during the bargaining period that is correct. That is because the impact of any party breaching their obligations—perhaps their good-faith obligations—during the bargaining period actually might have a more serious and profound impact because it potentially disrupts the bargaining process which affects wide range of parties versus a breach of an obligation once an agreement is in place which is probably actually likely to affect a smaller number of parties in those particular circumstances.TANGI UTIKERE (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put."
Baillie Chris; Wood MichaelCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd just like clarification on what the Minister talked about before with regards to the union getting membership through maybe offering to pay union fees or something along those lines or sending them letters. Can you confirm if that's OK for the union but if an employer say might have a philosophical reason for not wanting unions involved said to an employee No need for you to join the union we'll all be good. That's all OK and don't bother." Can you confirm one is OK—the union it's OK for them—but it's not OK for the employer? I just want to seek clarification if that's the intent.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I can confirm that the provisions relating to undue influence were covered off in the debate in Part 3. We had a good debate on that. And as far as if any party breaches those then there potentially is application in Part 9 for a penalty."
Lubeck Marja; Dean JacquiMARJA LUBECK (Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Not quite yet. I will say to the House while it's not the longest part it is a substantial part of the bill but thank you. I am looking for targeted interventions.
O'Connor GregPart 9 Penalties and enforcementCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to Part 9. This is the debate on clauses 196 to 203 Penalties and enforcement". The question is that Part 9 stand part."
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Sam Uffindell's the member who's resumed his seat's comments were almost exclusively in principle points of objection to the fair pay agreements system and indeed any kind of minimum standards that might be implemented through any means. They don't particularly relate to this part. The one specific point that he raised was in relation to clause 169 where bizarrely he has suggested that after the parties have agreed an agreement and ratified it but before it's started—maybe in the period of one or two months before it has commenced—they should be able to engage in a variation process. Well given that his side of the House has complained about there being too much complexity his suggestion to change that would simply introduce more and doesn't have any merit at all. Mr Goldsmith mainly spent his contribution talking about something that by his own definition is not in this part—Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well it should be.Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well there we go. He's just answered it. What he spoke about is not in this part.
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to reiterate my support for comments from my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith then. I was looking at clause 169 where a bargaining party must not request agreement to bargain for a variation of a fair pay agreement before the fair pay agreement is commenced. I'm not sure that that's the right approach. I think we should be allowing people to suggest changes ideally before it's implemented right? I mean that is a lot easier for everyone if you know where you are before the agreement is established. I mean you could look at what your Government is currently doing around the agricultural space with when and how. There will be a bit of push and shove—we had DairyNZ in tonight and we're talking about where you guys have moved to and where they're likely to push back to. Just throughout all agreements there is typically push back and forward. So Minister I'd ask you to reconsider that bit there. I think it's probably in everyone's interests especially the workers to make sure that there is clarity around what they can do and what is in the agreement so that the variations can be put in before it is implemented.I also wanted to raise a question around what this means for existing employment agreements. I think I know what it means because effectively what the fair pay agreement—Marja Lubeck: Why are you asking the question then?SAM UFFINDELL: —is going to do is going to come over the top of it. My question is around—and you will hear it; you just need to hear me out because there needs to be some context. Because what happens if you have agreements in place people enter into these of their own volition of their own free will and they think they've got some stability and business owners think that they have got fixed costs and conditions that they have to meet going forward and employees who enter into it they have the pay and the conditions that they thought they were going to obtain as a result of going into it. You've effectively then got a fair pay agreement put across New Zealand put across the sector or an industry or whatever it may be capturing people that we have continually reiterated will be captured whether or not they want to because 1000 people or 10 percent have been wanting to say This is what we want to do." You are effectively creating almost some sort of sovereign risk in the employment market where people are having employment contracts that they've entered into retrospectively removed and replaced by a sector-wide agreement. I think that creates a real risk and I think Minister what you need to consider is the real risk that businesses here in New Zealand employers will move offshore where they can get a lot more certainty around this.So Minister I want to know what engagement you have done with employers around this—Business New Zealand; I know they were quite critical of this. I wonder what feedback they gave you around the retrospective ability of employment agreements as they exist today to be replaced by a fair pay agreement. Thank you Minister."
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): For the benefit of the member who's just resumed her seat Erica Stanford clause 172 doesn't actually specifically relate to employees providing their information to a union; 172 is about is about the information that the employer must provide to the employee when a variation has been initiated and that specifically links back to clause 171(6). That is the information that the employer must provide.But to respond in good faith to the member whenever a union under the legislation collects information about the employee firstly the employee has the ability to opt out of that; secondly once the information has been provided it is for the particular purpose. So at the time of the initial negotiation of a fair pay agreement it is for the purpose and the duration of that period and the same will apply in respect of the variation.Mr Goldsmith got a question in in the last 20 seconds of his five minutes—well done there. In respect of the 10 percent or 1000 representation test for a variation as we've canvassed at length that was a proposal that goes back to the excellent work of the Fair Pay Agreement Working Group led by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. That was the representation test for the initiation of a fair pay agreement that establishes a level of support that is possible to reach but none the less ensures that there is a level of support before an agreement has been initiated and we believed it was appropriate to keep that level consistent for a variation.
O'Connor GregPart 8 Variation renewal and replacement of fair pay agreementsCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to Part 8. This is the debate on clauses 164 to 195 Variation renewal and replacement of fair pay agreements". The question is that Part 8 stand part."
Pugh Maureen; Webb DuncanMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'd like to follow on and I think the part it's going to relate to is clause 144 and it follows on from what my colleague Erica Stanford was talking about the 25 percent threshold. But also in relation to the contribution that Sam Uffindell made earlier on around the scenario that he talked about with the hotel worker. So can the Minister clarify if that worker is employed 25 percent of the time as maintenance 25 percent of his time as housekeeping 25 percent of his time in reception and 25 percent as a chef in the kitchen how then do they manage which fair pay agreement (FPA) he will come under? And is that a complication in terms of any voting that he might have and where will he be able to cast his vote in terms of his entitlement for whatever FPA that he may be assigned? So how does he choose which FPA he will come under? Will there be several FPAs that he will have to align himself with? And how does that impact on his entitlement to vote when it comes to the holding of that ratification vote in his workplace?So I can see that for some employers this may be a way that they will have to operate in order to ensure that there is flexibility within their workplace so that they can have employees doing jobs that are probably not their primary job but that they can employ them on a part-time basis for several jobs so that they can actually be more flexible within the workplace. Is that something that the Minister has anticipated and has a solution for? Thank you.Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Wood Michael; Lubeck MarjaHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The 25 percent threshold is in response to submissions we received actually from both employees and employers who wanted some clarity built into the legislation to assess when a fair pay agreement (FPA) applied and when it did not apply to an employee's work. And so that's been recommend by the committee. The 25 percent figure is about striking a reasonable balance between—as I described it before—if it was just for example up to the employee or you had a very low threshold you'd have situations where a tiny amount of a person's work brought them within the ambit of an FPA. Equally if you had a very high threshold potentially you would open it up more easily to gaming and people's work duties being reduced in order to avoid coverage of the FPA. And we thought that in the end a 25 percent threshold—bearing in mind that is the minimum threshold—is a reasonable balance to strike all things considered.MARJA LUBECK (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. The Minister just got up and answered part of my question but ignored the rest of it and that is around the 25 percent. I think it's entirely reasonable to ask why it is that only 25 percent of the work means that someone falls within the coverage of the fair pay agreement.Dr Duncan Webb: This was your last speech.ERICA STANFORD: I asked this question and I'll ask it again because it's not been answered Mr Duncan Webb. Why is it that it's not 50 percent or the majority of the work that somebody does? It's caused such a problem that the Green Party have acknowledged that this is going to be a problem—that employers will try and shift around their work—so the Green Party have lodged a tabled amendment in Jan Logie's name. It doesn't have a number on it so I'm not sure but it was lodged at 12.24 p.m. The Green Party way of getting around it is just to have no threshold. If you just do any part of the job then you get to pick which fair pay agreement (FPA) you come under. But it's not something that we would support because it means that if you just did it for an hour or a week you could fall under that if you chose to as I understand it.But the question for the Minister—and the one that he hasn't answered—is why is it only 25 percent? That's a minority of the work that someone might actually do. Surely it makes more sense that most of what you do—over a reasonable time frame and I get that; that can be negotiated. But 25 percent is only one-quarter of someone's full week and they will be pulled into an FPA and paid at a higher rate when the majority of the work that they do—75 percent in fact—is not included in this FPA.So I want the Minister to answer where he came up with only 25 percent and would he consider an amendment to that—if I were to put a Supplementary Order Paper through—to change clause 160A(1)(b) to 50 percent and then that would have to flow through into 160A(2)(a) as well. So if you did 50 percent of one job and 50 percent another job then you got to choose. But if the Minister could explain to the committee why only 25 percent rather than the majority of the role that you do?
Wood Michael; Webb DuncanHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): To be honest there was very very little in that address that actually was related to this part—most of it was about the determination functions of the authority which are not covered by this part. I assume that if the member is outraged by the idea that employment agreements can be reached without the true agreement of both parties he's also utterly outraged by the fact that under the individual employment agreement bargaining situation for many workers it's a take it or leave it deal" but I've never heard him be particularly concerned about that previously.In respect of Erica Stanford's question—she did at least ask a genuine question about this part. The question that she asked related to the "reasonable period". It could vary depending on the particular circumstance and she raised seasonality for example. Ultimately in this case that would be for the employee and employer to determine between themselves. Ultimately if that was not successful they would have recourse to the labour inspectorate. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put."
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In amongst the previous two speeches there are a couple of specific questions that I will respond to. First from Mr Woodhouse which relates to why there is a voting formula for smaller employees. To do this it takes I think an Excel spreadsheet with a small formula in it rather than a degree in mathematics to be quite honest. But the reason for this is that we think that it is important and we have received representations and indeed calls from the Opposition in the course of this debate for smaller employers to have a reasonable voice in this process and one way that we can do that is to give a little bit more weighting to them in the ratification process. The Opposition can't really have it both ways; they can't criticise the Government for supposedly not having a reasonable role for small employees and then criticise us when we give them a slightly outsized vote in the process to ensure that their voice is heard. In respect of Mr Baillie's comments again the member significantly over-eggs the complexity here. It's comparing one agreement with another and determining under which employees will be better-off.
Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Just following on from that and just in regards to what Jan Logie did say earlier on as well I regularly catch Ubers and I ask every one of them What do you think about this stuff going on involving you guys?" and they don't want a bar of it. Everyone that I've spoken to doesn't want a bar of it. "Stay out of my life." they say. But you know best—you know best.I just want to look back at it clause 139 Consequences of Authority's determination. I just want the Minister to consider those employees who are actually really happy at the moment. Take the hospitality industry which was mentioned earlier on. If we've got someone doing some bar work on the weekends they do some cleaning during the week and even when the manager of the place wants them to drive down to Mitre 10 and pick something up they hop in their car and they do it no problem at all and they are really happy. Then we look at this clause 139 and it's: "If a fair pay agreement (agreement A) and a proposed agreement (agreement B) have [a] coverage overlap … as a result the Authority determines …." it is so complicated. Even the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment admitted that it was so complicated. I just sort of want an acknowledgment from the Minister that many—many—in fact I would suggest most employees actually don't want this."
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Mr Chair. It's good to be able to rise here and what I would say to my colleague Jan Logie over the way who was just speaking then is that you've raised some good points—though I wouldn't often say that—around the issues that are going to happen in the modern workforce where the fact is that people don't do just one job. My colleague next to me—Maureen Pugh—noted that she's got some friends who are hoteliers and they had three cleaning staff come down with COVID. Now under this arrangement they would be covered by what is likely to be a cleaning fair pay agreement. Well they had a maintenance man up the top and they called him up and they said Look would you be able to bring some linen down?" and he would obviously as a mechanic or a maintenance person be under something completely different. So I fear that through this we are being too blunt and I don't think we're taking into consideration all the different aspects—especially in smaller businesses—that people may do. I addressed this a little bit earlier and I'm not sure if I got the answer back on it. I move to clause 138. When you're looking at assessing which agreement with overlapping terms when considered overall "provides the better terms for the majority of the covered employees" why is it that the authority is determining this? Why can you not give flexibility and choice to the people who are directly impacted—that being the employees—to determine which agreement they want to fall under? I think people deserve the respect of being able to choose which agreement they want to fall under. I cannot understand why the Government would move that decision back to the authority Minister and I would like you to answer why that decision was made. Erica Stanford touched on this a little bit earlier but it was more around the framework. I would like to know more about what checks and balances are in place because I feel that people are being put into this pretty blindly. So what options for review are there and what options for appeal are there? Minister if you are able to come back on that I would appreciate it. On clause 139(2)(a)(i) where it talks about "of the need to change" into an agreement what if they protest? What if they kick back? That goes back to my checks and balances piece before and what I also mentioned earlier was: why can't we just let them choose? So those are my points on that."
O'Connor GregFAIR PAY AGREEMENTS BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 7 Finalisation of proposed agreement (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee for further consideration of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. When we were last debating this bill we were considering Part 7. This is the debate on clauses 130 to 163 Finalisation of proposed agreement" and Schedule 2 "Ratification process: number of votes for covered employers". The question is that Part 7 stand part. The Hon Paul Goldsmith had the call. I see that he's not here so I'll give the call—Hon Michael Woodhouse: He said he was not in a position to take the call—that would be a better way of saying it. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): He's not in the position to take a call—so Erica Stanford."
Fair Pay Agreements Bill — In Committee—Part 7
Goldsmith Paul; Salesa JennyHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to focus on Subpart 2 of Part 7 which is around ratification where the Minister has sort of made this claim that employer groups will all have a chance to be involved in the process and if not actually part of the discussions at least they'll get to have a vote. But the striking thing about it the farcical thing about it is that what happens is if an agreement is hammered together between the two bargaining sides it then has to go (a) to the unions and (b) to the employers to ratify agree at 50 percent or more. For some reason the unions have 40 days and the employers have 10 days to do that. I would be interested for the Minister to explain why the two are different. But of course the big problem is that if say the employer group was not to ratify it and they didn't get the vote and less than half the people—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order and my humble apologies to the member. Members in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee the time has come for me to report progress on this bill.Progress to be reportedHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Fair Pay Agreements Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Accepting the point that the Minister made that clause 139 was a belts and braces approach at least as it applied to coverage overlap and pointing me in the direction of Part 3 I thank him for that but I'm none the wiser in respect of which clause in Part 3 that is. I think it would allay concerns to know that whereas Part 3 does go through a long process description of how bargaining parties can join and unjoin there is as far as I can tell no reference to an ability by the authority to reduce the scope of bargaining between parties because of coverage overlap—I may be wrong; it may be here but I can't see it. It would certainly help me and those who are going to have to negotiate the various sections of the Act when it is passed to know that to the degree possible coverage overlap can be avoided earlier in the process.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In response to the Hon Paul Goldsmith's and Erica Stanford's questions: Mr Goldsmith in one breath said that the majority of employers would have no say in fair pay agreements (FPAs) but then went on to ask questions about the ratification process which by definition they all get to vote in. He asked about the processes effectively for Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) oversight and I suppose there being a level of confidence in the accuracy of that vote. I do note that there are very specific provisions in the bill about the bargaining sides having to provide information about that vote and its result. It is on those bargaining sides to provide a declaration to that effect so there is a strong duty that is placed on the bargaining sides in the legislation which I think can provide real confidence there. On top of that MBIE then does have the ability to assess a sample. In the event of a close vote MBIE would act rationally and would have the ability to look at a larger sample to give themselves the assurance that they felt was necessary for that particular ratification process. In terms of Erica Stanford's question around exceptional circumstances" this is wording in a concept which is picked up from the Employment Relations Act. It would depend on the particular nature of the case: the complexity of the bargaining the degree to which it had been a smooth process perhaps or a rocky process. MBIE would need to take those things in the round and if they believe that on a qualitative basis there were exceptional circumstances they have the ability to take a little bit more time there. The other question the member has was around the framework for the better-off overall test. I just note this is a reasonably well-understood concept in employment law; it's the process which for example is used in the Australian jurisprudence in respect of their modern award system. It is an overall assessment that in MBIE will apply across the terms and conditions in those FPAs as they affect the majority of workers. So it's not necessarily a strict "look at this condition" "look at that condition"—it's looking at it in the round and forming an assessment as to under which FPA the majority of employees would be better-off."
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I want to ask the Minister specifically—get this section right—about the time frame for the authority to assess the proposed agreement.So once the fair pay agreement (FPA) has been negotiated and both sides have decided that they've come to an agreement and it goes to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) for assessment they've got their 20 working days in order to come back with their determination.In the bill here it says that if there is determined to be exceptional circumstances then that date can be extended. So my first question is: what are those exceptional circumstances"? Where do we set the bar for those exceptional circumstances? I mean the ERA has already had 20 working days to work out if there are any overlaps or if they approve the FPA. So I'm keen to know what the exceptional circumstances are. That's important because it then triggers another 20 days—sorry I'm confusing myself. It's a very confusing the bill. So that's the stand-alone part: what are the exceptional circumstances?The bit that triggers another 20 days of course is the overlap. So if the ERA determines that there is an overlap between two FPAs that have been recently conducted that triggers another 20 days. In the bill it talks about the ERA having to determine which of those terms are more favourable. I want to know from the Minister what is the framework that they make that decision in? Because in some cases it might be quite clear cut; it might be extra days or extra pay. But in very different sectors there might be a grey area as to what is more favourable to the employee.So my first question is around the exceptional circumstances. That exceptional circumstance clause kicks in both for the initial determination by the ERA and it also kicks in if they are taking an extra 20 days to work out if there's overlap and which terms are more favourable. So that's my first question: what are those exceptional circumstances and where is the bar?Secondly my question is around what framework will the ERA use to determine favourable terms? As I mentioned in some cases it might be very clear-cut—totally understand that—but in some cases it may not be so clear-cut. So what framework does the ERA use in order to determine favourable terms under different fair pay agreements? So if the Minister could address that that would be useful."
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Working through questions from Erica Stanford and Paul Goldsmith in respect of the ability of parties to bargain for starting-out rates and training rates it is as described in the bill. It is an ability for the parties to bargain for those provided they do not go below the minimum statutory requirements. It is a may" provision that provides parties with the flexibility to bargain as they see fit dependent on their sector or their occupation. In particular in terms of the provision around six months the rate cannot extend for longer than that but it could be shorter than that if the parties agreed to that through bargaining. It's entirely up to them within those provisions.In terms of Mr Goldsmith's point around clause 115 he's not wrong. Clause 115 describes the objectives of the fair pay agreement (FPA). That part is not about the terms and conditions. If parties did wish to include wording around productivity within that then they could.When it comes to Erica Stanford's questions around clause 129(1)(a)—the delayed commencement provision—that will ultimately be up for the bargaining sides to determine based on arguments that are made to them. But a potential situation in which that could apply is if a particular employer let's say got most of their revenue for most of their business from a particular contract that required them to organise their work in a certain way and it was going to take some time for them to reorganise their affairs to be consistent with the FPA the delayed commencement provision provides the ability for that employer to do that."