edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): For the member who has just resumed her seat the two key things for the member to be aware of: firstly the wording of all covered employees" in clause 92C states in very clear terms that the obligations of 92C of the employee bargaining side apply to all employees who are covered irrespective of their union membership or not. The member can also read this clause in concert with the good-faith obligations as they apply to the employer bargaining side which make no distinction in respect of the good-faith obligations of that employee bargaining side to all of the employees who are covered by the fair pay agreement regardless of the union membership. There is no distinction that the employee bargaining side can make—under this they have to represent in good faith those interests regardless of membership.In respect of Mr Smith's question I'm very sorry to hear that he considers it "outrageous" for there to be consideration of Māori interests when fair pay agreement bargaining sides are being established. The Government does not believe that that is outrageous; we believe that it is reasonable and appropriate given the significant inequalities that new Māori employees face and the Treaty obligations that we hold bearing in mind that fair pay agreements will be given effect via a piece of secondary legislation. I note that these provisions are facilitative; they are not required. They simply ask for the parties to give consideration to these factors it is then up to them what they would do. I also note that this was an issue that was raised by hardly anyone—employee employer or any other submitter—during the select committee process. But it's perhaps no surprise that the National Party in its current temper is attracted to the issue."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you very much Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to take a call on this bill but I want to talk about clause 92D Obligation to ensure representation of Māori employees": "Each employee bargaining side for a proposed FPA must use its best endeavours to ensure that Māori employees are represented effectively in the bargaining process including by (a) seeking and considering feedback from representatives of Māori employees; and (b) considering whether the bargaining side should include a member to represent the interests of Māori employees."Why if this is a best interest and is a collective piece of legislation is one group singled out in the legislation? What about other groups? Surely that flies in the face of the whole collective bargaining rationale for this bill. It doesn't make any sense if you're putting one group above others in this legislation. It's quite clear in here and it's quite worrying actually. What about other groups? There are other minorities; there are actually majorities that could be disadvantaged. Why would you put that in legislation unless there's some rationale in there that one group is going to be given an advantage over the other? I don't understand the thinking process that went into that. Who did the Minister consult with before allowing that clause to go through? Did the Minister seek to have that put in the legislation or was it put there by officials and it just merely slipped past the goalie? I don't know; I don't understand it. It's not a common thing to have in legislation. I think it's quite divisive actually. It seems like a lot of the policies that this Government is bringing forward in what they I would imagine I assume is a very good process to be all encompassing and in fact all it is doing is doing actually the opposite. It is seeking to divide us. It is putting people into different groups and lining them up against one another. That's not how you deal with relations in this country. I think it's a very worrying trend and it's just outrageous. But perhaps the Minister—I would like him to get some advice from his officials and inform the committee as to what the rationale was behind this clause in the legislation. I don't see anything in here that says anything about women. I don't see anything in here about Scotsmen or any other ethnic group—Pasifika Asian groups anything like that. It's outrageous we're even talking about this but it's here in the legislation and it needs to be addressed. The Minister has chosen what he's got to get up on his feet about; I think this is one clause in the bill that needs to be addressed."
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Part 5 very specifically deals with bargaining arrangements between the parties in respect of the fair pay agreements regime. It doesn't speak at all to questions which might be useful in a different environment around competition between large and small firms. So I'll let those comments lie.In amongst that 10 minutes there was one pertinent question that relates to Part 5 and that was about the best endeavours obligations of bargaining sides to employers. I do note that those obligations are mirrored on the other bargaining side from the unions to the employees that they represent. The short answer to the member's question is that if we move from clause 92F(1) to clause 92F(2) the best endeavours requirements are clearly described: To comply with subsection (1) the employer bargaining side must use its best endeavours to … (a) provide regular updates … (b) give all covered employers the opportunity to provide feedback … (c) consider during bargaining all feedback" and then a number of other items. So that best endeavours obligation is very clearly set out in the part that is before us."
Salesa JennyPart 5 BargainingCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 92 to 113 which is on bargaining. The question is that Part 5 stand part.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The members opposite are again becoming extremely worried and anxious about provisions in this bill that are almost exact copies of provisions in the Employment Relations Act that they oversaw for nine years while they were in Government. All of the provisions that the member has just referred to in respect of union access to workplaces including the reasonableness are effectively word for word from the provisions in the Employment Relations Act.In the end people are not idiots. People do not want to create problems in a huge way. These things get managed well between sensible adults who work through employment relationship issues. When it comes to questions of reasonableness and issues being tested around the edges there is an established jurisprudence which is established if unions or employers want to test out these rights.But I repeat again that in both respects union access and all of the wording here in respect of meetings with people these are copied across effectively from the Employment Relations Act and operated without very many issues at all for the entire nine years that the previous National Government was in power. Most of these provisions date back to the year 2000 when the Employment Relations Act was established. Again I must encourage members to please not just look at a particular clause but to actually look at the surrounding clauses to understand the issues and how the clauses actually connect.So Erica Stanford asked questions around how union meetings are established. If she went back to clause 81(3)(a) and (b) she would see that they have to be set up with 14 days' notice as is the case under the Employment Relations Act. She would also see that there is a requirement for the union setting up those meetings to make arrangements with employers to ensure that their business is maintained. It's there in black and white as it is the current Employment Relations Act which deals with all of the issues that she has raised in that area.
Salesa JennyTim van de Molen: Madam Chair speaking to that—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Erica Stanford.Tim van de Molen: Point of order Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): It is not a point of order when I as the Chair decide to give the call to Erica Stanford.Tim van de Molen: Correct but I have taken a point of order Madam Chair. With the changes that were made to Standing Orders to allow for shorter calls and multiple calls to be taken it was the intent that questions could be asked and answered to facilitate a better flow of questions. I've asked a question the Minister has responded and I have a further question off the back of that. Your decision is entirely within your right to make—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): And it is up to me. When you actually sought the call before—both of you sought the call—I gave you the first call. I'm now going to Erica Stanford and then I'll come back to you. The flow of the questions will still be intact because both of you can ask the questions and then the Minister can answer both them at the same time—Erica Stanford.
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you. We've moved to clause 76 here the default bargaining parties for proposed agreements and looking at that three months' notice that's been put in there—so this is The employer default bargaining party may elect to be an employer bargaining party for a proposed FPA that covers a covered employer that is a non-SEBP employer"—why has the three months section been put in there; why does it have to be within the three months?"
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Chair. Just a quick question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on this.I was looking at clause 70 in Part 3A and I was wondering why there was a proposal for the employer default bargaining party must not elect … an employer bargaining party for a proposed agreement [or] a proposed variation". And what was the alternative? I'm assuming it would be in this case an employee bargaining party?But I wanted to just question the Minister why it is listed in here as you know not being an employer bargaining party and why they were not allowed to be represented or bringing that forward in that piece.Hon Michael Wood: Sorry which clause?SAM UFFINDELL: So we are on—Hon Member: 70.SAM UFFINDELL: 70. Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I will come back in a moment on Mr Uffindell's question. In respect of 64(d) my understanding is the reference to Health New Zealand would be inclusive of the Māori Health Authority."
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Good to kick off proceedings after oral questions with a question on clause 64(d) as I was asking the question before we broke last time. My point is in regards to Health New Zealand. We were talking as my colleague Chris Penk was questioning in regards to the Chief of Defence Force around specified State employers.My question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety in regards to Health New Zealand is the relation with the new Māori Health Authority. As we know the Government has put in play the new Māori Health Authority which is an independent authority that sits outside of Health New Zealand. My question to the Minister is quite simple: why have they only included in paragraph (d) Health New Zealand" and not included the "Māori Health Authority"? In effect one would—maybe I'm just being simplistic—exclude quite a significant element of the health sector in regards to that clause in the legislation.So I'm interested from the Minister: what is the consideration what is the reason why they have simply only chosen Health New Zealand in relation to the proposed agreement in regards to the variation or a fair pay agreement of Health New Zealand that is covered by the employee?"
Salesa JennyFAIR PAY AGREEMENTS BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 19 October.Part 3A Specified employer bargaining parties and default bargaining parties CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members when we were last in committee before lunch we were debating Part 3A.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered papers—21 of them.CLERK: Ministers' reports in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2022 for:Vote Agriculture Biosecurity Fisheries and Food SafetyVote ForestryVote Social DevelopmentVote Customs and Vote Health2022 annual reports for: Parliamentary Counsel OfficeNew Zealand Customs ServiceBorder Executive BoardMinistry for Primary IndustriesDepartment of ConservationManatū HauoraMinistry of EducationExport Education LevyTe Puni KōkiriDepartment of CorrectionsNew Zealand PostPublic Service CommissionNew Zealand Police andMinistry of Social Developmentstatement of intent 2022 to 2026 for the Department of Conservationintegrated report 2022 for New Zealand PostWorld Trade Organization joint initiative on services domestic regulation together with the national interest analysisSPEAKER: I present the 2021/22 annual report of the Parliament sector for the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Service. These papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Juliana Carvalho and the petition of Yvonne Pernreports of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee onthe international treaty examination of the protocol to amend the agreement of 3 April 2001 establishing the International Organisation of Vine and WineUnited Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill andthe petition of Democracy for Myanmar Working Group New Zealandreport of the Social Services Committee on the petition of Graeme Axford.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading and the treaty for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Hipkins Chris; Bishop Chris; Shaw JamesBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week legislation to be considered by the House will include the first reading of the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill the second readings of the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill and the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill the remaining stages of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill and the third readings of the Fisheries Amendment Bill and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. There will be an extended sitting on the morning of Wednesday 26 October. On Tuesday Soraya Peke-Mason will be sworn in as a member of Parliament and for the first time the majority of serving MPs in the House of Representatives will be women.CHRIS BISHOP (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. I notice from looking at the Order Paper that Government orders of the day is reducing rapidly now down to 18 and the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill is making its way—by dint of bills being taken off—further up the Order Paper. Might we get it up to No. 1 2 3 or 4 this side of Christmas?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Of course yesterday the member was proclaiming how the long Opposition were intending to take over progressing the other legislation that is a matter of priority for the Government. If he continues to facilitate the expeditious progress of the Government's legislative programme he might just get lucky.Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. Welcome back to the Leader of the House. The last time we traversed this he said that there was some quite good news coming up on the Organic Products Bill but it has been some time since he said that. I just wonder do we have an update on what is now No. 15 on the Order Paper? It's going in the opposite direction to some of the other legislation. Last time it was No. 8 on the Order Paper.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The member can live in hope but I don't have a particular update on that for him today.
O'Connor GregTHURSDAY 20 OCTOBER 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSGREG O'CONNOR (Deputy Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Wednesday 19 October 2022 (continued on Thursday 20 October 2022) - Volume 763
Fair Pay Agreements Bill — In Committee—Part 3
VoteThe question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 3 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 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Paul Goldsmith's tabled amendment deleting clause 29A and amending clause 32(4)(b)(ii) is out of order as being inconsistent with a prevision decision of the committee. The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith's remaining tabled amendments to clauses 28 29 30 and 30A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Baillie's tabled amendment to clause 29A(1)(a) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Baillie's tabled amendment to clause 29A(1)(b)(i) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Chris Baillie's amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 are out of order as being outside the objects and principles of the Bill. Chris Baillie's amendment to clause 32 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 266 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.The question is that Chris Baillie's remaining amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 266 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith's tabled amendment to clause 39 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.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 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Part 3 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2Noes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 41New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 8.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Jan Logie's amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 271 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 105New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 8.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 41New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 8.Part 2 agreed to.
Fair Pay Agreements Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Michael Wood's amendments to Part 1 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 Chris Baillie's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 266 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 1 as amended stand part.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Fair Pay Agreements Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Salesa Jenny; O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! My apologies for interrupting the member but the time has come for me to report progress.Progress to be reported.House 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.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m. (Thursday)
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. An interesting perspective from the Hon Mark Mitchell in terms of that business. But I want to cut to a different angle if I may to give the Minister a little bit of time to come back with an answer on those good points.I want to look at clause 64(d) actually and it builds on the points that were raised by the member Chris Penk previously around Defence but in particular a point where he refers to Health New Zealand. We'll be familiar with the Health New Zealand entity that the Governments have set up in terms of their—
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Madam Chair. It always amazes me—and I'm going back to a comment that the Minister made earlier on Part 3—that you have Ministers and bureaucrats in Wellington the non-productive part of our economy that always seem to enjoy finding ways of applying legislation to the productive part of the economy who are out there actually working and trying to get ahead and for which most of them actually take good care of their employees and actually protect that relationship.But maybe I was being a bit unfair because I wasn't sure whether or not the Minister in the chair had actually any private sector experience himself—and he has apparently as a Christmas tree salesman. I don't know whether or not that entailed him having his own employees and understanding the responsibility in the relationship—Simon Watts: Hope he declared the cash income.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well that's right—worrying about making payroll but actually giving him an understanding of how the private sector actually works. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and I'll say yes he has got that private sector experience. So when he's making his decisions as a Minister he's actually quantifying and he's making sure that he captures the real costs that are associated with the type of legislation that you bring in as a lawmaker. But I do want to seek clarification on the point that Mr Goldsmith raised and it's a very good one in terms of around the bargaining: why has he gone to a default setting after the 90 days or whatever the period was to go to Business New Zealand because in his case as a Christmas tree salesman or business owner I would have thought that Retail NZ would probably be the best person to understand his business and to be able to represent it and go into those negotiations. So why has there been a favouring or a compulsion towards Business New Zealand rather than actually recognising that the different associations whether it be Retail New Zealand or Hospitality New Zealand which actually have a much better and intimate knowledge of what their members need how to represent them and actually advance and make those negotiations probably far more credible and smoother than actually—Chris Penk: There should be a Santa clause" for Christmas trees.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Ha ha! It should be. That's right. They should introduce a new clause on that. The Minister stood up and said "Look if they don't come forward in 90 days then we'll default back to Business New Zealand." Why have they done that? Why is Business New Zealand getting treated differently than other industry representatives like Retail New Zealand and Hospitality New Zealand? Thank you Madam Chair."
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the members for their question. I do feel that I've dealt with Mr Goldsmith's question previously on a number of occasions but to clarify the way that process works is that there is a three-month period for parties to come forward on the employer's side to represent employers at the bargaining table. If that does not happen if those parties are unable or unwilling to form there is a one-month period then for the default bargaining party to come forward. That is as we've described on a number of occasions the most representative body which clearly for business organisations is Business New Zealand. They would be that body. There is not a multiplicity of bodies which can come in at that point as the default body.In terms of Mr Penk's questions he's right in identifying this point around specified bargaining parties which are an important part of the legislation because very often these particular bodies who are identified in this part will operate very differently and have quite different drivers to other employers. So it is important there is the capacity for them to be involved directly in the bargaining and to be represented through the public service commissioner. In respect of whether there are any other particular legislative constrains or rules for example around some of those particular inhibitions on the rights of certain people within defence to be able to organise etc. etc. any fair pay agreement that is agreed gets vetted by Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment at the end; we'll deal with that in a later part. It has to be consistent with every other law of the land.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm interested in particular in clauses 64 and 66 within of course Part 3A and the reason that I'm interested in that is just to drill down a bit into this concept of the specified State employer. Particularly I note that clause 64 applies to certain specified State employers in specified circumstances:" and one of them is the Chief of Defence Force as appointed under the Defence Act. So I'm interested if the Minister can provide a bit of context about how a scenario might play out whereby defence personnel would be somehow entering into these discussions or negotiations for bargaining from the employee side. We see that the legislation contemplates that the Chief of Defence Force himself or herself could be represented effectively by I think the State Services Commissioner—excuse me the Public Services Commissioner as that person is now—and that's fine as far as it goes. Of course the context for the question is that the Employment Relations Act doesn't apply to New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel other than civilian employees roughly speaking and of course there's a more general context about pay and conditions for New Zealand Defence Force personnel whereby for example the Minimum Wage Act doesn't apply to them. We've had an example in the last couple of years where personnel of the New Zealand Defence Force were found to have been paid below minimum wage which I think we can all agree—Dr James McDowall: It's still a third of them Chris. CHRIS PENK: My colleague and friend Dr James McDowall points out that it's still the case that that can take place. I think we've had some kind of assurance from the Minister—no excuse me—the Chief of Defence Force I think that it wouldn't in fact take place. But the law of the land still says that our sailors soldiers and air personnel can be paid at lower than the minimum wage and so of course we're all in favour I think probably—hopefully across the House and certainly on the National side of things—of ensuring that our defence personnel are not taken advantage of in an employment context notwithstanding that between that and the exclusion of healthy homes standards and so on for defence housing it would indicate perhaps that the current Government isn't paying very close attention to their conditions of service and so forth. Nevertheless I'm interested to know how this would fit with that. In particular and for good reason arguably defence force personnel don't have the right to organise. They don't belong—can't belong indeed—to a union and so forth and I'm not suggesting of course any difference of policy position in relation to the legislation as a whole but if the bill is useful and good in the way that the Government says it is in relation to the general population of New Zealanders I'm keen to know if there are scenarios in which the Minister can provide some context about how things might play out in the context for NZDF personnel."
Salesa JennyPart 3A Specified employer bargaining parties and default bargaining partiesCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 3A. This is the debate on clauses 62 to 80K specified employer bargaining parties and default bargaining parties. The question is that Part 3A stand part.
Salesa JennyMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Point of order. Madam Speaker just following on from your counsel to the committee before I mean there has been times where a Chairperson has advised there'd been repetition in certain areas of the part and would encourage members to speak to parts of the bill or Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that hadn't been spoken to. So if Mr Goldsmith in his five calls thinks that he spoke to five different points then maybe on his sixth call he would've spoken to that SOP. I think it's tough for us as Opposition where we're trying to debate each part of the bill if we're not giving full warning that you are going to bring it to a close like other Chairs have before.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): There are times when I actually give warning. As I said earlier on I had been watching this debate even from my office. One of the things that I do with the Chair that has been here before me is actually have a small discussion just to see if things are beginning to be repetitive. The Chair that was here before me did say to me that things were beginning to be repetitive. I did however give a number of calls. It is not actually a ruling that we always give—there is a point of warning before we shut down a debate but it is actually within my powers as Chair of this committee to close out particular parts and we've taken the vote. I will now move that we move on to Part 4.
Webb Duncan; Salesa JennyDr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. To assist Mr Goldsmith I seek leave that this bill be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): That has not been agreed to.
SpeechHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I raise a point of order Madam Chair. I just wanted to check—I haven't had a chance to talk on my tabled amendment on a clause that we haven't talked about yet. It is part of the part. Is it not normal practice that that we would get an opportunity—as a part of the Standing Orders to actually talk about an amendment that we put forward on a clause that we haven't even talked about in the part before we move to voting on it? How are we going to vote on it when we haven't had a chance to talk about it?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Speaking to that point of order just—in following the speeches that have been given on this particular part and I have been following it even from my office the member has given five speeches in that time. The member could have actually spoken about the particular part that he is giving me the point of order about. Also the member is the one who has given the most speeches on this particular part that we've just voted on in Part 3.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Just speaking further the only point I'd make Madam Chair is that this is a very big part with an enormous number of issues in it. I didn't repeat myself on any of them; they're all separate issues and there are an enormous number of issues. It's not our fault that the Government has introduced a bill with very fat parts with lots of clauses in them that need to be discussed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): And that is not the Chair's fault that the member has actually in the times of the five speeches that he's given not spoken to the parts of the bill that he hasn't yet covered. It is you're right a very big bill. But in three and a half hours or so we've only covered three parts. We have many other parts to cover.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): I move That the question be now put.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Happy to provide a couple of quick responses to Chris Baillie's comments on the amendment that he is tabling. As I've canvassed the Government intends to provide clarity around low pay and that criteria through regulations. I actually don't think we're probably too far apart there. I've indicated previously that we will be looking to provide a relatively objective measure that is focused in around those workers who are close to the minimum wage. I don't think we'll actually get to a position that's too far apart there. We think it's more appropriate to do that through a regulations process rather than to embed that in the primary legislation.In respect of an assessment of bargaining power I'm convinced that that is the appropriate measure there. It is still possible for there to be workers in a particular sector who perhaps do belong to a union but for various reasons it might be particularly difficult for them to exercise the ability to engage in collective bargainings. That test around bargaining power is also one that's already well understood. That is a test that is already in Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act which relates to particular groups of employees who have additional protection in contracting out arrangements. I think that is the appropriate test and for that reason we won't be supporting those tabled amendments but I thank the member for his comments.
Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd just like the Minister to have a look at clause 29A Test for initiating bargaining: public interest test" and consider the two tabled amendments that I've put forward today. The first one refers to clause 29A(1)(a) which says "receive low pay for their work;". For clarity we suggest that it be amended to "pay at or near the minimum wage" as they are demographic that the Minister purports to be wanting to help through this legislation and just for the sake of fact the supermarkets are often looked at as beneficiaries of this legislation. The average wage in a supermarket grocery store is $24.82 in a department store it's $26 and in a clothing store it's $26.70. So we would suggest that it be closer to that minimum wage. It's interesting to note that my colleague Rachel Boyack said yesterday that she's so proud the unions got the Countdown supermarkets at the living wage. The Countdown supermarkets were the only ones that didn't participate in that particular survey.The second amendment refers to clause 29A(1)(b)(i) which currently states "they have little bargaining power in their employment:" We would suggest you have a look at rewording that to maybe "a majority are not members of a union" as if the majority are members of a union they're already well represented and shouldn't need this legislation to help them through. I'd ask the Minister to consider that. Thank you."
Stanford Erica; Wood MichaelERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to carry on with one of the arguments that Paul Goldsmith was making but bring in a different clause. So when we're talking about clause 13 and the fair pay agreement may provide that a union member payment may be paid to covered employee who is a member of a union" what I want to put to the Minister is: is this being covered under clause 16 "Undue influence"? Because you can see quite clearly what will happen: the unions will go to all of the employees and say basically "We will bargain for you to get your union fees back $600"—or however much it is; whatever the union fees are—"and you will get all this free stuff." You can see this happening: they will go to all of the employees and say "Hey this service will be for you for free paid for by the employer and therefore you should join our union and be part of this part of this process." Now clause 16 the "Undue influence" says that "A person must not for the purposes of bargaining"—for the purposes of blah-blah—for clause 16(1)(a) "to become or remain a member of a union". So the ability of a union to leverage the payment that they will get for the person if they become a member to then basically have free union membership and they'll no doubt say here all the other benefits paid for by the employer. The question that I've got for the Minister is what is the bar for undue influence? It doesn't lay out in this what that bar is. This is similar to a question I asked earlier: where is that bar? Is the bar of undue influence a union going to non-union members and saying "We are going to get you a payment you will get all these services for free if you join" and pushing them into joining by offering them free stuff. Does that meet the bar of clause 16(1)(a) "Undue influence" "to become or remain a member of a union a particular union an employer association or a particular employer association". So it's a slightly different question than what Paul Goldsmith was asking but it does relate to clause 13 in the ability of a union to negotiate that a union member can get that payment in negotiating the fair pay agreement. So specifically if the Minister could talk about the bar of undue influence and whether or not this payment in clause 13(2) would meet that bar.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): It will always be up to the Employment Relations Authority to determine what is "undue influence" and as I've said they will have to consider things on a fact-specific basis. But the answer is: broadly no it would not be considered "undue influence" for a union to promote the lawful benefits that it might be able to bargain through the course of bargaining."
Baillie Chris; Wood MichaelCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd just like a comment from the Minister the Hon Michael Wood about clause 16 undue influence". The accusations are about compulsory unionism and how that's disinformation. Clause 16(1) "A person must not for the purposes of bargaining [or] for the purpose of an application … exert undue influence directly or indirectly … [for someone to remain or join] a member of [the] union" and there are some other parts to that as well which sounds good. The contravention to that is a penalty—section 196. I'm just wondering whether the Minister is aware of the subtle influences that go on in workplaces—I've sat in staffrooms where members of the Post Primary Teachers' Association (PPTA) don't talk to non-members of the PPTA they sit in a little group by themselves and where relieving teachers won't go into classrooms of non-members. And I just want to make sure that the Minister is aware of the subtle influences that go on in those other workplaces like teaching.At this stage I'd like to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 267 which says "An employee or employer may opt out of [coverage] of a fair pay agreement … if they notify the chief executive in writing that they have a fundamental conscientious religious or moral objection to their coverage … [the] employee or employer … is not subject to coverage of [the] fair pay agreement". I'd just like the Minister to consider that and if not whether he is actually telling the New Zealand public that they must participate in something that they have no desire to don't wish to and fundamentally disagree with. Is that what he's telling the people? Thank you.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Briefly in response to the member's questions I know that clause 16 around undue influence goes either way it's about undue influence to be associated or not associated with an organisation. I can't speak to the particular examples that the member gives but as I say this clause which effectively carries over from the broader Act provides protections either way.In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 267 we won't be agreeing to that. I do note to the member that the provisions around opting out for conscientious reasons are captured in Part 4 of this bill and effectively link through to the existing provisions in the Employment Relations Act."
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair for allowing me a call in this debate. My question elaborates on a question already asked by Jan Logie with regards to strikes. My question has two particular limbs to it.As Jan Logie spoke there was some concern expressed by submitters with regards to the broad concern about the removal of the right to strike. And as Jan Logie mentioned this is an absolute right of workers.But my second question is with regards to the large extent of disinformation that we've heard with regards to strikes. And in particular as we heard from some submitters—Hospitality New Zealand comes to mind—that potentially people could take sympathy strikes or strikes dressed up as a health and safety strike. So I wondered if the Minister could talk a little bit about first of all the limits on what is a lawful or unlawful strike related to collective bargaining under the Employment Relations Act.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Point of order. Madam Chair I'm just a little bit troubled by the speech by that member who seemed to be implying that a particular submitter—Hospitality New Zealand—was engaging in disinformation. You know I think it's important to recognise that submitters don't have the ability to answer back in this context and I don't think it's within Standing Orders for a member to effectively accuse—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Can I ask the member what his actual point of order is? Because strikes and lockouts is actually covered in clause 25.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No no. My point of order is that it is out of order for a member of Parliament to accuse a submitter of engaging in disinformation in this House.Marja Lubeck: Can I speak to the point of order?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): There are procedures if that organisation wants to go through the process but this is actually a debate that we're having. As I said as the Chair of this committee it is covered under clause 25 Strikes and lockouts". I call on the Minister—sorry Minister; Marja Lubeck actually got up to speak to the point of order.MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Apologies. I wanted to just clarify I was trying to be helpful. So my question was twofold. First of all what is lawful and unlawful strikes under the Employment Relations Act in regards to fair pay agreements? And secondly with regards to the amount of disinformation we've heard I was going to quote an example of Hospitality New Zealand who specifically spoke about strikes dressed up as health and safety. So I thought it would be helpful if the Minister could speak to that particular point. Thank you."
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. I also want to follow on from my colleague Paul Goldsmith in this freedom of association minimum standards and the compulsive nature of having to be covered by a union collective bargaining party whether or not the employee wants to be. I return to concerns from the Hospitality New Zealand association. Just to give some context they are a member-led not-for-profit organisation and they represent over 2500 businesses. They are representing cafes restaurants bars nightclubs and commercial accommodation—lots of little country hotels and off-licences—and they have a 120-year history of advocating on behalf of that hospitality and tourism sector. They also have major concerns about the freedom of association and if I can give some examples—in many of these small cafes or small restaurants they are family-owned and they have a number of family members that are working within that business. It may be that their employees are sons daughters nieces nephews aunties working together understanding that they're all working for a common good of that family. So their freedom of association or their priorities if you will are to the good of their family and yet whether they like it or not they are going to be bound by the collective bargaining of the union. So they are concerned that those kinds of minimum standards that might be imposed are going to be out of kilter with the wishes and desires of those people working within those family units who are working together to make a family business viable in a small cafe in a small town and particularly the regions.So their concern is how this is going to make their businesses unviable how these minimum standards might be imposed across that whole industry grouping which I mean you can see from the range of businesses that they are talking about—cafes and restaurants may be large entities in some cities; they may be very very small in a tiny little town like Orepuki on the south coast and Southland or some of the very small townships that have only got one cafe and it's very much a family affair. It doesn't appear that this legislation is going to allow that flexibility within a family entity a family-run business where the employees are in fact all wanting to work together for the benefit of that family business.So I wonder if the Minister in the chair Michael Wood can talk about how there will be sufficient flexibility. He's already said in his answer to my colleague's question that there won't be a certain range of flexibility but if he can explain how that's a good thing in the sorts of circumstances that I have outlined in this question. Thank you Madam Chair.