Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to move on to clauses 122 to 126 around the Differentiation of application and entitlement". The Minister and the Government have conceded that some form of regional variation is required for these fair pay agreements. Obviously there was a lot of concern originally when the fair pay agreements were first mooted that it would be a nationwide straightjacket so that somebody working in Ponsonby in Auckland in a cafe had exactly the same arrangements as somebody in Balclutha or the Hokianga or Haast or maybe just in Christchurch. But the circumstances and the situation of those different parts of the country would have different requirements and things that may make sense in Auckland may not make sense in Hastings for example in terms of the sorts of things covered in the fair pay agreements which include research and development which include pay rates which include leave entitlements all those different things. So the difference between urban New Zealand and rural New Zealand and the ability of businesses to pay different rates they have conceded in this legislation by allowing in clause 123 for some variation. So one of the questions I have for the Minister is: well are there any limits on that variation? Clause 122 says that the basic sort of objectives and date and coverage of the agreement can't be changed but things that can be amended are the minimum base rates overtime rates penalty rates leave entitlements and so forth. There doesn't seem to be any limit in the differences but I'd be interested to know that.Then following on from that of course is: surely the logic for that exemption or the ability to have district variation applies equally when it comes to the size of businesses. Any just simple common sense would conclude—you know any rational New Zealander would conclude that a business with 10000 employees has far different concerns and arrangements and capability when it comes to arrangements regarding training and development for covered employees than a business with two employees. The example I've always used is the superette up in the Hokianga or a little place like that. So the difference between a company that employs one or two people in a small little operation and another business that employs 10000 people the Minister does not seem to concede that there is any argument for the ability to differentiate when it comes to all sorts of things as well as base pay rates and overtime worked penalty rates and all that speaks to the kind of flexibility that is needed much more in a small business environment. You know it's just so common sense it's hard to understand.So my fundamental question I have for the Minister is: how can he see and concede and understand that there does need to be regional variation between Auckland and Hastings and New Plymouth and Hokianga that there's different requirements for different kinds of business environments in which they are operating but refuse to concede that there might be differences between a company employing 10000 people and one employing two? The fiction that he seems to have in his mind is that all those businesses can handle things such as leave entitlements and arrangements for training and development in the same way. That to me doesn't make much sense."