Goldsmith Paul; Wood MichaelHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I want to take up the reply from the Minister who casually dismissed the competition elements that I was raising as not relevant to Part 5 or to the bill.Clearly there isn't a meeting of minds and clearly the Minister and his Government don't seem to think that there can be competition consequences from regulations that they pass. That's what I'm asking him to think about. Because this clause 92F is saying that employers in the process are required to form one group to represent all employers as part of the bargaining process and that clause represents the obligations on the employer bargaining side and how it relates to all the other employers who may be included in them.What I'm arguing is notwithstanding all the things that are listed—that they must do and that they must operate with good faith and they must provide regular updates and they must give all covered employees this and they must consider all this and they must advise employers all that and then when the information comes back they should consider all these things—we do live in the real world. And notwithstanding all that and they do all that the reality is that the consequence of that is it will be dominated by the big players. Notwithstanding all the obligations and best endeavours the smaller players will inevitably have less say in how these fair pay agreements that will control and dominate and will have obligations across all employers large and small—that the smaller operators will inevitably have less influence over the shaping of those agreements. And the larger players will inevitably in practicality—like they have in every other state of regulation throughout the history of the universe including here—have greater input into how they are shaped. So what I'm asking him to consider is what competition consequences there will be for that. I'm putting it to him that they will be substantial. And I'm putting it to him that they conflict with the stated aims of a whole bunch of other Government policies which are claiming to be focused on weakening or constraining the power of the large duopoly powers—in the context of the supermarkets for example—using the powers of competition law and the Commerce Commission. On the one hand they're trying to do that but at the same time they're bringing in legislation that will apply to the working conditions of everybody in say the supermarket checkout. The checkout operators if they were to become under a fair pay agreement will have an impact on all those employees and all those operations large and small. And I'm putting it to him that it will be the big operators that dominate that framework.Notwithstanding all—you can all stand up and say Well yes under 92F(2)(e) that the employer group needs to consider whether all interest groups of covered employees are recognised and given the opportunity to provide feedback." And yes they will tick that box. They and the larger operators—with all their advisers and lawyers and QCs and whatever—will tick the box and they will ensure that under 92(2)(d) they will advise all covered employees of any ratification votes and they'll do that. But how practically they'll find them all I'm not sure. We still haven't got a clear answer on how they're going to actually find the small little operation in Haast and the other one in Balclutha and one in Chatham Islands and how they're going to find them all and effectively communicate with them. But once they have found them and they've given their views and they've said "Actually we need more flexibility here. And we don't want it that way" they'll consider it.Well what does that mean "they'll consider it"? I bet they'll consider it and they'll think "Well actually no. I think we'll prefer it to arrange things in a way that suits us. And if we're a large organisation with 10000 employees there's a whole lot of things that will suit us a lot differently to the small operators." So what I'm asking is: has he considered the consequences for competition from this legislation?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Mr Chair. In response to Mr Baillie's contributions the Government does not agree to those Supplementary Order Papers for the reasons that I've outlined in respect of Māori representation within the process.In terms of 92F(2)(f) which he also raises this clause is about ensuring that in situations particularly in the funded sector where it might be an NGO or private sector employer but it is ultimately Crown funding that there is a clear link between the bargaining process and the funder to ensure that there is a rational discussion and an ability to actually meet any expectations or commitments that are made within the bargaining process. So we think that retaining that clause is important. And I think by definition and just through reasonable practice there will be a significant threshold there. It's not going to become a big issue if there is only a small amount of funding at stake.In respect of Mr Goldsmith's coming back again to his concerns around big and small employers I do note that at many points over the course of this debate he has spoken—and his colleagues—glowingly about the role of employer associations and representing the legitimate interests and concerns of employers. Yet in this part of the debate he seems to have no faith and confidence that they will be willing or able to represent the interests of small employers.I believe that they will and I also note that there is a clear obligation in this legislation in this part whereby they have to represent the interests of all employers. And there was a clear good faith obligation and those obligations ultimately are things that can be tested if anyone does not believe that they have been followed."