Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I suppose I'll start with a question rather than finish with a question here. Part 8 talks about the variation the renewal and the replacement of fair pay agreements. What's the thing that's missing as an option? The elimination or the termination of a fair pay agreement. There is no such thing. And that is the fundamental part of this bill which we call mandatory union deals" because not only are the employers drawn into something which they don't necessarily want to be drawn into—and the workers as well—freedom has gone out the window; you could be working away happily in your workforce and without your intention or will or desire you're suddenly drawn in to an agreement that you don't necessarily want to get drawn into because a very small minority of a workforce decides that they want to be part of something. Everybody's drawn in and then it happens. Regardless of who votes for what—the employers vote against it—it still happens. Then once they've got the fair pay agreement you would have thought this Government in its wisdom would say "OK well you've got a fair pay agreement here are some options: you can overtime you can vary it you can renew it you can replace it but we'll never ever let you terminate it."You will never be able to get out of this ever according to the way that they go about this. And that's just the way they think. Once you're in it's like what is it—Hon Member: Hotel California.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Hotel California. That's right you can never leave. You join the fair pay agreement unwillingly and there is no provision anywhere for anybody to ever get out. You can't. Unless presumably if you quit your job—you might be let go I don't know whether they extend that beyond that. They certainly will hold on to your details and wait for you to come back.So why Minister are there not sections in here outlining how the parties can get out of a fair pay agreement if they don't think it's doing the job that it does? Let's think of what some examples of that could be. I was ruminating on this actually yesterday—on labour weekend. We're driving past and I noticed that most of the cafes for example don't open anymore on public holidays—just don't open. They used to in days gone by; they don't now. I presume that's an outcome of the combination of the penal rates that have been around for a while and the very substantial increases in the minimum wage that has increased significantly to the point where it no longer makes sense to open up.Now if a fair pay agreement for hospitality comes through and they ramp that up even further—and they bring in things such as unsociable hours or they want to have even a higher penal rates—it might come to the point that very few places are open on public holidays and on weekends there might be fewer things open.We've seen a real example of this in Sydney in recent times in some places where you just get less choice—and that's something that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in the regulatory impact statement raised as a potential risk of this legislation. So it may well be that a few years down the line people will look and say "Well actually all these things that used to be open at all hours and people who used to enjoy hospitality at all hours aren't anymore. And maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all." But there is no way out unless I'm missing something.So the question I have for the Minister: is there a way out? Am I missing it? Is it in Part 10 or 11 that workers and employers can take stock after two years and say "Actually this was a bad idea. It was not a fair pay agreement but a flop. It's made the industry worse it's made us less productive it's meant that we're not able to meet the desires and hopes of our customers and consumers—it's not working." What happens then?Now they could sort of vary it I suppose. That's very gracious of the Minister; he's allowed a variation but I don't know what that will do. They could renew it or they could join up with another one or they could replace it with another one but they can't ever have the opportunity to get rid of it.So I say to the Minister why not? Why not? What good reason has he got to offer to the people of New Zealand on this particular topic? Thank you Mr Chair."