12. Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and SafetyCAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyQuestion No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety12. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her recent statements in relation to fair pay agreements?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes especially regarding my comments that fair pay agreements (FPAs) would reduce flexibility choice and agility in workplaces; also that to lift productivity and drive economic growth there needs to be flexible workplaces where employers and employees can agree on terms that suit their unique situations.Camilla Belich: In response to an earlier question she stated that she hadn't received any advice from the Treasury. Does she accept that she received advice from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) that the removal of fair pay agreements would disproportionately affect women young people Māori and Pasifika?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I have not asked for advice on the costs and benefits of repealing the fair pay agreements from MBIE. What I have received is a cover sheet to MBIE's 2021 regulatory impact statement (RIS) which updates the sections of that RIS to reflect the proposal which is to return the fair pay agreement system to the status quo. To be clear the regulatory impact statement from MBIE from 2021 recommended against introducing a fair pay agreement system.Camilla Belich: Does she accept that the regulatory impact statement cover sheet that she received from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment on 28 November 2023 states that the removal of fair pay agreements would disproportionately affect women young people Māori and Pasifika?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: What I accept is that the statement within the cover sheet to the regulatory impact statement has been taken out of a wider context where it suggests that the benefits of the fair pay agreements that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment mentioned only apply to employees within the scope of a fair pay agreement. To be clear there have not been any fair pay agreements finalised so no one is worse off. Camilla Belich: Does the Minister accept that on paragraph 13 of that RIS it clearly states that depending on the sector and occupations where FPAs are concluded they could disproportionately benefit some population groups covered including women young people Māori and Pacific peoples?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: What I acknowledge is that that statement has been taken out of the wider context which is that this cover sheet is an update to the regulatory impact statement which was against the fair pay agreement. What the statement suggests is that we're taking away the fair pay agreement bargaining process. There have not been any fair pay agreements signed and so therefore anybody who was worse off is only in theory worse off because there have not been any fair pay agreements signed. What this Government is committed to doing is making sure that we have a Government that benefits business and benefits workers. The best way to improve the conditions of all Kiwi workers is to make sure that we have high productivity. We reduce regulation—SPEAKER: That's good—that's good. The Hon Chris Bishop.Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that the 2021 regulatory impact statement she's referring to recommended against the introduction of a fair pay regime and if so why?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I can. MBIE in 2021 recommended against a fair pay agreement system.Camilla Belich: The regulatory impact statement cover sheet which she's referred to in her previous answer states—just to be clear on what we're talking about here—in response to that question she stated that in theory people covered by fair pay agreements would be—[Interruption] this is a question—SPEAKER: Sorry there is silence while members are asking a question.Hon Chris Bishop: It's not a question; that's the issue.SPEAKER: That might be the case but it's a rule of the House that when people are asking questions they get silence of the House. You got a point of order the Rt Hon Winston Peters?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker people are expected to turn up here ready to go and prepared. That was not a question. It didn't show any sign of becoming one.SPEAKER: I don't—well yeah OK.Hon Grant Robertson: Well Mr Speaker throughout the course of today we've had answers that have been completely out of order. You've said you want things to flow and I think points of order such as the one taken by the Rt Hon Winston Peters go against your desire for things to flow. If we want it to just be a complete free-for-all by all means Mr Speaker. But you know I thought you were playing the advantage on both sides there.SPEAKER: Well the mere fact that you have just given me that advice has sort of accounted to where we might have got to. You were very quick on your feet.Camilla Belich: Does she accept then that if the fair pay agreements legislation which she intends to repeal was not repealed in theory it would benefit Māori Pacific young people poorer workers?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No because this Government believes that the fair pay agreement system would have made vulnerable workers worse off. This is because of disemployment effects where businesses who could not stomach the added cost to their businesses lay off workers or close up entirely or don't offer any more jobs. The best way to help vulnerable workers is to have a flexible labour market that works for all New Zealanders where every business has the opportunity to employ more staff and have more money to pay their staff more.