Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Mr Chair.Tim van de Molen: Mr Chair.ERICA STANFORD: Mr Chair—please.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Erica Stanford.ERICA STANFORD: Thank you Mr Chair—I asked very nicely. Mr Chair I want to raise a new topic and it's something that actually relates to the whole bill but I can make it apply to Subpart 1A in Part 4. The point of the bill is to set a floor a wage floor—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I expect that'll be Part 5.ERICA STANFORD: Sorry Part 5 I said the wrong thing—Part 5. In clause 92C the bargaining side whoever they might be if it's a union or some other employee association is representing everybody and in this case they may well be representing migrant workers. There are some sectors where migrant workers hold a lot of those positions—if you think about security retail gas station attendants care workers—that may be included in fair pay agreements (FPAs). The question I've got for the Minister is: how is it going to come when the bargaining is happening that we're setting a price floor effectively for one group of people where another group who are covered by clause 92C and will be represented by the union or whoever else that's on that bargaining side who have a completely separate wage floor—because as we now know the new visa the Accredited Employer Work Visa requires that in almost all cases the migrant worker needs to be paid the median wage which next year will be $29.66 which is relatively high. So when we are going into bargaining for let's say gas station attendants or security guards who are traditionally earning much much less than that maybe just a little bit over the minimum wage how is it going to be that the bargaining parties will take that information and use it?Now I understand that this doesn't mean that people can't be paid more—I get that—but you are going to have two classes of people who effectively have different price floors. Now I've brought this up with the Minister in the chair Michael Wood before in select committee and he really didn't answer the question as to how this would be dealt with because you've effectively got a union or someone on the employee bargaining side that is representing both a migrant and a non-migrant who will have completely separate wage floors. How that's going to play out is of interest and I'd like the Minister to explain how the bargaining parties will treat that and how they will come to any floor below $29.66.We have to remember that migrants work in almost every sector and they do work in a lot of these low-paid sectors and so if they're effectively on the median wage what happens in the bargaining? Does that then push the bargaining position up from let's say just over the minimum wage to the median wage of what will next year be $29.66? It seems like a very odd position to be in when the two parties are bargaining for effectively two classes of people. Surely that means in that bargaining situation that the employee side would have a very good case to say well actually migrant workers make up a large section of this workforce who are effectively paid a much higher rate. Would that not then push up the bargaining to the median wage of $29.66 which in a lot of these cases if you think about the cleaner in Haast that we've been talking about all day or the superette owners up in the Hokianga may well put them out of business if they were to pay all their employees at the median wage which is extremely high.So the question for the Minister is: did he consider this? How will it be the case in clause 92C that the bargaining party—a union or someone else—can represent both of these views? And how will it affect the bargaining when it comes to bargaining for those two different wages?I'll just before I finish Mr Chair make the point that it's very noisy in here if you could potentially quieten it down.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Yeah just before I give a call can I just—appreciate that normally during committee stage the Chamber is slightly less full than this. Could members just in their chats be aware that it is a little bit harder to hear so taking that into account please.