Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Thank you so much Madam Chair. It was very difficult to listen to the contribution from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety because I have to say it was rather patronising. However getting on to the bill I want to refer to a number of amendments that are on the Table that talk about clause 5 and inserting after repealed except in relation to the particular industries that have already started to have their fair pay agreements negotiated."One example is that of an amendment that was put forward by the Hon Jan Tinetti where the amendment is: "except in relation to"—blah blah blah—"early childhood education industry may be concluded and regulated by the provisions of the Act and will not be affected by this bill." I just want to point out that it is really important to note that that work is under way. A significant amount of human resource and also expenditure and financial resource has already been invested into negotiating these particular fair pay agreements. Now I know that that Minister and her political party and the Government is very cognisant of the need to make sure that taxpayers' money is spent wisely so to stop these particular agreements from being pursued whilst they are in the midst of being negotiated to me makes no sense and I question whether that is a good use of the taxpayers' dollar.I also want to make mention of the cover sheet that the Minister has referred to on a number of occasions whilst in the chair today. It's important to note that because there is no regulatory impact statement and the Minister has stated on a number of occasions that that particular cover sheet actually provides evidence in a number of areas to support her wishes to repeal fair pay agreements. I as a previous Minister don't ever recall a cover sheet providing the amount of evidence that I would need or require to make any decisions and so I am very impressed by what this cover sheet may look like.I just want to refer to some areas that the Minister has already pointed out that the cover sheet provides her cover with to be able to make this repeal. I want to start with the issue that was raised by Ricardo Menéndez March. He was talking about the impacts on child poverty and with reference to these particular workforces and at that point the Minister said that there was cover through the cover sheet. I want the Minister to respond to my question with respect to what proportion of children living in poverty are actually living in households that have bus drivers cleaners coach drivers hospitality workers security officers and guards commercial cleaners early childhood education workers and supermarket workers as the household providers for those households. Important to note because between 40 and 50 percent of children living in poverty are living in working households so it would be good to know what the cover sheet said about these particular workforces and the number of children that are living in poverty in those households.I want the Minister to also respond with respect to the proportion of those workforces—and these are the ones that are under negotiation at the moment and I won't repeat those workforces—that are women because when I look at supermarket workers early childhood education workers hospitality workers I can already state through just general knowledge and understanding that they are highly feminised workforces. How many or what proportion of those workforces are women? What proportion of those workforces are Māori and Pacific? It seems that that must be covered off by the cover sheet that she got as well.I also want to know what the productivity losses will be for those workforces—because productivity is such a concern for the Minister and she's raised it on a number of occasions—when those particular workers in those workforces are required to individually bargain for their rights in their workplaces when they are pushed to the point where they do end up going on strike because a negotiation has not been able to be found due to—Hon Member: Madam Chair—Madam Chair?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Madam Chair I'm not finished—I'm not finished. I want to know what the productivity loss will be for those workforces because of the fact that we do not have fair pay agreements in place and our bus drivers our hospitality workers our security officers and guards our commercial cleaners the early childhood education workers and the supermarket workers will continue to need to negotiate individually or be pushed in their workplaces to have to strike or take action because of the fact that the employer the union and the workers were not able to come to a fair agreement because the Minister is deciding to take fair pay agreements out of the picture.Now all of these things based on what we've heard from the Minister in her contributions in the committee today should be—should be—covered by that very comprehensive cover sheet that stands in place of the regulatory impact statement. Therefore I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the cover sheet—and I'll just reiterate—covers off the impacts on child poverty for those in those workforces; how the impact on Māori Pacific and women is covered off in those workforces through that cover sheet; how the productivity losses because of the repeal of fair pay agreements is covered off in that particular cover sheet; and of course because it's of the utmost importance to that Minister and the Government the expenditure that has been wasted because the Government decides to no longer pursue fairness in the workplace for our workers.Make sure please Minister that when you talk about the expenditure put towards actually negotiating these fair pay agreements you align that next to the productivity losses we can expect from those workforces because we didn't or they didn't have the courage to continue down the track of enforcing what is only right which is fair pay agreements for these workforces."