Moroney Sue: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 28 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:258. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.SUE MORONEY (Labour)to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What are the major collective employment agreements currently under negotiation where there would no longer be a duty to conclude bargaining when the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is passed in Parliament?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):It is not possible to give a definitive list. That would depend on the member’s definition of the term “major” it would depend on the timing of the implementation of the bill once it is passed and it would depend on the conclusion of employment agreement negotiations presently under way which is not able to be assessed.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question was on notice. This is the Minister formerly known as the Minister of Labour and he should know what major collective employment agreements are being bargained for at the moment. It just defies belief that he does not.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again it is one of these issues around ministerial responsibility. The Minister is not actually responsible for the stages of any of those major collective negotiations. He may well have been aware and that is why the question has been accepted but he certainly does not in my mind have ministerial responsibility in regard to those agreements.Sue Moroney: Was the priority given to amending the Employment Relations Act determined by the fact that negotiations are about to take place to renew the collective employment agreement for 25000 nurses working in public hospitals?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No.Sue Moroney: Was he aware then that the Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly reported to nursing and teaching conferences that Deputy Prime Minister Bill English told the Council of Trade Unions that the Government would pursue the Employment Relations Act amendments because it had “Ministers around the Cabinet table who want more flexibility” when it comes to negotiating with teachers and nurses?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No but I would agree that the bill when passed will be an improvement on the employment relations framework in this country and I am not surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister is keen on having it passed.Sue Moroney: Will today’s Court of Appeal decision confirming equal pay rights for female-dominated occupations enable him to update the Employment Relations Act to reflect that decision?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The decision of the Court of Appeal has only just been handed down. It behoves the Attorney-General and me to consider it carefully and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to speculate on future changes.Sue Moroney: Will he give a guarantee then that he will not pass legislation to undermine today’s decision given Simon Bridges’ recent statement that the Government may “intervene in the proceedings”?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do not believe the Employment Relations Amendment Bill when passed would undermine any decision of the Court of Appeal and therefore the question is moot.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was not about the Employment Relations Act specifically. It was “Will he give a guarantee”—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the question. The essence of the question “Would the Minister give a guarantee …”—he has not answered it specifically; he may want to. I would have thought it was fairly obvious from his answer that he was not about to give a guarantee. In my mind the question has been addressed. He was never going to give a guarantee which was the essence of the question as I took it from Sue Moroney. Before I call question No. 9 can I just clarify with the Hon Gerry Brownlee the point he raised earlier. Was it in regard to question No. 7 or was it in regard to question No. 8?Hon Gerry Brownlee: 7.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member.