van Velden Brooke; Tuiono TeanauHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Mr Chair. I was very much enjoying the contribution of the member Camilla Belich and if anyone was interested in the other submissions that came through they can refer to my second reading speech; I don't need to repeat those. But I also wanted to just touch on her earlier question about how we will improve conditions for people in our economy. I note that it wasn't actually specific to this bill but I do thank the member for her interest because this is a Government that is going to have a lot of work on our hands to create a good thriving economy for every person in New Zealand. And I can't wait for the member to see what this Government will deliver for all New Zealanders. I note that this is external to the bill but so was her question.I wanted to touch on the Hon Phil Twyford's questions firstly starting with what evidence base we have for this bill given that we don't have a regulatory impact statement. I just wanted to alert the honourable member to the second page of the cover sheet to the Fair Pay Agreements regulatory impact statement point No. 2 where it says that Treasury actually determined that we didn't need a completely new regulatory impact statement because it said This exemption is granted on the grounds that the regulatory impact statement produced when the Fair Pay Agreements system was introduced in 2021 mostly duplicates the analysis needed to repeal the system. This exemption is conditional on MBIE producing a coversheet"—which is what I am reading from. So it's not correct to say that there isn't a regulatory impact statement. The regulatory impact statement from 2021 still well and truly applies and within that regulatory impact statement they did not actually recommend that we had a fair pay agreements system.To the second question which was about why I am asserting that the repeal will actually deliver greater flexibility for the employment market that's important because we do have flexibility under the status quo which is that employees and employers can individually or collectively have employment agreements. That is by definition far more flexible than what this agreement allows for which is a blunt tool that forces employees and employers to be part of a fair-pay agreement even if they chose not to be part of one. In the case with the submissions that we heard through the Fair Pay Agreements Bill when it was going through under the previous Government there are businesses where workers don't actually wish to associate with a union but would be forced to under this law. But also there are businesses who would be forced to close because they could not afford the terms and conditions that would be forced on them by a third party. So therefore there will always be more flexibility under what we are assuming versus what the member is hoping for.He also considers whether or not we'd be satisfied with low pay in New Zealand. I'm not satisfied with low pay but I don't believe that this would actually improve pay and wage conditions in New Zealand. It is really important that we have a flexible labour market where we have high productivity where we focus on the regulations and red tape that is actually stifling our economy so that businesses have more money to pay their staff more. Adding more bureaucracy to our labour market will not have the desired effect.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members are starting in the content of their speeches to move into Part 2 so I will take another call and see where we go."