Watts Simon; Wood Michael; Boyack RachelSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Sometimes when you're sitting down the back you wonder whether—well you take these opportunities when they come and I'm looking forward to asking three questions in particular about this bill. It's been hard to get a word in from this side. We've got a lot of contribution.But it's interesting in clause 201 that the Minister referred to previously when he was referring to the enforcement action—the question I have for the Minister in regards to that is: what if any assessments of cost have been undertaken in regards to the enforcement action that will flow as a result of clause 201? I had a quick skim of the departmental disclosure statement and also a quick skim of the regulatory impact statement—particularly the regulatory impact statement I think is probably the most relevant. I didn't see anything there in regards to the costs in regards to enforcement which—maybe I missed it but I'm pretty reasonable at reviewing; I didn't see it. So just a question there in regards to what the quantum of it could be.The second point that I raise is in regards to clause 197(2) and this is in regards to the differentiation between the penalty for the individual and the penalty for the other person. The question that I have for the Minister is in regards to the process that's been undertaken in regards to the setting of those two different penalty levels. I'm assuming the other person" categorisation refers to businesses which makes sense. I know that there is some potential precedent in regards to that in other aspects of employment legislation but I'm just seeking clarity in regards to the basis on which "other person" was set at $20000 versus "individual" at $10000 and what consideration around ensuring that that was appropriate and consistent was undertaken.And the last question if I may relates to more of a macro question around Part 9 "Penalties and enforcement" and in particular what engagement if any has been undertaken with the Ministry of Justice in regards to these provisions. I'm just looking for a little bit more detail in regards to the dialogue that has occurred—which I assume has occurred—in regards to assuring the appropriateness of these clauses and in particular any issues that were raised through that dialogue with the Ministry of Justice in terms of actions that potentially resulted in any changes or highlighted areas of risk that came as a result of that engagement process. So those are the three questions I've got and I look forward to the Minister's response.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In response to the member's first question about there being an assessment of the overall system-level impact of enforcement and penalties it's very difficult to assess what the nature of non-compliance might be at a system level but I would expect its overall impact will in fact be very low. If we look broadly speaking at the level of non-compliance that makes its way through to enforcement and penalties being issued across the entire Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) regime it's actually very low year to year so I do not expect there would be any significant impact but it's very difficult to tell exactly what it would be. In respect of clause 197(2) which identifies the difference in a penalty between an individual and any other person "any other person" yes would include businesses but also unions and any other corporate organisation including employer associations that are within the ambit of the legislation. The $10000 and $20000 figures for those groups respectively are just taken straight from the Employment Relations Act. As we have in many parts of the legislative design we've tried to keep as much consistency with the broader employment relations system. Those penalty figures as far as I can recall have been in place since the early days of the ERA back in the early 2000s.In terms of engagement with the Ministry of Justice in respect of Part 9 "Enforcement and penalties" the Ministry of Justice of course is involved in the overall New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance vet with the legislation. They do always look at these matters including the appropriateness and proportionality of penalties and I do not believe that they had any particular comment to offer in respect to the penalties in this legislation.RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move That the question be now put."