Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you to members for particular questions that they have asked I'm happy to now respond to those. In respect of Mr Uffindell's questions about employers in different regions I think there are two important points to make here. The first is that it's generally accepted by all but the most extreme voices that it is appropriate to have minimum terms and conditions that cover everyone—a minimum wage our minimum sick leave our minimum annual leave. And you might have legitimate political debate about where those levels should be set. The general acceptance is that you should have a floor that applies to everyone regardless of where they work or what part of the country they're in. Then of course individual employers and employees and unions depending on particular circumstances can negotiate above that to suit the particular conditions that they face in their particular aspirations.The principle is effectively no different with fair pay agreements (FPAs). Fair pay agreements are about establishing a minimum set of terms and conditions across an industry or an occupation as Parliament and the Government will set minimum terms and conditions through statute and then different employers unions and employees can bargain different conditions over and above that if they wish.It's also important to note that later on in the legislation there is a specific capacity for regional variations to be agreed within fair pay agreements and that might go to some of the examples that the member identified there.When it comes to family members working in businesses I think the most important point to make here is that just because you employ someone in your family it doesn't mean you can contract out of employment law in respect of the rights of that person. That's not just a point about fair pay agreements as proposed to the committee; that's a point about any employment law that is the law of the land. And actually it's a very very important and fundamental protection that we have in place there.In respect of good faith being extended as I say it's a fundamental tenet of our employment law. The obligations around good faith have pretty established jurisprudence and understandings built up around them. I don't foresee that those things will be particularly difficult for parties to comply with. They rest around honesty transparency good communication listening to what the other side or what your own constituents have to say to you and taking that into account.Mr Goldsmith asked some questions around the most representative body". As he rightly pointed out this is a well understood term in terms of our relationship with the International Labour Organization but also the engagement that Governments historically have with peak bodies. In terms of our relationship with the International Labour Organization the member is correct that the peak bodies are understood to be the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions as the most representative body of workers—they're not a union themselves but they are the most representative body—and Business New Zealand as the most representative body of businesses. I will have to under the regulations determine that that is appropriate for the purposes of fair pay agreements but there is no particular reason to think that they will be any different for the purposes of this legislation.The member's also right that in respect of the backstop role the default bargaining party role—it is a voluntary role and that is specifically in response to the views of Business New Zealand as we have developed this legislation. They identified that they did not want that to be a required role; we respected that. But they identified that they were willing for that to be a voluntary role that they stepped into so that is what is reflected in the legislation that we have here. And the member is then also right that if you go through those two stages—that if employers for whom an FPA is initiated are unwilling or unable to form a bargaining party and then the default bargaining party being the most representative body is unwilling or unable to take on that role then it does go to through to the Employment Relations Authority for determination.Fundamentally it would be absurd to set up a regime like fair pay agreements and then just say "Well if one party just chooses not to participate that won't happen." So you have to have a pathway to make sure that they do happen. And again I'll just repeat that I actually think in good faith you'll generally have two parties who will want to come to the table to put their views and have a decent negotiation to try and settle fair terms and conditions.And Mr Penk appropriately asked a number of questions around the courts and he is correct that you know the court that is referred to in the legislation here is the Employment Court. Judicial review where it occurs will be heard in the Employment Court in the first instance and parties will then be able to access the higher courts in terms of appeal right through of course to the Supreme Court.In terms of the charitable sector I mean again the member is right. As is the case with other sectors you will have some employers who are currently familiar with collective bargaining regimes and some who are not so familiar. My point was that I think that degree of familiarity will be higher in the NGO and charitable sector. And in fact some of the most supportive conversations I have with employers come from that NGO and charitable sector. They're often part of what we call the funded sector where funding flows down to the Government—you can think about a lot of the care work that happens in our communities. And they're a classic example of the race to the bottom that we're trying to fix here. Often those sectors have very low pay and poor conditions. They compete for contracts effectively to keep on going and that has often ended up with some of the people doing incredibly important work in our society with pretty poor pay and conditions. And that's what fair pay agreements are about. The whole point is that by establishing a minimum floor you stop that race to the bottom and you stop competition for contracts and business based on the lowest wages. So it is inherent here—that's what we're trying to fix. And I think—and again many employers in the sector reflect this back to me—that will actually be a helpful addition to the landscape for many NGOs and charities. Ultimately the funders—sometimes local government and sometimes central government—will need to participate in that to make sure that appropriate funding is there to meet those objectives.In terms of contact details as defined in the legislation—yes there's been substantial work that has been done with the Privacy Commissioner as the legislation has been developed here. These are very clear and we'll get to this later on and I can't quite remember which part it's in but there are very clear procedures for employees to be able to opt out of providing their details if they do not wish their details to be passed on."