Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Mr Chair I note your comments in relation to the part but I have actually got an amendment that I haven't spoken to in Part 1 which is the amendment in my name to insert a new clause 3 which would still be in Part 1.When I was at law school I learnt that in good legislative drafting it is preferable to put a purpose clause in legislation. And the reason for that is sometimes it's important to understand the purpose of the Parliament in creating a particular law because otherwise when there's a provision that is unclear or perhaps maybe with the passage of time a new interpretation is possible it helps to have a purpose. Unfortunately this bill doesn't have a purpose and if it did it would be in Part 1. So my proposal in my amendment is to insert a new clause and the purpose to be in line with the Act obviously needs to be consistent with the repeal legislation.So the purpose that I have provided in this amendment document is to outline what I believe is the purpose of this bill which is to ensure businesses can continue to undervalue workers to protect New Zealand's low-wage economy from encroachment by workers' rights and (c) to entrench inherent imbalance of power enjoyed by employers. I think that really that is the purpose of the bill. I know it's probably not the aspirational purpose that you see in some pieces of legislation and I hope that we'll get the opportunity to discuss the purpose clause in the primary piece of legislation when we move on to Part 2 but sometimes the purpose clause does serve a very important role within statutory interpretation. So if the Minister doesn't accept my proposal I would like to know a few things from her.The first is: why isn't there a purpose clause in this document and why isn't there more detail about what it seeks to achieve? And secondly if she were to insert a purpose clause or to add more detail of that nature into the legislation what does she believe is the purpose of that?I think that does have some value for the Hansard in terms of assisting with future statutory interpretation and I think that it would be beneficial for those scholars who undoubtedly trawl through the hours of this debate looking for the true meaning behind this repeal Act legislation to understand her thinking which she's undoubtedly gone through in deciding to repeal what would have been a fundamental change to industrial relations in New Zealand probably the most significant one since the Employment Contracts Act. So I'd be interested to hear the Minister's response to that in relation to that.I think there's at least one other amendment that we have that the member seeking to put that amendment hasn't spoken to yet. So I just remind you that additionally there are some additional amendments on this part that have been raised by other members which I wouldn't mind having comment on as well in Part 1.The first one is Ricardo Menéndez March's provision in relation to Part 1. I think what he has suggested in his amendment has a lot of value and I wouldn't mind if the Minister would elucidate the House with whether she intends to support Mr Menéndez March's amendment.Additionally Debbie Ngarewa-Packer has put forward what I think is a very valid proposal and amendment on this part. I would also additionally be interested in the Minister's view on whether she considers this particular amendment as worthy. It also talks about a number of issues that have been touched on in the debate to date including the continuation of this particular fair pay agreement regime which is to be repealed in areas where Māori are particularly impacted.I think in relation to some of the previous questions that we did ask I know the Minister has responded to some of them but I don't really feel she's given a true answer as to how she will address low pay for Māori. I know that we're not allowed to repeat questions but I understand when they haven't been addressed that it's important to bring those to the Minister's attention. So I wondered if she had considered Ms Ngarewa-Packer's amendment and whether she intends to vote for it and again if not then what actions related to this amendment under Part 1 she intends to take in order to further the position of Māori and address the low pay which has been mentioned in two documents so far in this committee stage in relation to the first part of this bill.