Dean Jacqui; Goldsmith PaulPart 10 InstitutionsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We come now to Part 10 the debate on clauses 204 to 228 Institutions" and also Schedule 3 "Application of provisions in Employment Relations Act 2000 relating to Employment Relations Authority". The question is that Part 10 stand part.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): We now come to a particularly iniquitous part of the legislation clause 218 where we find that the authority may fix terms of the proposed agreement—in fact they must. So this lays out the legislation where—let's just run through the logic of it. People are minding their own business working away either as an employee or owning a small business—an employer minding their own business—and happy with their work happy with the agility and flexibility that it brings and lo and behold a small tiny group can start a process for this misnamed fair pay agreement process which once it starts it never stops. The two sides are forced to engage. If the employers and the employees come up with an agreement and then the employers for example don't vote for it they don't support it or they decide that they're not going to engage they don't want to engage what happens?Well what happens is under clause 218 it goes to the authority—the Employment Relations Authority—who are no doubt good-spirited Kiwi people doing their best but I don't think possess unique wisdom and the ability to make correct decisions at every moment. This authority will fix the terms of the proposed agreement. So what we've got is an extraordinary circumstance where they will have the power not currently available to courts to fix the terms of large numbers of employees without input from employers. So what happens is they just decide what it's going to be and if you don't like it tough luck that's how it's going to be. And they're given enormous powers—Eastern European - sized powers—to decide what is going to be in the agreements. And so that's why we call this bill the "Mandatory Union Deals Bill" because it is mandatory you don't get a choice; it happens.I mean just think about the practicalities of this. I mean retail for example there's an organisation called Retail New Zealand. They're not employment negotiators. Their role up until now has been to sort of give input into legislation that's going on. They sort of lobby on behalf of the organisation they help inform them of what's going on they give advice from time to time but now they might want to set up a whole new agency to negotiate fair pay agreements. They might decide it's not worth it. And they might only represent half the retailers or some of the retailers and there are thousands of little retailers out there. I don't know how far it goes—whether it includes the poor kids who are sort of running a lemon squeeze stall on the street; they're retailers but I presume they're not incorporated. I don't know about all the dozens and tens of dozens of little caravan people at the farmer's markets on the weekends—I don't know whether they're included but there are lots of them and they're selling their little sort of mandarins and things on a Sunday—whether they're included.But certainly anybody that has a store—whether it's Michael Hill if they're not getting ram-raided or smashed-and-grabbed—they're retailers. So all of these disparate groups of people minding their own business doing their own thing suddenly have to decide to join forces into an employer's side of a debate. And they might decide quite rightly that they don't want to; they've got better things to do with their life and they're not going to and they're not going to be bullied by this Government to do it. But then the Government comes along and says "Well tough luck. We're going to have the authority set the terms and conditions: what you're going to pay how much you're going to pay." And the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will turn around and say "Oh well what are you worried about? There's a minimum wage in place now they have to do it. This is no different." Well it is different. It's in addition—it's on top—and it takes it to another level. It raises the level raises the base higher. And it includes a whole lot of different areas: whether it's health and safety briefings whether it's research and development whether it's superannuation; a whole bunch of things. It lifts up—that's the purpose of it all is to increase fundamentally the pay to workers and their conditions and inevitably the costs to employers.Now when you get back to the fundamentals of all this we want to see our employees paid more—of course we want New Zealanders to be paid more—but it can't be based on legislative fiat or just simply the decisions of judges. Ultimately if it wants to be sustainable it has to be based on productivity and in competitiveness. And so I suppose the fundamental question I have for the Minister is: why does he think it's appropriate that the Employment Relations Authority has these new powers currently not available to the courts to fix the terms of large numbers of employees without input from the employers? And is this not an overreach in any judicial terms? And I believe it is but he might have a better argument and I'd love to hear it if he does. I think I'll leave it at that for the time being."