Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to take a call on Part 3. And I want to take us a little bit back if I may to clause 26(3) then (4). I refer here to the linkage of that point with the departmental disclosure statement section 2.5 which refers to in particular the cost burden that will be placed upon employers as a result of this legislation. And obviously clause 26(4) initiates the obligations around the employers to undertake obligations that are relating to representation and the requirement to comply around a duty of good faith etc. etc.And so the question that I have for the Minister the Hon Michael Wood particularly is: in section 2.5(b) of the departmental disclosure it refers to estimated benefits in this case which of course will be a cost to employers of $150 million to $600 million of ongoing benefit to workers. I think—for those that are that are sitting at home watching this which I'm sure there'll be a large number—on every side of a benefit there is also a cost. So someone has to pay these benefits. And $0.6 billion is the estimate here around what will be the cost on employers to in effect affect this legislation—and that's the increase in labour costs which would be borne by the employer.So I'm wanting to get clarity from the Minister on three points in particular. The range given in the estimate is between $150 million and $0.6 billion. So that's a pretty big range right? I mean that's pretty significant. So give us some context give us some substantiation and give us some confidence around how this number is being determined and importantly if this is going to increase labour costs by $0.6 billion how can that be in effect justified in regards to the reality that our business community—I think all Kiwis not just business community all Kiwis—right now are struggling under the significant burden of a cost of living crisis? Adding more cost—and this is not just a little bit; you know $0.6 billion that's a significant amount of additional cost. So I'd like to have a bit of clarity around how that number was ticketed. That also is in reference to appendix one of the departmental disclosure statement where those numbers are quoted.There's other elements there which are costs of bargaining consultation. So again that links back to Part 3 clause 26(2)—again the cost there refers to $1 million to $2 million. Well that seems to be way out of whack in terms of 150 to 600. I mean I just can't see the linkage in terms of how those two numbers relate. So I'd like the Minister to provide some clarity around how the costs of bargaining in consultation on regulated employers will be calculated.The third element is actually well let's look at the compliance cost on the public sector as a result of this as well because we talk about the cost burden that's going to fall on all employers. And the Hon Paul Goldsmith actually referred to Haast—I think he referred to. I was actually in Te Ānau last week and I tell you what the people of Te Ānau the business owners—we had a meeting with hospitality owners and business owners—they are in strife and that understates it. And so they are struggling with a workforce crisis. So they've now I guess as a result of this legislation according to appendix one of the departmental disclosure got a train coming at them you know a train of cost coming at them. Not only them but actually it looks like it costs the Government—according to appendix one they're also going to increase by around $10 to $12 million which seems significantly less than the $150 million to $0.6 billion around the labour costs. So again I'd like a little bit of clarification around how that component of what is the cost to Government and how are those numbers being determined and what is the expectation around the ability for those costs to be covered. Thank you Minister.