SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look I thank the Minister for his actually quite comprehensive response. I suppose the paradox around good faith is not the concept but the fact that he is becoming very prescriptive in legislation. The very nature of good faith is that it is open.Marja Lubeck: He has to because some people don't know what good faith means like yourself; it is not equal treatment.SIMON O'CONNOR: Right. That's brilliant. So we once again have the great sage of Marja Lubeck deciding what is and isn't out of good faith which is the exact point that good faith is about a discussion not a heckling. And so drawing it back to Part 3 again I think Minister we all agree with the nature of good faith; it's just does he understand the paradox that to prescribe what is and is not in good faith is in fact counter-productive?The second is to come back to the earlier question: does he believe as he's just answered—and again thank you for that—all the various conditions and processes and costs are going to lead to more or fewer productions in New Zealand? I think that's a fundamental question because he's right to mention the Screen Production and Development Association and others but I know a number of people—and I keep bringing up the Amazon production of The Lord of the Rings but actually they have left the country; they left the country. They are unlikely I'd suggest to come back. And the worry that I genuinely have is that legislation like this is going to make life even harder.So we can opine like Marja Lubeck here wonderful great diatribes but actually we're going to have fewer people working in the industry because of this legislation—we're going to have fewer people. So two ultimate questions: how does he reconcile good faith the concept with adding quite a prescriptive formula through his legislation; and secondly—and to repeat again—does he believe because of this Part 3 in particular we are going to see more or fewer productions in New Zealand?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Briefly in answer to the two questions—firstly as I said good faith is a very very established framework for productive collective bargaining. The argument that the member makes that somehow it's overly prescriptive or burdensome doesn't hold any water. It was retained by the previous National Government for its entire nine years as one of the building blocks of the collective bargaining framework under the Employment Relations Act. The code of good faith which was promulgated by Margaret Wilson in the early 2000s was kept in place by that previous National Government to provide guidance for people engaging in bargaining processes for that entire period. I don't see it as particularly burdensome in any particular way. Actually in amongst the wide range of debates with employers and unions about the nature of our employment relations framework that is not a point that I can say has ever particularly been raised with me in my time as a Minister or someone who has been engaged in this area. If anything I think it provides some certainty and some structure to the way that bargaining will be conducted to ensure that it's productive and actually results in outcomes.Secondly in respect of any expectation that I might have about there being fewer or more productions as a result of there being collective bargaining provisions: I don't have any particular reason to think that it will be here nor there in that respect. The main example that the member referred to of course was Amazon shifting production elsewhere which was driven by other factors—as I understand it primarily by tax treatment and subsidies that are often probably actually amongst the most significant drivers of where productions settle internationally. But I really just don't accept the fundamental premise that basic labour rights should be on the table in this area. If you go down that rabbit hole well maybe we should remove the minimum wage maybe we should remove basic provisions to sick leave and ACC and others things that are a bedrock of decent terms and conditions because international businesses would prefer that we lowered their cost base. We just don't think that is a way that we should conduct ourselves. We think that we should have basic decent terms and conditions for people who do work in New Zealand and then aim to be competitive in other ways other than a race to the bottom.