Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. For those at home tuning into their crystal sets to watch or listen to this debate on the—misnamed—Fair Pay Agreements Bill we're now two and a half hours into this legislation and we're now starting Part 3 of a bill which has 11 parts. This Government in its wisdom has introduced a very detailed bill which will have very significant effect on our workplaces up and down the country and this part Part 3 of course is one of the meatier parts which we will need to delve into. It's important that we do get some understandings about some of the issues raised because one fundamental element of this part is how such a misnamed fair pay agreement would be initiated because once it starts there is no stopping. Unless the union which in all reality would've initiated it changes their mind and pulls out there is no stopping the process and there will be a fair pay agreement (FPA). So it is very important what the rules are for starting this and initiating such a process.The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety in his wisdom has introduced three options. First is that 10 percent of a covered workforce may vote for it—10 percent. In most people's understanding of democracy they don't sort of think of 10 percent as being a particularly strong call for change. You know it's kind of about the number of people that vote for the Green Party  for example—but not quite—so I don't think most New Zealanders would indicate—Hon Michael Wood: Does the member get 10 percent in Epsom?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well that's a very interesting point but not quite relevant to this part. But what I was saying was I don't think most people would be very impressed if the Greens were to rule the country on 10 percent or just under thereof. Not many people would think that was a mandate. So you've got 10 percent—that's one option.Then you've got the option of 1000 employees. Now again if you happen to be in an occupation where there are 200000 New Zealanders engaged in that occupation if we're in retail or sales or something like that this Minister is telling us that it only takes 1000. It may be less than half of 1 percent of the workforce. Just think about that: less than half of 1 percent of the workforce can start a process that cannot be stopped. That to me is an outrage—a total democratic outrage.But no there's worse: even if you can't make it to that threshold you can't even make it to half of 1 percent there's a third option which is you can get one of these things if there is a public interest test and you can persuade the chief executive of the ministry of business information—or whatever it's called—that the fair pay agreement covers an area that is of low pay little good bargaining power a lack of pay progression and inadequate pay and various factors. And so the select committee again in their wisdom decided that there must be low-pay provisions. But that doesn't actually define what low pay" is. I suppose the first question that I have of many—Hon Damien O'Connor: You'd find out if you were on it.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well you know it if you've got it. That might be the answer from the Minister. You know you're low paid if you feel you're low paid. If that's his definition then I think there is a certain mayor in Auckland earning nearly $300000 who thinks he's low paid and he should only do a 30-hour week on account of that. So maybe he would be included in that definition. I'm not sure. So I'd like to hear from the Minister as to how he defines "low pay". But more fundamentally I'd like to have him explain to the committee and to the people of New Zealand how he thinks that a situation where fewer than half of 1 percent of the employees in a particular occupation or industry can decide for the other 99.5 percent that they're going to be swept up in a fair pay agreement regardless of whether they want it or not and how he thinks that is in any way shape or form a reasonable or democratic thing to do. So I have taken the liberty of bringing forth an amendment which would actually do away with that proposal and say instead that a fair pay agreement can be initiated if 50 percent of a workforce or an area to be covered agree with it. And surely that is the rational and fair and appropriate way to do it—not 10 percent not the Greens but 50 percent; a successful Labour Party or a National Party on a good day or a combination of a number of parties in the political equivalent where you have a majority of people in an area being covered deciding that they want this. How can that not be a reasonable proposition as opposed to a situation where a tiny tiny fraction of the workforce to be covered by a misnamed fair pay agreement would be able to start a process? Because it would be all right if this very tiny minority were able to start a process that that could be stopped in some way and that if it started and everybody looked at it and said "Well that doesn't make sense; we're not going to do it; therefore it's not going to happen. Good night and thank you very much." that is not what this legislation does. Once it starts there ain't no stopping. There's going to be a fair pay agreement probably decided by the Employment Relations Authority. So the Government's proposal is 10 percent—a very low threshold; less than half of 1 percent in a large occupation or even less; maybe a just a smidgen of a fraction less than 1 percent in terms of 1000 workers—and even if that doesn't work this rather loosely defined public interest test based on low pay which I'd love to hear from the Minister exactly how he defines it and what constitutes that in the sense of low pay. Just briefly while I've got some more time it's interesting that not all employees who are covered by the proposed FPA need to meet the criteria of the public interest test which is interesting. So if we're talking about low pay it doesn't mean that the industry itself needs to be low paid; it just needs to be that some members of the industry are low paid. Maybe I've got that wrong. But again if you were to take salespeople for example as an occupation that there was going to be an FPA for—of course many salespeople if they are I don't know in real estate or selling cars or selling helicopters or whatever might be paid very well; may be paid very well. So they wouldn't necessarily fall within the category of low pay although according to Wayne Brown's definition of "low pay" they might be. But of course all you need is one or two salespeople who are not paid very well and then you would fall within the public interest test that the chief executive of Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) can apply. And then again you could have a situation where you know there might be 200000 salespeople across the country—I don't know how many there are—and it's certainly not 50 percent that I would argue should be agreeing to a fair pay agreement that should agree to it; it's not 10 percent that the Government thinks; it's not the 1000 people which would be less than half of 1 percent who have to agree with it; it could be that none of them could agree with it; there could be nobody that agrees with it whatsoever. It could be all 200000 salespeople across the country and none of them agree with it but the chief executive of MBIE decides to go ahead because there are one or two salespeople that aren't making much money. Have I got that right and does that make sense?"