Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Chair. It is really good to be able to take this call and—if I can indulge Madam Chair—there's actually a number of items that I'm going to be covering across the various different Amendment Papers that have been tabled tonight in relation to this bill.One of the first things that I do want to touch on is that as the member knows previously to this bill we just had a bill that removed the maximum sustainable employment element to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. It was brought up in that bill time and time again and it is part of this bill that because we are not going through a select committee process it is imperative that this side of the House in the Opposition—and of course Government members if they have questions as well—have sufficient time to be able to analyse this bill to be able to provide contributions as well as speak to the various amendments that have been tabled today.I just want to touch on before going into my actual questions for the Minister a couple of points that the Minister raised around the lack of evidence. So what we do know is this Government is hell-bent on making sure we have evidence-based policy. Now I appreciate that every Government has their particular tenets and for this Government it's evidence-based policy. But then what I look to in relation to evidence-based policy is that for us on this side of the House the reason why we have the regulatory impact statements is especially—especially—when you have a bill going through urgency where you cannot seek advice from officials you cannot have officials come to the select committee and brief the committee and you cannot call for submissions you are able to build basically an evidence base from the various submissions from the advice the officials provide you. So I do acknowledge Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials who are in the Chamber tonight who have provided a cover sheet a regulatory impact statement. A really key thing about that regulatory cover sheet is it actually refers to the full impact statement that was provided to the House in 2021 as part of the introduction of the Fair Pay Agreements Act.If we look to the actual full impact statement and because it constantly cross-references it—why I am bringing this into the committee is because this is the evidence base in which we here on this side of the House not being able to have a select committee process; not being able to call for submissions; call for advice; even have our own independent adviser. I'm going to refer to a number of items within the full impact statement because it's been cross-referenced and because that is the only evidence base that we have tonight to be able to scrutinise that bill on the Table in which we form the basis of a number of amendments that have been tabled tonight.So I look to the full impact statement and if members like to be able to look at it I understand the copies have run out on the Table—but we look to pages 58 and 59. Annex Two covers the best capable advice that was provided at the time for wages over time. The reason why I refer to that is because at the very start of that full impact statement it talks about Part 1: The employment relations/employment standards system recognises there is an inherent imbalance of bargaining power in the employment context." That is in relation to the problem definition in which there was a Fair Pay Agreement Act which was passed and therefore the result of this Government—you have to argue against that problem statement.But it is clearly set out in the evidence that was provided at the time that we had the Fair Pay Agreements Act that there is an inherent imbalance of bargaining power in the employment context. The evidence base that was provided by those officials is set out in Annex Two and when you look at the wages over time—for example figure A2 "Cleaners and laundry workers": "Approximately 17 percent of cleaners and laundry workers are union members."; that's by the by. But then when you have a look at the cleaners and laundry workers you look at perhaps over the five-year period the mean hourly rate is around $18.60 and then you look at the median hourly looking five years out to $17.50. Then you look at wages over time. Around 2018 the mean hourly was $18.35 and then the median hourly was $17.25.So then I compare that to say figure A3 which is "Automobile bus and rail drivers"; "The union density for automobile bus and rail drivers is 36 percent." Now why this is important Madam Chair is because there is actually an amendment that has been tabled by the Hon Willie Jackson at 4.50 p.m. tonight which says in clause 5 to insert after "repealed" "except in relation to FPA 01-003-2022 - Interurban urban rural and urban bus transport - Bus drivers coach drivers and cleaners". So therefore you compare figure A2 and figure A3 the union density and you look at the different mean hourly—[Bell rung] Madam Chair if I can continue.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I call on the Hon Barbara Edmonds.Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Thank you Madam Chair very much. So you compare the 17 percent of cleaners and laundries who are unionised to that of automobile bus and rail drivers and that's at 36 percent. Now if the committee can remember I said the five-year outlook: the mean hourly for cleaners was $18.60. In a sector where there is higher union membership the mean hourly five years out is $25.30. There is actually a considerable difference which shows why having collective bargaining power is incredibly important. So that's why this is the evidence base in which I support the Hon Willie Jackson's amendment to this particular bill.But then we also think about the wider context of why the fair pay agreements was brought in and it is set to cover around 200000 to 300000 workers. Now the Minister did talk about productivity costs—or perhaps that was the answer that she didn't actually provide. So again going to the full impact statement the actual cost that there will be—and this is where for me it is the worst thing about this particular bill going through urgency and why we didn't have any evidence base. Back in 2021 it said that there's going to be an estimated $150 million to $600 million per year total monetised benefits. That'll be $150 million to $600 million—yes that's right—going to some of our lowest-paid workers.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How does that not help?Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: How does that not help the cost of living crisis that that Government absolutely has sworn to try and attack? When this full impact statement in 2021—so there will be inflation on top of that. I'd be really keen to understand from the Minister: what advice has the Minister received in relation to the costs which are therefore then passed on to the lowest-paid workers? There's roughly 200000 to 300000 workers. So again the 2021 full impact statement estimated $150 million to $600 million.I understand that there are some caveats within the full impact statement that are provided by MBIE; that they had to make some assumptions. But you know what? Forecasting of any policy provides some assumptions. As to their confidence in that assumption I'm not quite sure because I couldn't quite find it in the full impact statement. But that's why it had to go through a consultation process. Again the policy process: the full impact statement is the very start of the policy process.So as that time progresses therefore you get more evidence to build a base as to actually "Yes this is true." You might have a submitter who does say "Actually our median hourly for five years plus is actually more than $18.30 or whatever it is. It is actually around this amount." Therefore officials can provide advice to both Opposition and Government members to say to the select committee "We believe this may actually cost more than $150 million to $600 million. That was at the time; there are rough estimates based on some assumptions." But again we are not able to have that evidence or advice at the moment because we have not been able to scrutinise the bill within the full parliamentary process. That is the issue as to why you have so many members in this Chamber who are standing on their feet asking for time to be able to ask these questions.For me as a Pacific woman and a person who worked in an economic and finance place for a long time as my professional career—I come from a family of cleaners. I come from a family of hospital cleaners who are some of the lowest-paid workers but thankfully they've been able to collectively bargain to be able to lift some of those wages. They may not be the wages that they want to have but actually the ability to stand together as a sector and to be able to argue for fairer pay is exactly what this particular Act tried to do.So my question to the Minister—and it's good to see that officials are here on site to be able to help—is: what advice has she received in relation to the costings as to what will be lost by the workers? If it wasn't $150 million to $600 million—again the range is variable but I'm just going off the full impact statement that was provided in 2021. For me it is clearly shown in the evidence that has been provided in the annex that there is a clear discrepancy by the amount of those who are unionised and by those that aren't—just using the laundry and cleaners and the bus drivers. So that's why I stand in support of the Hon Willie Jackson's particular amendment.I also want to quickly—while I've got the time—absolutely ask the Minister to put in a review. There are a number of amendments on that Table which seek that you do review this and I absolutely urge the Government given we haven't had an opportunity in select committee to consider a review for this bill."