Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair and congratulations on your role. It's quite exciting. I would like to talk about something which covers really the whole bill but this is probably the appropriate part to talk about it. That is the fact that this bill has been rushed and I have real concerns about legislative quality. The irony is that this is coming from a party whose main plank in the coalition agreement is legislative and regulatory quality. Now I've heard about the regulatory impact statement and the nonsense as to why that wasn't got—so I won't go there but I do have a number of specific questions.These are questions based on the Regulatory Standards Bill that David Seymour had and that will no doubt be reincarnated in this Parliament. One of the main planks of that bill which talks about good regulatory and legislative quality is that the people who are affected by the bill have been consulted. Now there are a number of people who are currently negotiating fair pay agreements and what I would like to know from the Minister—a clear answer—is what engagement have you had with the industries and the unions that are leading the bargaining in respect of fair pay agreements because they are directly affected by this and by your party's own creed you require consultation with them. So that's the first thing.The second question I have is that in that set of principles around good legislative quality there needs to be an exploration of other options. What I don't want to hear from the Minister is her doctrine. I don't want to hear her dogma. What I want to hear is the process that she went through which her own party requires to explore other options which were different to or other than a wholesale repeal of the fair pay agreements. What I see in this party is a party that says one thing and does another and that's utterly incoherent it's inconsistent and it doesn't come well from someone who's now in Government. So that's my second question.My third question is this: by the ACT Party's own principles of legislative quality an analysis should be done of the costs and benefits of this legislation. I don't want the ACT Party's reckons on this. What I want to know is what analysis has been done of the costs and the benefits of having fair pay agreements on the one hand which raise the wages of our lowest-paid workers and what the benefits and costs are of abolishing of sweeping aside better wages for workers in some of our most critical industries. Don't give me the Business Roundtable's analysis Minister. What I want to know is what independent analysis has been done in the current environment—not back when the original legislation was passed which was a different economy. I want to know what it is now in the economy that we have today where wages are under pressure where people are under pressure. So please give me that analysis and assure me that you will hold yourself to the very same standards that you are proposing to hold other legislators to. This bill is a real step backwards.So what I would like to know is: are you following your own procedure of legislative quality? And I'd also like to know whether this legislation meets the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee guidelines not only for its legislative quality in its wording but also the process it has gone through. It's a significant change in our policy and it appears to me that it's been rushed it's under urgency there's no consultation there's no research done on it. It's a piece of dogma from the ACT Party and I'd like to hear the Minister's answers to those four questions.