van de Molen Tim; Wood MichaelTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Look I just wanted to pick on the comments that the Minister made there with relation to the representation for Māori employees and particularly around clause 92C which talks to the entitlement and obligation to represent covered employees: When bargaining for a proposed FPA an employee bargaining side for the proposed FPA is entitled to represent and must use its best endeavours to represent the collective interests of all covered employees whether or not each employee is a member of a union." So I'm interested to hear from the Minister which part of the collective interests of all covered employees whether or not each employee is a member of the union excludes Māori from representation? Because quite clearly to me that includes everyone because it specifically states "all" and so there would of course then be no need for a separate clause and it just simply presents the opportunity for conflicts of interest which has been raised by other contributors.I also want to come to then contrary to that on the employer side clause 92G which was picked up by other contributors. But the aspect that I want to focus on here is the ambiguity around what are considered Māori employers. So clause 92G "Obligation to ensure representation of Māori employers" is that employers who are themselves Māori or employers who employ Māori employees? It's ambiguous and is not necessarily the same. So I'm interested to understand which of those it is and indeed what classifies a Māori employer in the context of the scale of a potential business. So some definition around that given that they've gone to the effort to make it a specific stand-alone clause—indeed the only carve-out for any ethnicity or special group based on gender or any other aspect. So why have they done that? And on what basis then is that definition decided?But actually I also want to pick up on and expand on the comments that Mr Goldsmith made around fair representation and particularly with the knowledge that—and this may be news for the Minister but most businesses in New Zealand are small businesses and those small businesses operate in many different ways and all have quite unique often considerations within their business. They have different staffing arrangements different competencies within their teams and indeed would be able to therefore respond under this Act in different mechanisms. Under clause 92(2)(d)—so this is talking about during bargaining if one side requests information—if for example the employee side requested information getting that information could be much more challenging for those small employers who do not necessarily have the depth of resource within their management team if indeed they have a management team to be able to find and supply that information in a timely manner without interrupting normal business operations. So clause 92(2)(d) specifies a reasonable time but my point here is that is highly subjective and varies based on the size of the business. So I'm interested in the Minister's consideration of "reasonable time" in that context and the implications for small versus large businesses and their ability to respond.Moving forward also to clause 92A(4) the information requested if it's considered confidential then having an independent reviewer come in to make a determination on that I'd like to understand how that independent reviewer is chosen—and indeed how they are defined—what is considered independent and how the Minister will have confidence that they then as an independent reviewer have the competence to understand and determine whether or not a particular piece of information supplied should or should not be considered confidential and the process of the fair pay agreement bargaining agreement. So those are probably the key aspects that I wanted to touch on particularly from the small business perspective just reiterating that for the Minister: the variation of size and ability to respond the nature of the independent reviewer and indeed the classification of what is or isn't a Māori business given that they have gone to the efforts of specifying that in legislation. Thank you.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In response to Mr van de Molen's two lines of inquiry I do not believe that the provisions in this bill for bargaining sides to consider whether Māori interests should be represented at the table in any way conflict with the fundamental duty to represent the interests of all employers on one side and all employees on the other side. The member can think of it this way: the fact that we have Māori seats represented in this House to ensure that there is Māori representation in this House does not in any way interfere or undercut the fundamental duty that all members have to this House and to the people that we serve.In respect of his question about information being provided in clause 92A the key point to be aware of here is that it is an information request about bargaining sides. It is not about individual employers. It is effectively about one bargaining side being able to request information from the other bargaining side. It doesn't go down the chain to individual employers. Again I point out that this provision is effectively a lift from the Employment Relations Act which covers collective bargaining which of course the National Party left in place for the nine years that it was in office."