Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Referring first to Maureen Pugh's contributions I don't know if there's a strong link to Part 2 here. But in respect of collective bargaining it's not for me as the Minister or the Government or any of us to determine where collective bargaining occurs. Under existing collective bargaining arrangements and under the fair pay agreements (FPA) that will be up to workers themselves to initiate if they believe that they want to enter into a collective bargaining process. If the member doesn't believe that there need to be some improvements to accommodation and standards for some Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers that's her view; it's not shared by me and I don't think it's shared by most people. Later on the Act should also see that there is a vetting process whereby any fair pay agreement gets assessed for its consistency with other legislation.In terms of Mr Goldsmith's comments he notes the change that the Education and Workforce Committee made to specify that it's the collective interests of employees under the FPA that the employee bargaining side has to represent. That's appropriate and it goes to some of the other points that he makes. As I've described FPAs set a set of minimum terms and conditions for that group of workers at a sector or occupational level. Contrary to some of the assertions that have been made and some of the implications made by that member individual employers and employees at the individual bargaining level or the site collective bargaining level are still perfectly free to come to other arrangements if they wish to. So the purpose of the select committee entering the wording around collective interests" is to make sure that that bargaining process remains focused on the collective interests of that group of workers. It would actually become unworkable were there to be an obligation on the employee bargaining side to represent the individual interests of workers and it would very much confuse the regime. To give an example that worker in the Hokianga that the member references might want to come to and negotiate at the individual level a flexible working arrangement with their employer. Nothing in the FPA legislation prevents that from happening. We want them to be able to do that in that particular employment relationship. But you wouldn't want that being caught up in a broader process of negotiating an FPA that might cover a large number of employees and employers.In respect of the member's points and arguments around freedom of association those are not shared by the Government; they are not shared by the Attorney-General who has vetted this legislation; and they're certainly not shared by the ILO where these complaints were taken by Business New Zealand and as I described in the House yesterday you could have heard the tumbleweeds blowing through the halls of Geneva—that complaint was simply not upheld. Freedom of association as expressed in this legislation and other legislation is about the freedom for people to choose in this respect to join or not join a union and that is totally protected here. The member confuses that with the application of minimum standards. We do have minimum standards across our employment relations system. Certainly Government members think that is a good thing. When it comes to the minimum wage minimum annual leave or minimum sick leave it provides a basic level of protection for the most vulnerable. Certainly the member can make arguments that that is an imposition on people or that that is Draconian or that that reduces flexibility. To some degree it does reduce flexibility but in most democratic societies we believe that having a degree of protection for people is important. Most democratic societies—and in fact through the ILO and other international conventions that we are signed up to—the value of collective bargaining in terms of allowing working people to have those protections in place is affirmed. It's affirmed by conventions that all New Zealand Governments have signed up to and adhered to for around about 70 years as well. So to the extent that the member argues that there is a lack of flexibility there it is a lack of flexibility that has always been recognised in respect of minimum standards applying in the employment space. I think the member makes a mistake in confusing that with the question of freedom of association."