Mitchell Clayton: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Clayton: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6528. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes I do and I particularly stand by my statement earlier this week announcing that parents of preterm babies will be entitled to receive additional weekly payments for each week their baby was born prior to the 37-week gestation period. I want to acknowledge Mr Seymour of the ACT Party for his advocacy and the very good outcome for preterm parents.Clayton Mitchell: Does the Minister stand by his statement in relation to zero-hour contracts on 12 July that it “is unfair and makes it difficult for employees to plan their financial and personal lives.”; if so why?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In answer to the first part of that question absolutely yes.Clayton Mitchell: Is a job advertisement that reads “Hours will fluctuate. There is no guaranteed minimum number of hours per week.” something he would consider unfair for a job seeker; if so why?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No I would not consider that to be unfair nor would I consider it to be what is popularly known as a zero-hour contract. That would be a casual agreement where there are no mutual obligations on either the employer or the employee regarding specific hours of work. Those types of agreements have been in New Zealand’s employment relations landscape for a very long time. The zero-hour agreements are not going to change that.Clayton Mitchell: Is he aware that this Government currently employs Customs Service officers on variable-hour contracts which is what the job advertisement I read in my previous supplementary question was for; if not why not?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Michael Woodhouse—either of those two supplementary questions.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I refer the member to my previous supplementary answer. The important aspect of the unfair agreements that people describe as zero-hour contracts is where there is an obligation on one party but not on the other. The circumstances you describe would be either a casual agreement or an agreement for part-time hours with the opportunity to pick up other hours in the future.Clayton Mitchell: No that’s not true.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well if it is not true then they would be casual agreements.Clayton Mitchell: I seek leave to table a document that was sent through to our office this morning an advertisement—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. If it is an advertisement I would imagine that they will have put it in the papers so it is available to all members if they want it.Clayton Mitchell: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A further point of order?Clayton Mitchell: Just speaking to that point of order—Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the member very briefly.Clayton Mitchell: It is not very easily available. It was from 2014. This cannot actually be found. It was actually sent through by a member—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will be in a generous mood on a Thursday. I will put the leave to table this particular advertisement. Is there any objection? There is objection.Clayton Mitchell: Is he aware that currently zero-hour contracts are of dubious legality and yet under his Government’s proposed Employment Standards Legislation Bill these zero-hour contracts will be legitimised?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I reject the member’s question on two parts. Firstly the description of the advertisement that he has just read out is not a zero-hours contract. It would probably be a casual agreement. And no we will be banning the things that people describe as zero-hours contracts through the Employment Standards Legislation Bill.