Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): It's a sad day to stand up and take a call on the second reading of the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill shepherded by a Government that seems to want to make our lowest-income workers have a terrible time ahead of Christmas; a Government that is full of platitudes happy to celebrate our essential workers when it was convenient and turn their back on them and turn the clock back in time as soon as they take the reins of power.As we've gone through the passage of the debate and in this bill it's been really clear that this bill was not centred on the wellbeing of workers; it was centred on ideology. I heard through the debate members of the opposite side yell out misinformation" when the member from the Labour Party Camilla Belich was speaking and it's quite the call to be making when the whole campaign against fair pay agreements was based on misinformation. So to now turn around and call the members speaking on the facts on why fair pay agreements would have been good "misinformation" is a slap on the face to the workers the union campaigners and the businesses who actually support paying those workers a good wage because those businesses understand that if you're running a business model that cannot afford to pay workers a living wage that business should not have a right to exist. If your premise of running a business relies on the exploitation of workers then you're not running a business.Carl Bates: Have you run a business before?RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: It's interesting that I'm once again getting shouts from the other side of the House talking about whether we've even run a business. I then challenge those members: have you been a cleaner? Have you worked in hospitality? Have you worked in any of those industries? If so next time those members walk into the supermarket next time those members walk into the cafe next time those members thank the cleaners they need to remind themselves they were the members who voted against improving the pay and the conditions of those very same workers they claim to represent. They need to remember that they have turned their backs on those workers as soon as they entered the halls of power.Fair pay agreements would have set a minimum standard for those workers. It is about pay but it is also far more than just about pay. It's about minimum base wage rates. It's about overtime rates when they apply. It's about penalty rates. It's about health and safety. In a country that has a terrible record when it comes to health and safety standards for our workers repealing a key piece of legislation that would have improved the safety of our workers is a stain in this Government's track record and their commitment to keep our workers safe.I used to work in hospitality—something that quite a lot of right-wingers seem to take issue about as if it wasn't real-life experience. But actually this bill affects the people who I used to work with. Having worked at a cinema that had some of the lowest wages for a profession such as a projectionist when other cinemas offered different conditions it was really clear to me when fair pay agreements were brought up the benefits that it would have had for those friends of mine who were still working in the industry to have the certainty that there was going to be a minimum rate for those workers. I had the pleasure of talking to those workers when I went on Dominion Road with people from Unite Union to hand out letters notifying people of what we call a notification of bargaining; of the process of starting that fair pay agreement. It was palatable the curiosity and the excitement from workers about what could fair pay agreements have delivered for them.Workers who I've talked to on Dominion Road immediately understood that there's no floor there's no standards set across the hospitality scene. For those politicians for those opponents of fair pay agreements: next time they go out to their favourite eatery in the city they need to remember those workers who they took that opportunity to have better working conditions and safety standards away from them.It was also really clear of the voices that were brought to the halls of power—to the forecourt here in Parliament—and for other pickets across the country that many workers are having to take multiple jobs simply to make ends meet. What this piece of legislation was aiming to achieve was to prevent workers having to work shifts back-to-back to have to give up time to be with their families to sacrifice the opportunity of being able to study alongside working just to be able to survive.I've heard throughout the debate that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety—responsible for this bill—and those members in support of this bill think that repealing it will give greater flexibility for employers. But at no point have they been able to produce evidence of the outcomes that the repeal will have when it comes to the material reality of those workers. They've spoken about the impact it will have on employers but their trickle-down economics their trickle-down beliefs that those gains for employers will be passed down to workers is nothing but a myth.I notice in the paper that we've been presented that there were options presented to the Minister about alternatives to just simply scrapping it—perhaps looking at other options—and it's interesting that when presented with multiple options to perhaps reach a compromise on what they had campaigned on and the wellbeing of our workers the choice that was still nonetheless pursued was to take us back. When they talk about the so-called evidence on this bill as has been canvassed by other members the evidence actually shows the contrary. Overseas evidence shows that fair pay agreements would have benefited—as it has our counterparts overseas—by lifting their wages lifting their conditions and for parties that campaign on the issue of our workers leaving to Australia they need to realise that our workers are leaving to countries that have better standards for those workers. Who are we to then demand that those workers stay in a country that is literally worsening the conditions for those workers? Again I point out the fact that this Government had the opportunity to land somewhere that wasn't back to zero—to not turn the clock so far back—and they still chose to do it with no evidence with not even wanting to have a proper regulatory impact statement in front of them to be able to hold to their arguments against the advice from people who actually know better than the Minister; people who are connected who have the expertise and the training. Because the Minister while she may have claimed that she has met with the with the union sector she has not been able to substantiate the details of those conversations to back up her arguments on why this piece of legislation and repealing fair pay agreements is a good thing.Finally I want to commend too the many workers who—despite there not being a select committee submission process—have put their livelihoods their stories on the line to make the case on why fair pay agreements are a thing to be protected. Because normally we would have given them the chance to come to the halls of power to a House that belongs to them to explain to us why fair pay agreements should have been protected. Those people who are against it—yeah they would have been given the chance too. But we've bypassed that process on the premise of ideology. We could have given people the chance to come and submit; to actually test us—test us on the grounds that each of us campaigned on: on workers' issues—but those workers don't have that opportunity.I also want to mihi to Rosey who was acknowledged in the previous speech. I had the pleasure of campaigning with her on issues around public housing. It says a lot that the workers who have been very visible in the media are the same workers who the Minister has been advised will be most impacted. It has been the young workers the women the Māori workers Pasifika workers young workers who have come out and spoken as to why fair pay agreements are good.If the advice that the Minister received is not good enough she may want to turn her face from the ivory tower to the streets to listen to the experiences of those workers. If she does not want a regulatory impact statement to test her own views against the advice from people who know better than her she could have turned her face to the streets and spoken to those workers that she will encounter in cafes and the supermarket and next time she goes to a mall and sees security guards.So as I finish this call I want to ask those members opposite to me to speak to those workers to look at them in the eye and remind them this Christmas of what they took away from them. Kia ora."