Salesa JennyCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is—Hon Paul Goldsmith: Oh come on I—[Chair confers with the Clerk]CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Hon Paul Goldsmith.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister Wood didn't answer all my questions obviously—but if he chooses not to he doesn't have to I suppose. But it was a question around the numbers and the impact that these occupation-level collective contracts have on everybody in the industry.I suppose if again we're thinking of extras as an example presumably there might be a very big difference between a production that had thousands of extras—in a big film or a set of trilogies and so forth if you think of the hobbits and all that sort of stuff—and a very small production which may have just two or three for a very short period of time while something is being produced. I'd be keen for the Minister to explain how life is going to be improved by fitting those two different situations into one box when it comes to pay and conditions. What may suit or may be affordable even for a larger production with large amounts of money—well organised huge numbers of people huge flexibility with those numbers of people—may not be appropriate for a small operation with a very small group involved. It may make life difficult. So I'm just curious as to why he thinks that in an industry that requires many times a great deal of flexibility and in a huge variety of situations a kind of one-size-fits-all occupation-level approach is wise? Will it lead to better outcomes?Then when it comes to the question of—I'll presume the outcome that the Minister is after is higher wages and additional benefits whether it's more breaks or better arrangements in some place and that ultimately leads to higher costs. Does he think that the costs are irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether to do a particular production here in New Zealand or not? He seems to be implying that the only thing that really matters is the subsidy regime or the tax treatment of it. But I suppose I'd just like to know whether he's got any evidence to support that or whether the cost structure of the whole process and the flexibility within arrangements will make a difference. He'll probably say Oh well everybody else does it." I suppose the point is in a global world when you're trying to attract things into a very remote location in New Zealand does a little bit of extra flexibility make people more likely to come here? That's not an unreasonable proposition so I'd be interested in his thoughts around that.The other thing that he didn't really respond to is: why the different approach taken to the approach taken in the fair pay agreement around initiating occupation-level contracts? Is this a hangover from the desires of the working group? I'm not sure what the working group had to say on the initiation process but it would be interesting to know whether he has on this occasion listened to some degree to that group or not.The other aspect that I was trying to figure out was again if the union representation in a particular occupation group was very low does that just draw everybody else in regardless of whether they want to be or not?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The questions around the initiation threshold—yes that is a part of the recommendations that we received from the working group in terms of what they believe would be an appropriate and workable structure. We listened to them very carefully.In answer to Mr Goldsmith's question that sort of went to the broader issue of flexibility I think the answer to that lies in the graduated structure. So for a worker for example—taking Mr Goldsmith's example—an extra who might as a contractor move from production to production employer to employer the occupation-level bargaining will ensure that that worker has the certainty of there being a basic level of fair negotiated terms and conditions that apply across that occupation wherever he or she moves. But over the course of a year or two years that worker might move between different productions and different employers and to Mr Goldsmith's point yes one of them might be large and have more means and one of them might be small and have lesser means. And that's where the enterprise-level bargaining should it occur in the individual-level contracts will allow differentiation which is fit for purpose for that organisation and its ability to engage. So I think the graduated nature there is the answer to his question. Whether he agrees with it or not that is the way the system is set up.In terms of his final question "Does cost structure matter?" well of course it matters in any industry in terms of being viable. As I've outlined there's no particular reason to think that giving people the basic fundamental human right of being able to collectively bargain should be a particular prohibition in that area. I do note there are other sectors of the New Zealand economy that attract offshore capital and ownership in which collective bargaining is very normal."