Fair Pay Agreements Bill

Members, when we were last in committee, before lunch, we were debating Part 3A.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good to kick off proceedings after oral questions with a question on clause 64(d), as I was asking the question before we broke last time. My point is in regards to Health New Zealand. We were talking as my colleague Chris Penk was questioning in regards to the Chief of Defence Force around specified State employers.

My question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, in regards to Health New Zealand, is the relation with the new Māori Health Authority. As we know, the Government has put in play the new Māori Health Authority, which is an independent authority that sits outside of Health New Zealand. My question to the Minister is quite simple: why have they only included in paragraph (d) “Health New Zealand” and not included the “Māori Health Authority”? In effect, one would—maybe I’m just being simplistic—exclude quite a significant element of the health sector in regards to that clause in the legislation.

So I’m interested, from the Minister: what is the consideration, what is the reason why they have simply only chosen Health New Zealand in relation to the proposed agreement in regards to the variation or a fair pay agreement of Health New Zealand that is covered by the employee?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on this.

I was looking at clause 70 in Part 3A, and I was wondering why there was a proposal for “the employer default bargaining party must not elect … an employer bargaining party for a proposed agreement [or] a proposed variation”. And what was the alternative? I’m assuming it would be, in this case, an employee bargaining party?

But I wanted to just question the Minister why it is listed in here as, you know, not being an employer bargaining party, and why they were not allowed to be represented or bringing that forward in that piece.

Hon Michael Wood: Sorry, which clause?

SAM UFFINDELL: So we are on—

Hon Member: 70.

SAM UFFINDELL: 70.

I will come back in a moment on Mr Uffindell’s question. In respect of 64(d), my understanding is the reference to Health New Zealand would be inclusive of the Māori Health Authority.

Thank you. We’ve moved to clause 76 here, the default bargaining parties for proposed agreements, and looking at that three months’ notice that’s been put in there—so this is “The employer default bargaining party may elect to be an employer bargaining party for a proposed FPA that covers a covered employer that is a non-SEBP employer”—why has the three months section been put in there; why does it have to be within the three months?

I move, That the question be now put.