Annual Review Debate — Workplace Relations and Safety

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. On behalf of the—

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: Point of order. Just seeking some clarity. You’ve just said that the debate should kick off with the chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): “Or”—I did say “or”. Just let me find it—“led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews”.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: So we can have some clarification that the call is another member of that committee?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes. Education and Workforce Committee—yes, that’s correct.

💬 Camilla Belich: Point of order, Madam Chair. The chair of the Education and Workforce Committee which oversaw this particular review with the Minister is currently available, I understand, so I’m just wanting clarity as to why that has been allocated to another member of the committee. It’s highly unusual, if the chair is available, for it to be conducted by another member.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That is correct, but, as I said, “or another member of the committee”. If the chair seeks a call, they will certainly get a call, but Dr Parmjeet Parmar sought the first call, so I’ll continue. Thank you, member.

Thank you for that clarification. It’s a real pleasure to take this call on behalf of the Education and Workforce Committee and lead this debate into the annual review of WorkSafe New Zealand.

During this hearing, we heard from WorkSafe New Zealand and also the Minister. The committee considered this to be an important area for the committee as we have the workforce component along with education, and I must say that the committee is a very busy committee—we have very long meetings—but it has been worthwhile to hear from WorkSafe New Zealand and also from the Minister in charge, the Hon Brooke van Velden. I want to acknowledge the work of all of the members of the select committee. I also want to acknowledge the chair, Katie Nimon, for leading the committee. As I said, it’s a real pleasure for me to lead this debate of the annual review of WorkSafe New Zealand.

As we know, WorkSafe is working towards three outcomes—that is, preventing work-related illnesses, protecting mental wellbeing at work, and achieving equitable health and safety outcomes. During the annual review, we looked at the performance of WorkSafe New Zealand for 2022-23 and we focused on the financial situation of the entity. We asked questions around the $17.8 million funding gap which has been identified for the 2023-24 Budget. The response that we received from WorkSafe New Zealand was that this was not because of overspending but it was because of some financial practices that were not well managed.

We were also told that for the current year they have been using surpluses from the previous years. We have also been told that the entity, WorkSafe New Zealand, has taken some measures to close that gap and that is by disestablishing some roles—128 roles were disestablished—and with that, the funding gap has been reduced by about $12 million. When we received the report, at that time, WorkSafe’s headcount was 654. So that restructuring happened, and because of this the funding gap has been reduced. We were assured that this restructuring did not affect investigator or inspector roles, and nobody in the front line was affected.

We discussed workplace harm and trends and we heard that there are some industries where injuries happen more often—not just injuries but also deaths at workplaces. These industries are forestry, agriculture, manufacturing, and construction. We heard that it was difficult to compare across these industries because of the size and the scale.

We heard that Māori, Pasifika, and migrant workers are overrepresented in these stats—those who get injured or have fatal injuries at workplaces. We heard was that this was not because these people are Māori, Pasifika, or migrant workers, but it was because these people are also overrepresented in sectors that are considered to be high-risk sectors like I listed before—forestry, agriculture, manufacturing, and construction—and that WorkSafe is doing everything possible by collaborating with other agencies as well to make sure that these kind of injuries and deaths can be reduced. We heard that they have been collaborating with the Employers and Manufacturers Association. They are also working closely with ACC.

We heard that WorkSafe New Zealand has been responding to some emergencies and unexpected events as well. It was important to hear that they have been providing some guidance to employers as well, but what was interesting to hear was that the proportion of people who found its guidance very useful dropped from 94 percent in 2020-2021 to 79 percent in 2022-2023. We asked the reason for this decline, because this is a significant decline. We were told that this is because WorkSafe has been quite thinly spread out.

That takes me to the hearing that we had with the Minister, the Hon Brooke van Velden—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take part in the annual review debate with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. As the previous speaker indicated, we did hear from the Minister during the annual review process in relation to WorkSafe, and I understand the annual review will also cover the Treasury and annual review, which sets out the Government’s strategic intentions. So I’ll be indicating to the Minister that my questions will be around the annual review which she attended and also the annual review that was heard by the Finance and Expenditure Committee as it relates to her portfolios.

So the questions I had for the Minister initially are in relation to health and safety. The Minister has indicated that one of her priorities as Minister is to review the Health and Safety at Work Act, and I wanted to ask the Minister the progress that she has made in relation to that review. I have considered some of the advice that she’s received from officials on the possible ways that the Health and Safety at Work Act could be reviewed, and I understand that that takes into account the year under review and also her strategic intent going forward in relation to changes she wants to make.

So the questions I have for the Minister are really: has she made a decision about the nature of the review and to help the Health and Safety at Work Act? And to what extent will that be looking at changes to the legislation or, as officials have suggested, changes to the regulatory system which underpins the Health and Safety at Work Act and has been suggested by officials to be perhaps an area for review.

I wanted to ask the Minister about a statement that she made during a Simpson Grierson webinar where she said she wanted to ensure a balance between protecting workers and taking into account the costs and benefits. And I wanted to get an indication from her as to what she meant when she said that there needed to be a balance in relation to both those things, and what—the question that flows from that—is too high a cost to pay in respect of workers’ health and safety?

The Minister will be well aware that New Zealand has twice the workplace fatality rate of Australia, and, as noted in a recent briefing, six times the rate of the UK. I think the committee would all agree that that is a shameful statistic. With that in mind, I wanted to refer back to some of the questions that were put to the Minister in the annual review in relation to the resourcing of WorkSafe and the number of inspectors that she intends to retain in those positions, and whether she can in fact guarantee to the committee that there won’t be reductions in the number of inspectors—given those statistics which I’ve just read out, which were traversed during the annual review programme.

Additionally—and I’m just wanting to get some of these questions in relation to this particular area to the Minister while I have the call—she would note that there are very, very embarrassing and terrible statistics in relation to the impact of workplace fatalities and also workplace injuries for Māori and Pasifika communities. I wanted to know from the Minister: does she recognise this? And in what way, in her review, will these particular very terrible statistics for these particular communities be taken into account moving forward? So I’ll leave it there for the Minister. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So just following on from the previous comments from the member to my right—Camilla Belich—I was interested in following on the line of questioning on workers’ rights and worker safety.

I think worker safety is really important to unpack more, because, ultimately, we’re talking about companies that are making profits off the back of these workers—labourers—who often actually put their own lives at risk. This has been alluded to: New Zealand does have quite a high rate of workplace mortality. So I wanted to know whether the Minister thinks that the current resourcing of the labour inspectorate is enough to ensure employers are meeting their legal obligations to workers. If not, does she think therefore that an increase in that funding is necessary to ensure that workers are actually being protected and employers meet their legal obligations?

I was also interested in, I guess, comparing the number of complaints that the labour centre’s officer received over the period we reviewed and how many of these complaints were actually investigated to the end and then comparing that with the complaints that were unable to be investigated due to lack of resourcing and the workload that exists, and whether she thinks that balance is right in terms of the number of investigations that are actually completed to the full extent or otherwise, and whether she’s received any advice around the capacity of the labour inspectorate regarding its capacity—particularly during the period we’re looking at—but how that is actually giving her guidance about any future policy settings that she may be looking at.

I acknowledge, as well, the connection between immigration settings and her portfolio, and one of the areas that I wanted to touch on around migrant exploitation and migrant workers’ wellbeing was whether she was satisfied that WorkSafe doesn’t seem to collate information around people’s visa status—whether it’s incidents—and whether that’s actually useful for the purposes of actually having a clearer picture as to whether people on temporary visas face disproportionate risks.

I take the point from the select committee member Parmjeet Parmar that there’s this acknowledgment that migrant workers are overrepresented in some of those more dangerous industries, but that doesn’t actually capture whether having a temporary visa—thinking a migrant worker—in and of itself actually creates a higher risk for those workers to be in situations where their lives may be put at risk. So I’m interested to know whether she thinks that the way in which we collate, collect information around workplace incidents accurately paints a picture around the situation that migrant workers are experiencing.

I’m also keen for her to expand around the changes that WorkSafe has made since the SageBush report on the Strategic Baseline Review, which found that WorkSafe was failing to intervene in key areas. That report is from that period, so I’m interested to know whether she’s taking that report and taking more actions as a result of it.

Finally, I’m keen to get a sense of what advice has been provided to WorkSafe or the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on banning engineered stone to prevent workers from exposure to silica dust. I mean, this has been an ongoing issue—it’s not a new issue and it definitely was an issue during the period we’re reviewing—but I’m keen to know whether incidents that may or may not have been happening during the period are now informing any of her strategic priorities around the types of materials that workers use that actually put their health at risk.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. There are just a few pātai from us here at Te Pāti Māori. The first one is around 90-day trials.

When this Government announced that it would be reintroducing 90-day trials, the reason they gave was that it would make it easier for businesses to hire people, which would get more people off the benefit and into work. But research commissioned by the Treasury in 2016 found no evidence that the ability to use trial periods significantly increases firms’ overall hiring, and no evidence that the policy increased the probability that a new hire by a firm was a disadvantaged job seeker. It also found that the main benefit of the policy was a decrease in dismissal costs for firms, while many employees faced increased uncertainty about their job security for three months after being hired. In other words, the 90-day trial policy is not about making it easier to hire workers; it’s about making it easier to fire them. It’s not about protecting workers; it’s about protecting unfair employers from any consequences.

Other research shows that weak protection against dismissal can also lead to poorer production and less innovation. It is Māori, Pasifika, rangatahi, and whānau haua who bear the brunt of this 90-day trial policy. All evidence suggests that this policy will make life worse for Māori and anyone in Aotearoa who doesn’t run a large and exploitative business.

My question is: what evidence does the Minister have that shows that reducing 90-day trials will make it easier for businesses to hire people and lead to more people off the benefit and into work?

Fair pay agreements—our pātai: how will the removal of fair pay agreements support Māori workers when the median hourly wage for Māori is $24.98, compared to $28.01 for Pākehā, and when Māori are overrepresented in jobs where low pay, job security, health and safety, and upskilling are significant issues?

Health and safety are problems in industries like forestry, farming, trucking, and fisheries, which often kill Māori at work. Minimum industry-wide standards would provide a baseline and keep our people safe, regardless of whether they are a member of a union or not.

Minimum wage cuts—I also have a few questions regarding changes to the minimum wage introduced this year. So the pātai is: does the Minister accept that only increasing the minimum wage by 2 percent, when inflation is at 4.7 percent, is a cut to the minimum wage in real terms? Pātai tuarua: what is the Minister’s response to the fact that this effective cut to the minimum wage will increase child poverty rates, given that 64 percent of families in poverty are in work? Does she accept that this decision will not just hurt workers but will cost the Government more in the long run, including through higher payments and tax credits and higher support for rental payments? How are workers meant to keep up with rising food and rent costs when the Government is cutting their wages in real terms? Will the Minister commit to delivering annual increases to the minimum wage that keep up with the rising costs to ensure workers have a livable income to support their whānau; if not, why not? And how can the Minister stand by taking money from hundreds of thousands of workers during a cost of living crisis? Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It would be good to hear some of the responses to my previous answers in relation to health and safety when the Minister seeks to take a call. But I do have some further questions in relation to that particular part of her portfolio. We traversed, during the annual review debate, with the Minister and also with WorkSafe, the advice that the Minister has received in relation to engineered stone and the related very concerning silicosis disease that can come from engineered stone.

At the time of the hearing, the Minister said she was receiving advice on that and, subsequently, has publicly said that she has received advice on that, and I’m wanting to know from the Minister if there’s been an update in relation to the advice on her work in relation to this very concerning area. We know that there are people in New Zealand receiving medical treatment as a result of their exposure to engineered stone, and I’d be very keen to hear from the Minister on what the content of her most recent advice is that she announced on Q+A that she’d received that week, which—I can’t find the exact date of that interview—was probably about a month ago.

I would also like to ask the Minister for an update in relation to the priorities for mental health in the workplace. During our annual review, the Minister helpfully said that she was looking at her strategic priorities in relation to workplace mental health, and I wanted to ask the Minister if she had an update in relation to her work in that area.

Another question, related to a question I had asked in an earlier call, was in relation to the front-line inspectors. At the annual review, it was confirmed by the Minister that front-line inspectors for WorkSafe had not been affected by the job cuts to date—the strategic baseline review that had been conducted within WorkSafe. There has been reported to be further job cuts at WorkSafe, and I wanted to ask the Minister, in relation to the strategic ability of that organisation to uphold its duties to protect New Zealanders’ workplace health and safety, whether there had been any other decisions that had been made and whether the statement still stands that front-line WorkSafe inspectors will not be impacted by the cuts to WorkSafe’s budget.

Just while the Minister is receiving advice, I also had some questions in relation to the regulations that hadn’t yet been modernised under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and so they are, namely, the plant and structures project, hazardous substances, and also hazardous work regulations. These have been singled out by officials as key regulatory instruments that need to be looked at by the Minister and a key way of making the Health and Safety at Work Act better meet the needs of New Zealanders. So I’m interested to hear if there has been an update on whether the Minister is progressing those particular modernisation work plans in that line of work. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you all for your lovely contributions. It’s very exciting to be here for the first time at the annual review hearing. I just wanted to start by touching on a couple of the topics. The first was from Ricardo Menéndez March asking about the labour inspectorate. In this specific time frame for this review, the labour inspectorate delivered 3,174 interventions, which very much exceeded the 2021-22 full year result by 39 percent, and over their estimated target of 2,200 interventions per year, for the second year running. That built on a 47 percent increase in output between 2020-21 and 2021-22. I have a lot of faith in our labour inspectorate, and I think the people who go out and do those jobs are wonderful New Zealanders and they have my full backing. I expect in this year they will also do a fantastic job and they have my full support, making sure that labour standards are upheld.

I also just wanted to touch on the different type of inspectors, which is the WorkSafe investigators raised by the member Camilla Belich, asking whether or not we can guarantee that the number of inspectors will increase rather than decrease. I just wanted to alert the member to the fact that, under the previous Government, which this review is about, the number of WorkSafe inspectors dropped from 211 to 195. At the same time, the head count for WorkSafe increased exorbitantly. So that is something that the previous Government did: they cut the number of inspectors while the number of people at WorkSafe increased. I have a great lot of faith in our new chair, board, and the CEO of WorkSafe, and I understand that at April 2024, WorkSafe started training another 19 inspectors to join their investigators.

I just wanted to touch a little bit on some comments about the 90-day trials and the minimum wage. Now, for anybody who might be listening or following along on TV, it might not be very obvious from some of the comments made that, under the previous Government, 90-day trials existed. So all of these terrible, terrible comments about 90-day trials; that was the previous Government’s policy. All that this Government has done is said, “Hey, it really worked really, really well for small businesses. Let’s expand that for large corporates and larger companies too. If it worked well for the small companies, let’s make it work for the big ones.”

When it comes to the minimum wage and explaining a little bit about how we landed at that 2 percent increase for this year, I think that was the right measure to make because it balanced the interests of both workers in a cost of living crisis as well as business owners who are finding it really, really tough at the moment even to make sure that they can pay their employees. And so we have made that balance, but also taking into account that over the last seven years, Consumers Price Index, or inflation, went up by around 25 percent. At the same time, under the previous Government, the minimum wage went up by 50 percent. That was really, really high in comparison to what the inflation rate was going up at. So we, as a Government, have sought to rebalance that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister and colleagues in the committee will be very aware that over the last year or so, there’s been a very observable uptick in cases of migrant worker exploitation. I think it’s in large part associated with very high levels of inward migration as policy settings were loosened as the country came out of COVID and faced intense skills shortages, and a great deal of pressure was there from industries who were desperate to get workers. There’s been quite a lot of debate in and around the House about whether there are sustainable levels of inward migration—talking about temporary workers—and how the settings like the accredited employer work visa can be reformed to reduce the opportunity for migrant worker exploitation.

I’m not wanting to drag immigration into this debate, but the Minister is responsible for the labour inspectorate. The inspectorate plays a very important role in policing migrant worker exploitation, amongst other things. I think that most would agree that migrant worker exploitation is a pretty ubiquitous risk in our economy.

So the first question I have for the Minister is around the statistics that she shared with the committee earlier about the number of cases dealt with by the inspectorate. Has she got numbers for cases involving migrant worker exploitation? I think the committee would be very interested to know whether there are figures on that and whether the Minister has a view about the relative status and importance and priority of dealing with cases of migrant worker exploitation for the inspectorate in relation to all of the other priorities and demands on the inspectorate’s time.

We’ve seen, unfortunately, a number of cases in the media of large groups of workers finding themselves without a job. They’re here, they find themselves without a job, they then spend weeks, or even months, living in extremely overcrowded and difficult conditions, often dependent on charity to survive. I don’t think anybody wants to see that. I’m interested in what thoughts the Minister has given to how the inspectorate can actually assist in the tightening up of the whole system to reduce or eliminate these kinds of cases.

Two of the sectors that I think have been most associated with this have been the labour hire sector and also the construction sector. Also, I would like to know if the Minister has given any consideration or received any advice about the policy reforms that could address this problem, and, putting to one side questions of visas and the immigration settings, whether or not the Minister has thought, for example, about the implementation of standardised employment contracts in industries, like construction, where it’s reported there are very high levels of abuse and exploitation of migrant workers.

I wonder whether or not the idea of guaranteed weekly hours—currently, migrant workers can be doing 30 hours a week. For many of them, it’s simply not enough to survive. If they’re in an industry that’s highly casualised and un-unionised, they find themselves doing very low numbers of hours per week and they find themselves in a very challenging situation in terms of survival.

The third idea that I wanted to ask the Minister about, really, is in relation to Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers. I’m interested to know what her view is about whether or not an opt-out unionisation clause which would give RSE workers easy and immediate access to union protection to avoid and prevent cases of exploitation—with, of course, a nod to the important principle of freedom of association, and people would have the right to opt out. But I put it to the Minister that if that policy was in place, RSE workers would have a ready source of advocates to deal with many of the exploitation problems that are currently a feature of a number of those employment situations. I’ll leave it there for the moment.

Good timing.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I look forward to again hearing some of the Minister’s answers to my previous question. I noted her comments on the previous Government, but I also wanted to know: will she guarantee that the number of WorkSafe inspectors will not decrease under her watch? So that was my question.

I want to move on to a different area, though, and I want to talk about modern slavery. This is a very important piece of work that was undertaken in the year in review by the previous Government and supported by a tripartite group of many different organisations who are very concerned about the lack of modern slavery regulation in New Zealand and the fact that we can’t guarantee that a lot of things that arrive in New Zealand have been made without conditions that we would find absolutely intolerable and inhumane in other countries. I wanted to ask her what progress she has made on addressing modern slavery and exploitation in New Zealand’s supply chain, and, if she does indeed agree with members of the coalition Government who have said that this was currently not being developed, how, then, will she be ensuring that we meet New Zealand’s obligations under the New Zealand - EU free-trade agreement, which requires legislation on modern slavery when it calls on parties in the agreement to prioritise labour rights in the supply chain, and to promote corporate and social responsibility and responsible business conduct, including responsible supply chain management, by providing supportive policy frameworks that encourage the uptake of relevant practices in businesses?

I also wanted to ask her: if the Government is not working on implementing modern slavery legislation, then how will she ensure that the New Zealand - UK free-trade agreement is adhered to? It states that each party should adopt and maintain measures to facilitate private and public sector entities to identify and address modern slavery in the global and domestic supply chains. This is extremely important work. It was under the work plan of the year in review. The statements of Government members who are not of her party have been that it is not going to be progressed. There is a large amount of disappointment not only within organisations that support and advocate for human rights but also businesses that know that New Zealand’s reputation internationally will be severely damaged if modern slavery legislation is not introduced.

So I want to know from the Minister, given those international commitments, given the fact that the UK Government, when the justice Minister recently went overseas in order to talk about our human rights record, called on New Zealand to introduce modern slavery legislation that is inclusive of entities of all sizes with international supply chains in both the private and public sectors—when allies like those are saying to us that we need to introduce legislation on modern slavery, I want to know from the Minister what her Government’s answer is to those countries.

Thank you very much. I thought I’d take two of these questions together because I think in some ways people are conflating the labour inspectorate and also the WorkSafe investigators, but they are kind of similar in some of the roles that they do.

So touching on the labour inspectorate as to how it is involved in migrant exploitation, due to the question from Phil Twyford, I can tell the member that 35 percent of all labour inspectorate investigations completed in the year that we’re reviewing of 2022-23 involved migrant exploitation, which shows the seriousness of the breaches that are involved in our country. I would certainly hope that all members of this Parliament take the issue of migrant exploitation very seriously and have the deep belief that all people in our country should expect that their rights are upheld—no matter where they have come from, no matter how long they’ve been in this country—that everybody should have that same right of dignity and respect in the workplace.

When it comes to Ricardo Menéndez March’s question, which was talking about workplace accidents, that has more to do with the WorkSafe investigators and whether or not we have statistics breaking that down into the visa status. At this point, I don’t have that data, but that is actually something I’m very interested in—so I’m very happy that he’s interested in this too. I would hope that all people, no matter how long they’ve been in the country, no matter who’s employing them, know what their rights are and that the businesses that are employing them know what their obligations are to keep those people safe in the workplace. This is an area that I also look to do a little bit more work in, so I thank him very much for his question.

Coming to a couple of questions from Camilla Belich about why we are wanting to reform the Health and Safety at Work Act—this is going to be legislation or regulation. It’s been, now, 10 years that we’ve had the Health and Safety at Work Act, and businesses, sector groups, non-profit organisations, and successive Governments have all put a lot of investment into this regulatory system.

But I think it’s time for us to review that and see: is it the legislation that’s working? Is it the regulations that are working? That’s what part of the review is. So at this stage, I can’t say whether or not it will be the legislation that could change or whether it’s specific regulations, but that’s the whole purpose of our consultation—and that will be quite a fulsome consultation. If it shows that there are concerns with the underlying legislation, then there will be changes to be made. But at this stage it’s at consultation.

I’ve also had that question about the content of the advice that we received on engineered stone. I firstly just want to say that my expectation with the health and safety system is that I want all workers to be able to come home safe; I want all people to come home safely to their families. I have received some advice on addressing the unsafe work practices related to engineered stone, and I plan to consult on a range of options later this year—subject to approval from Cabinet—on what this Government would seek to do on engineered stone.

There’s currently a range of education and enforcement activities that is being led by WorkSafe to ensure businesses control the risks from working with engineered stone, but at this stage I am following the evolving approach in Australia. But it’s very important that we use an evidence-based approach in a New Zealand context rather than simply replicating what’s happening by our neighbours.

Thanks to the Minister for her reflections on some of those questions. In relation to her previous comment, I wanted to ask the Minister: will her consultation on the steps taken on engineered stone include a consultation on a proposed ban in relation to that?

The other questions that I have are on a slightly different matter. I wanted to raise some of her responsibilities in relation to pay equity and also in relation to pay transparency. As Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, she has a role in the pay equity legislation that is before the House and would be aware that in the year under review, there was a significant programme of pay equity settlements which were being undertaken. And I understand it’s still progressing.

The question that I had for the Minister was: when the Government said it was going to recommit to equal pay in a press release, what did the Government mean when it said that it would “recommit to equal pay”? So that’s my first question.

My second question is about the pay equity task force, which in that same press release was disestablished. The pay equity task force had been operational in the year in review and had assisted with very complex pay equity settlements. I’m sure those of us who worked in that area know how complex pay equity settlements can be in terms of the expertise that is required to settle a pay equity claim and look at the different evidence and comparators that need to be taken into account before a settlement is made. So I wanted to ask her: how will she ensure that the resources and expertise that were held by the pay equity task force that this Government has disestablished will not be lost like they were when the last National Government discontinued the pay equity unit in 2009 in a very similar way?

I also wanted to ask her about pay transparency and her plans in relation to that. She’ll be aware that in the year under review it was announced the then Government was going to introduce a pay transparency regime that would require all businesses of 250 workers or more to conduct an audit of their workforce in relation to the pay that they received on gender. I wanted to ask, in relation to her strategic intent on that particular matter, what she intended to do in relation to pay transparency, and whether that’s a work programme that she will be considering. We know that that particular work programme exists in a number of other different countries and was ongoing at the time the year under review took place. So if the Minister could comment on those areas in relation to pay transparency and pay equity.

Thank you very much. Look, it’s a very exciting portfolio that I’m responsible for. I think we’ve heard from a range of nearly everything under the sun today, but, unfortunately, there’s not enough time to get through all of it.

I just wanted to touch on your question regarding compliance with free-trade agreements. My officials and myself consider free-trade agreements and international obligations as part of advice that comes to me on a range of different issues.

When it comes to the SageBush review and asking about how much progress has been made, I’m very happy with the progress that WorkSafe has been making on implementing the recommendations. The board and the chief executive have made it a priority for the agency. I understand quite a few of the recommendations have already been closed out and the remainder are well on track to be met by the end of this year.

Thank you to the Minister. I look forward to hearing some further responses to some of my other questions with the time that we do have remaining. I also wanted to ask the Minister about her reform of the law relating to contractors but also relating to the definition of “employee” within the Employment Relations Act. I know that this is an area of work that the Minister has been investigating, and I wanted to get an update from the Minister in relation to this work, on how that was progressing and how, if she decides to limit the rights of workers to have their employment status upheld or not by the relevant court or authority, there will be able to be natural justice for those people who are wrongly considered to be contractors and don’t receive employment rights but wish to have the authority of the court determine that they are an employee and, thus, receive the employment rights which they are entitled to. And I wanted to know how she has progressed with that line of work and if she has any advice to the committee on what she intends to do in that area.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just to note that we’re down to the last couple of minutes, so if there’s contributions to be made—Camilla Belich.

Just while the Minister is getting her answers together, just some of the more salient questions that I would quite like an answer to if the Minister is able to. The questions around pay equity: how will the Government protect pay equity when it’s disestablished the unit? My question around pay transparency: is the Minister going to go forward with this work? My question around modern slavery: will this Government be taking its international obligations seriously and implementing modern slavery legislation, like social groups, like workers’ rights organisations, like what businesses have advocated for? Can we please have an answer to those important areas? New Zealanders are waiting to hear.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, on the issue of the pay equity taskforce, that’s not actually a responsibility under my purview, so that’s not really something that we can ask about. But the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment does provide advice to all employers about pay equity. That’s very much available on their website. Anybody can find it.

When it comes to the question of pay transparency, I just want to also note that this is a review about 2022-23, and there wasn’t progress under that Government.

Members, our time with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has ended. The Minister of Agriculture is now available for one hour to respond to members’ questions, but we’ll just move the tables around.

Agriculture