Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering this bill, we had concluded the debate on Part 1. We now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 10 to 15, “Consequential amendments to other Acts”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask a question of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety around clauses 12, 13, and 14, which are consequential amendments to the Education and Training Act 2020. Now, the reason I want to ask this question is around the fact that we have so many different forms of schools in this country. We have our State schools, we also have private schools, we have charter schools, we have independent, and we have special character—we have a vast range of different schools there. Now, a lot of these—elsewhere in the Education and Training Act, those schools have separate parts that explain the different rules that govern them in the Act. For example, the reviews of schools for private schools and how they are governed with the Education Review Office. So they don’t necessarily fall under the review for public schools and State schools; they have their own special section around the private schools and how the Education Review Office interacts with them in that purpose.

Now, getting to these particular clauses, this outlines the role of the Public Service Commissioner in the Education and Training Act 2020, with the power to act as the employer during collective bargaining, and it outlines for the schools what the Public Service Commissioner does. Now, the changes in the bill are intended to make it clear that these powers include the ability to make specific pay deductions, including any notices or directions in relation to specified pay deductions and the recovery of partial strike - related overpayments. This is consistent with the approach applied in relation to full strikes and lockouts.

My question is around the fact that I cannot see there how it differentiates or if that is the same for private schools. It seems to me—are they governed by this same clause, or is there an oversight there, or are they then going back to the principal Act, the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strike) Amendment Bill that we’re discussing here? When going through that, I just wasn’t clear. This is a genuine question about whether this governs those schools and this is the oversight for all of those schools, or whether there has been something missed out and something has to be corrected, or whether they go back to the legislation that we’re discussing here this evening.

It’s just a short call that I want to take to ask that question, and I would really like to have an answer, because it has come up with people with me that they aren’t clear about this. So I’d really like to know the answer to that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to be able to ask some questions of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on Part 2. There are also a number of amendments that I have made in my name to this particular part, and I wanted to briefly touch on those and see if the Minister would be supportive of some of the changes that I’ve suggested.

The first amendment that I have is in relation to clause 11, which refers to the Wages Protection Act, and clause 10 does, as well. The amendment that I’ve suggested is in new section 6(3)(ba)(i) in clause 11(3), and that particular section covers a slightly unusual situation where overpayments are recoverable when there’s been a specified pay deduction in relation to a partial strike. So that would be a situation where the employer considers that there has been too much money paid to one of their employees and that constitutes an overpayment under the Wages Protection Act, and, therefore, in this particular section, it outlines a process that the employer needs to go through in order to get the money back from the employee.

In this particular clause, as it’s currently written, the employer is given 10 working days to do that, which is actually quite a long time, especially for people on low pay who have been taking strike action, which would be the situation that these particular people would fall under. So I’ve suggested that that is changed to “5 working days”, and that is simply so there is a more immediate onus on the employer to discover when the alleged overpayment has been made and to actually be able to communicate that to the employee within that period of time. So I would be interested to hear from the Minister on that. It’s an interesting situation where you have a situation where this piece of legislation is actually allowing deductions which would normally be illegal without permission under normal law before this bill was passed. But the Wages Protection Act applies to all payments, and, in certain circumstances when there’s an overpayment, they are allowed to be collected by the employer. So that’s my first question.

I also have some questions in relation to the powers of the Public Service Commissioner. The Minister will be able to see that I have suggested two specific amendments in relation to this, and they’re in relation to clause 14. The reason that I’ve suggested these amendments is because when we were looking at this particular piece of legislation in the Education and Workforce Committee, we were actually faced with examples of situations where deductions for partial strikes were allegedly justified due to the reputation of the employer and the effect that negative particular partial strike—especially in relation to wearing certain uniforms—may impact on that particular business.

Now, of course, when we’re looking at the powers of the Public Service Commissioner—and this is under the Education and Training Act, but it’s a completely separate point to the one just made by my colleague—these are people who are working in the wider public sector. They are not organisations that would suffer from a commercial disadvantage from having teachers, for example, wearing T-shirts that might constitute a partial strike, or having teachers wearing badges. Therefore, a lot of the arguments around the justification for the removal of wages from people participating in partial strikes just simply don’t apply to the people who work in the wider public sector.

Also, this particular deletion that I have suggested of new section 587(2) in clause 14(2) is in relation to quite an interesting clause, and I wondered if the Minister could explain why this clause was here—and I’m just aware that I may be running out of time to ask this question. But I just want to indicate that I do want to ask a question about it because it does seem particularly unusual in the bill, and it actually relates to some of the discussions that we were having previously about existing powers that employers already have. So in this particular section, it specifically states that employers are allowed to lock out, suspend, and make pay deductions. That already exists in law. Why is it outlined again, as in this bill?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I had a question for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. I thought she was going to stand up, sorry, so I was a bit slow to my feet. But I have a question that’s in relation to clause 11, amended section 6(2), and it refers to the specified pay deduction and having that meaning. I just wanted some clarity from the Minister, as I noted there’d been quite a bit of analysis about the different options for pay deduction. In particular, my question is that there seems to be some uncertainty as to what the actual impact will be. There is no proportionate response available to employers, it’s argued, and that can mean an employer is faced with an all-or-nothing response. But there does seem to be some quite significant concerns that there is no way of trying to figure out the impact on collective bargaining about what this will actually do. That has been noted in some of the analysis.

I’m really interested to hear if the Minister has any additional information that may enable us to understand or predict in advance how employers and unions will respond if employers are able to deduct for particular strikes, particularly given that collective bargaining is impacted by the other collective bargaining legislative settings and the political and the economic context there. There is a reasonably good argument that officials have put forward, saying that there’s a rationale for reintroducing the ability for employers to make a partial pay deduction in response to partial strikes only if the approach carefully balances the impact on employees’ and employers’ bargaining positions. So I would be really keen if the Minister can explain how that will impact upon collective bargaining, given there seems to be no clear understanding of that that’s been stipulated in the analysis.

It was also pointed out that without both sides incurring the costs during partial strikes or at least the potential for there to be no cost, the incentives on the employee and the employer to return to the bargaining table are unbalanced. So that is a concern if there’s not a balance there. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has stipulated that providing the employer with the ability to make a proportionate response would better restore that balance to collective bargaining situations, but I’m interested to hear from the Minister as to why specifically she landed on the option she did and how she understood how that option is going to actually have an impact upon future collective bargaining. I note that while option two has been recommended, it would be really interesting to hear her views on that, because if there is a potential for it to reduce the effectiveness of the change in improving the balance or the incentives for employees and employers relating to industrial relations, I think that’s an important issue for us to be able to consider.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety regarding the consequential amendments to the Education and Training Act; so we’re looking at clauses 12 to 14.

I’m going to start with, I guess, clause 12, in terms of the relationship between the Education and Training Act and what we’re seeing here in terms of pay deductions for partial strikes. I want to check with the Minister, as a starting point, what this relationship between the partial strikes is with the current bill that’s going through the House—the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2)—specifically clause 21 of that bill, which extends the notification of the strike days from three to seven. I guess, would the Minister then consider partial strikes being a part of that as well? Because that isn’t quite clear within the definition—at least, not to my reading. The Minister may be able to clarify that for me: whether the strike itself would also include partial strikes in that sense. In which case, do we need to consider that in combination with the other bill?

In terms of clause 14, I guess this is a little bit more on the line of semantics. I hear from the previous speakers regarding some of the elements of collective agreements. Now, the current wording of section 587(2) of the Education and Training Act states that “the powers referred to in that subsection include the power to lock out [employees] or suspend [the] employees.” It creates an either/or situation and it is in some way exclusive to those two particular options.

But what we are not seeing here, in this particular clause, is any sort of conjunction that is being used which limits some of that. I wondered, from the Minister’s perspective, it says, “the powers referred to in that subsection include the power to … lock out employees … suspend employees …[and] make specified pay deductions.” Without any form of conjunction, are we still looking at an exclusive list? As in, does that accidentally expand the scope of this to include other options? Because “the powers referred to” using “include” could potentially be read beyond that, unlike the previous version which limited to an either/or situation, if that makes sense. Are we looking at a more expanded scope because it’s no longer an inclusive list of two items?

So those are my two questions. The first one is around the interaction between this and the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), specifically clause 21 around the extended notification of strike days; whether a partial strike would also be considered as part of that. Then number two: I suspect not, but if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying if now, with the new format, the powers referred to in the subsection is still limited to those three options, and it will not go beyond those three options or not be interpreted in a way that could go beyond those three options. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To Camilla Belich’s question about the time frames—which is also the same clause that Ginny Andersen had a question to—which is the five-working-day time frame for overpayment notices. The overpayment notice requirements—they have 10 days, rather than the five days which were previously in the law, due to concerns that large employers with complicated payroll systems would not be able to comply with these requirements. So that’s 10 days.

To Jan Tinetti’s question on schools with the Public Service Commissioner powers: the bill does not change which schools the Public Service Commissioner can act as an employer for.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A very quick question I want to ask around clause 15 and that is around “Section 589 amended (Strikes in schools to be notified)”. Of course, we’re talking about partial strikes, and we’ve already deemed in the course of this committee of the whole House that the partial strikes in certain circumstances could be the wearing of a badge or could be wearing of a piece of clothing. I do happen to know that there have been schools in the past in certain regions where they might have worn a T-shirt on the specific day of the week saying something like “Stand up for kids”, which, actually, you want your teachers to be able to stand up for kids. So I think that’s a really good action that doesn’t interrupt the running of the school.

So it’s a quick question that I want to ask: that section 589(2)(a) is replaced with the notification around the strike of the nature of the proposed strike and “(i) whether or not the proposed action will be continuous; and (ii) whether or not the employees will continue to perform some work for their employer while undertaking the proposed action;”. I want to know: does that include or does it have the potential to include the wearing of a piece of insignia that sort of tells the action that teachers are taking at that time? So like those T-shirts, or a badge, or something like that. So I just want to seek some clarification around that, whether that’s inclusive of that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m responding to Camilla Belich’s other part and her question on her amendment about wanting to remove the change that makes it clear that the Public Service Commissioner can act as an employer for pay deduction purposes. The approach in the bill is consistent with the current approach to full strikes and lockouts, and so I will not be supporting her amendment.

Thank you. I would like to ask some questions about clause 11. My questions are about the relationship between this and various other Acts, one being the Wages Protection Act and the other being the new wage theft legislation. In a situation where somebody doesn’t comply with clause 11(3)—so they don’t give the notice in the correct way and they don’t give the calculation method as they should—would you consider that would mean that they would be coming into a situation which was wage theft, and would you also consider it a breach of the Wages Protection Act?

Also, what if somebody makes a deduction of 10 percent when, in fact, somebody is just wearing a badge? When we last met over this, I talked about how I’d had a real case where people’s strike notice had that they’d go to the toilet. Those were bus drivers who didn’t usually stop, so they were doing something that’s actually lawful in every ordinary situation but, because of those circumstances, they actually gave notice of that as a strike action. So what if they were doing things like that, that you wouldn’t consider—they weren’t reducing the money of the employer in any unreasonable way; they were just pointing out that they had been going above and beyond for that employer and that kind of cooperation meant that they should have actually been paid more. If they’re doing that sort of thing, would you think that would come under the issue in the Wages Protection Act of an unreasonable deduction, and has that piece of legislation and that section been actually dealt with in this piece of legislation, even if to exempt this behaviour?

I’d also like to know about people on minimum wage, because what happens to someone on minimum wage if you deduct from that another 10 percent and you’re under the minimum wage suddenly? Is that OK with the Minister?

I’d like to know also—again in the Wages Protection Act—about the duty to consult. There is a duty to consult when you deduct money. Does this notice mean that there is no duty to consult in this case, and have the two Acts been reconciled in that way, or is it just to be read by a judge to suggest that is obvious—that there’s notice and therefore you can’t possibly have a duty to consult? Because you do for every other deduction.

Another issue there is the KiwiSaver contribution. People are on a wage and they’re earning a certain amount and they’re giving a certain percentage of their actual wage to the KiwiSaver and the employer is topping up. Is the Minister’s understanding of this that people would have their KiwiSaver reduced—their contribution and the employer’s contribution reduced—or just the employer’s contribution, or none? Is it actually that that’s well beyond wages in that sense?

Obviously, there are different treatments of commissions. So, again, we’ve got the same issue with commission workers. Is that something which would be reduced if their work was partially paid for by commission?

So I’ve given you a lot of questions, that I appreciate, there, but I hope you can see that they’re all very legitimate questions. They’re real-life situations, and it’s actually important even for the Hansard that you’ve answered the questions, because the first place that the employment lawyers are going to look is the Hansard, and they’ll want to know what the intention was of the Minister in those cases. So I’m not playing silly games; I would like those addressed. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for her answers in relation to my previous contribution. I did have a follow-up question, though, in relation to the Public Service Commission and the Public Service Commissioner’s role.

If we refer to the regulatory impact statement (RIS), there was a significant amount of consultation that was done with the Public Service Commission and also work that was undertaken by the Public Service Commission with Public Service agencies in relation to collective bargaining—essentially, the drafters, which, I understand, were the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) of this bill, seeking to get and obtain data from talking to Public Service agencies about the usefulness of this particular type of provision, being as it was previously in force. Unfortunately for the House and the public, there was unable to be conclusive evidence provided in that.

But I did want to know if, during that engagement with the Public Service Commission, these specific parts and sections that we are discussing in Part 2 were canvassed; if that was feedback that was given by the Public Service Commission in the engagement that MBIE had with them, and also in relation to the Public Service Commission response from agencies, which was collected in relation to the RIS.

The reason that I would like to know that is I think it’s really helpful to the committee to know whether there was direct involvement from the Public Service Commissioner, who is given powers under this bill—I accept—similar to the powers that are held in relation to full strikes. But it would be interesting to know if specific feedback was sought on that.

The other question that I have in relation to new subsection 587(4A), added by clause 14(2), is that provision provides—and the Minister said that provision was, essentially, for the Public Service Commissioner to act as an employer. Now, that may be the advice the Minister’s been given, but it appears to me from reading that particular clause that this particular new subsection, (4A), gives the Public Service Commissioner, essentially, a power which is already provided to all employers earlier in the Employment Relations Act 2000, around section 95.

I wanted to know: for what specific reason was it necessary, especially if there are—as the Minister has said and I’ve got no reason to disagree with it—the existing powers, as has already been canvassed, in relation to full strikes. Why is it necessary, then, to specifically state—and they’re able to act as an employer—that they can make a specified deduction when the new clause 95, I believe it is, specifically states that—and we already established that the Public Service Commissioner is entitled to it—an employer can make this. It seems a superfluous addition to the Act, considering that power already exists. So I want to know: did it come from the Public Service Commissioner, and, if so, why is it specifically necessary for that particular clause to be included? As the Minister is aware, I have suggested deleting that clause, partly for that reason. I’m interested to know the Minister’s response to that.

Also, I don’t believe I have had a response to my question around the utility of new subsection 587(2) of the Education and Training Act 2020, added by clause 14, which states only one new piece of information as far as I’m aware, which is in 2(c), in relation to the specified deductions. The other parts, new sections 2(a) and (b), are already existing powers which would exist separate to the passage of this legislation, so why have those particular parts of that clause been included?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Starting with an answer to Lawrence Xu-Nan regarding whether or not there is an issue with the interaction of the change in the notice period for the strike notice in the Education and Training Act: there is no issue with the interaction of this bill and that change. The notice of the strike is the first step in the process, and this bill sets out what the employer can do in response to that notice.

In response to Ginny Andersen asking questions about the options I’ve pursued and landed on, the substantive provisions of the bill were debated under Part 1. This is Part 2, which is dealing with the consequential amendments to that part.

Helen White asked a question about making a deduction for strike activity that ended up not being a strike, or that someone believed was unreasonable under the Wages Protection Act. The provisions in the Employment Relations Act apply, meaning that people can recover an overpayment as long as it meets the requirements in the Employment Relations Act. The same thing applies in terms of the requirement under the Wages Protection Act, for consultation to recover a specified pay deduction. They need to meet the requirements in the Employment Relations Act, and so that’s the answer to your question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take a call, specifically on clause 15 in Part 2, which is around section 589, about amending strikes in schools to be notified. My question is around clause 15, replacement section 589(2)(a)(ii) “whether or not the employees will continue to perform some work for their employer”. So I am interested to hear from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about her definition of what “some work” means.

I ask that question within the context of one of the submissions that came through in the select committee from the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association, where they referenced when they took strike action and it was against the backdrop of a nationwide teacher shortage. It was related to the use of teacher non-contact time. So as part of the job as teachers—and if there are any teachers that are not doing any planning or lesson planning for their students tomorrow, kia ora, tēnā koutou katoa. But an important part of teachers’ work is actually making sure that there is time for planning, making sure that there’s time for preparation and for assessment. It’s an incredibly important part of the job.

But in that particular circumstance, what happened was that time was being swallowed up because there was a teacher shortage. I guess it kind of falls into the questions that my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan asked about the interaction between this bill and the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). Because if you’ve got a teacher shortage in this particular case where teachers are actually being forced to not have that really specific and really important non-contact time, does that constitute as part of some work within the definition of this Act?

The other thing on top of that, as well—and it’d be good to get an answer from the Minister about this, because I know this is something that many teachers do. They put in a lot of work coaching basketball teams, rugby teams, doing all of that kind of stuff which actually falls outside of their contractual jobs and often is taken for granted. Does that stuff fall within the context of being part of “some work”? So I think it’s very important for the Minister to be clear so that teachers can understand exactly how this will impact them and the choices that they might have to actually make themselves. Do they take those extra hours—taking on children for touch rugby, for basketball—which will become voluntary hours, taking out kids in terms of preparing for different concerts and so on and so forth? Is that considered to be part of their work and therefore covered under this particular clause of the Act? Because it’s incredibly, incredibly important. Because what we need to be doing, actually, is encouraging an environment where teachers feel valued; where teachers feel that this Parliament, that this Government, values the work that they do.

But if you start to narrow things up and you start to say, “Well, actually, under this new clause, you’re supposed to be taking that basketball team, you’re supposed to be taking that soccer team, you should be out there taking our kids for all these different performances and so on and so forth, and that could be considered, and if you don’t do that, then you might be pinged for doing a partial strike.” That needs to be cleared up. Because it also points to the intention that this Government has towards all of these different professions and, in particular, all of those different unions who actually voiced these really, really important concerns at the select committee.

So just to recap for the Minister: my question is around clause 15, which replaces section 589(2)(a)(ii). It is around the question about, actually, what do you mean by “some work”? What do you actually mean by that? Is it all of these extra hours? If they’re not going to do it or they’re going to be discouraged to do it, who’s going to do it? So it would be good to get an answer from the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m starting with an answer to Helen White, who asked what happens if somebody deducts wages off someone who is on the minimum wage. This was covered in Part 1 of the bill, and we are on Part 2. The next question from Helen White asked whether wage deductions mean that the employee will also have their KiwiSaver contributions reduced. KiwiSaver contributions are based on wages that are paid. If there has been a deduction, then that would also be accounted for.

Camilla Belich is asking why changes are needed to the provisions of the Education and Training Act. Section 587 of the Education and Training Act includes specific powers that the Public Service Commissioner has when acting as an employer, and so therefore the Education and Training Act needed to be amended to be clear that the Public Service Commissioner’s powers to act as an employer during collective bargaining also includes the powers in relation to specified pay deductions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of quick questions. I know this question was somewhat addressed in your answers to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, but I’m slightly confused around—and I’m wanting to check my understanding of—the answer that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety gave.

I have a question around clause 11(3), inserting new section 6(3)(ba): “in the case of an overpayment that relates to a specified pay deduction, that notice—(i) is given no later than 10 working days after the pay day on which the overpayment was made”. I know that the Minister’s previous answer referenced the potential complexity around different employers and why that was changed from “5” to “10”, but my question is: if the overpayment was made across several pay days, which pay day is the day that’s picked for the purpose of that section?

My other question is around clause 14(2), inserting new section 587(4A). It says, “In any case where the Public Service Commissioner intends to make a specified pay deduction, the Commissioner may give a direction that a specified pay deduction is to be made.” I’m interested in the use of the word “may”. Is there any circumstance where the Public Service Commissioner would make a specified pay deduction where they wouldn’t give a specified pay direction anyway? Why use the word “may” instead of kind of prescribing that? Those are just some very quick questions.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I had a question that was in relation to the consequential amendments to the Education and Training Act 2020, and specifically in relation to section 14. That relates to the section 587 amendment, “Public Service Commissioner’s powers when collective agreements are negotiated”, and I’d like some clarification from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety in relation to clause 14(2). It specifies here that “To avoid doubt and without limiting subsection (1),”—which is the replacement—“the powers referred to in that subsection include the power to—(a) lock out employees: (b) suspend employees: (c) make specified pay deductions.”

I just wanted to clarify if it was the Minister’s intention that a teacher or a teacher-aide would be able to be locked out if they were wearing a T-shirt. I think it’s quite important to understand if that’s what’s actually going to happen here. I think it’s important to note because freedom of expression and the ability to have statements about what you believe in—for our teachers to be able to do that. I just would like a clear understanding whether she intends for the way this legislation is going to be practically implemented within New Zealand; if teachers will be locked out of schools for wearing T-shirts. Because that does seem quite heavy-handed—with insignia, sorry, I should say. So with some union branding or a slogan that would be tied to a campaign that they were believing in, whether that be “Standing up for kids” or “Fair pay for women”, some of those statements.

I just wonder if she has understood that could potentially lead to higher-level industrial action that would be, in fact, more disruptive to students if that was taken, and whether she’d actually weighed up that, while the goal is—she said—to “restore the balance”, but the end output, if you’re just locking a teacher out for wearing a branded T-shirt, is that not going to just escalate those situations? I would also be interested to know whether the Minister considered if it was unfair, if the employer could just reduce pay during the work-to-rule with employees still performing their actual contractual duties. So if they’re still teaching, if they’re still doing those things, that doesn’t seem fair at all. Exactly how will it be estimated, that information needed to calculate those pay deductions? If they are kicked out for that, how is that exactly calculated?

I think, again, it would be good to understand how this would potentially lead to more disputes and increased litigation as parties test out this new law. It’s going to inflame things further. So I think it’s working against the very intent underlying this bill. It potentially means that employers’ notices of deductions could be worded in a way that potentially intimidated employees. So if you’re trying to restore the balance, if employees are intimidated about what they can put on their bodies as clothing in the morning to turn up to their job to teach children, is that qualifying as potentially intimidating people on their freedoms? We know that the Minister’s party is all about individual freedoms. So this bill would be looking like it’s significantly curtailing individual rights of freedom of expression.

Finally, the point I’d like to make is that some of these changes, they really concern how New Zealand’s going to operate, and whether that’s a fair way. So if the Minister was able to address that question and able to say if that is really her intention—that she is going to lock out a teacher from teaching kids in a school in New Zealand if they have a T-shirt on that says “Stand up for kids”? If that’s her intent, I’d really like her to explain how that brings us forward as a country.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A quick response to Ginny Andersen. I covered most of that off in Part 1; it’s nearly all of that question related to stuff that was discussed in Part 1.

To Teanau Tuiono, the question was what is meant by “some work” in clause 15 regarding the notice requirements. “Some work” means that the person is working and not fully withdrawing their employment, which would be a full strike. So that is to help the employer know if it is a full or a partial strike.

In response to Camilla Belich, there was a question regarding why clause 14(2) is needed. This is needed because if the Public Service Commissioner couldn’t give a direction to make a specified pay deduction, the deduction would not be able to be made.

Before I take another call, I’m going to say there is a huge amount of repetition happening now. Some clauses have been canvassed four times already. So, unless it’s very new, I will take a closure motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a new point to raise. The point that I have to raise is in relation to Part 2. As the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has said, the Public Service Commissioner can make a specified pay deduction. Now, this is in relation to the Education and Training Act. The consequential amendments in relation to the Education Training Act are listed here in Part 2, but there isn’t a section which transfers the definition of “specified pay deduction” into the Education and Training Act, which I think is an error. I’ve looked at the Education and Training Act and I specifically looked at section 587, as referred to by the Minister, and I checked the powers that the Public Service Commissioner has in that section. As I thought, the Public Service Commissioner specifically has, in 587(1), the power to act as an employer in relation to negotiations. So, effectively, my question was: why are these sections needed? I was referred to the principal Act that’s being amended by the Minister, the Employment Relations Act. Upon reading the principal Act, I see that, in fact, the powers appear to already exist. So the Minister said, “Well, it’s for the avoidance of doubt.” Well, that just seems to be additional sections which appear not to add a lot of additional value.

Anyway, when I was going through that process, I was interested to see if the Education and Training Act did have a definition of a specified pay deduction, because it does have a particular meaning and it is defined in this bill, but it doesn’t. We look under “specified” in the interpretation section, and it doesn’t have “specified pay deductions”. So when we look at section 4A of the principal Act, we see that a very particular terminology is used in relation to a pay deduction. My question to the Minister is, firstly: is it a mistake not to transfer the definition into the Education and Training Act? I can’t see it here. I’m interested if colleagues can see that there. I cannot see that within clauses 12 to 15. If not, then what is the meaning of “specified pay deduction” within the Education and Training Act, and how will people know, when they’re just simply reading the Education and Training Act, to refer to this particular piece of legislation or the Employment Relations Act to find out the meaning of a “specified pay deduction”? It seems to me that it would have been better, if we are being clear and crossing all of our i’s and dotting all of our i’s, as the Minister has suggested, to include that definition within that section.

I know, Madam Chair, you’ve said that you are wanting new information. I believe that is a new question. I would like an answer to that, please.

Teanau Tuiono—I’ve given you the call, you probably can’t hear me.

Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m giving you the call but you probably can’t hear me.

TEANAU TUIONO: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is just a response and to get some clarity from the Minister in terms of her comments around whether or not a worker is fully withdrawing their work, or their labour; I’m not too sure exactly how she said it; she might want to clarify that for me as well. I want to try to understand about what exactly does she mean by withdrawing some of their work. The example that I gave earlier was where teachers should be having that really important non-contact time for assessment planning, lesson planning, and so on and so forth. But if there’s a teacher shortage and they’re being forced to take away that non-contact time, would she consider that withdrawing their work? So I’d like some clarity on that.

Just following up from that as well, the example around people coaching basketball teams, rugby teams, and so on and so forth—things outside of the work where sometimes contracts are not specific but there is an expectation that teachers will undertake other specific duties but it’s not actually kind of clear in their agreements. Does she consider that also as a part of their work, and, if she doesn’t, can she give the committee some clarity, give teachers some clarity, about how this particular section will pertain to them? Because I think it’d be really important, moving forward, that she’s clear about that.

Thank you. In response to Teanau Tuiono’s question, I answered that in Part 1 of this bill and the debate.

Francisco Hernandez asked why it says the Public Service Commissioner “may” give a direction. This is simply giving the Public Service Commissioner the ability to issue a direction.

Camilla Belich asked: do the provisions in relation to the Public Service Commissioner come from the result of feedback from the Publish Service Commission? The Public Service Commission was consulted on the Cabinet paper that related to this bill.

Francisco Hernandez asked: if the overpayment was made over several different pay dates, which pay date does the 10-day time frame apply to? The 10-day time period applies to each pay period when an overpayment was made.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 11(3), new paragraph (ba)(i) of section 6(3) to replace “10” with “5” be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 14 to delete subclause (1) be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 14 to delete new subclause (4A) be agreed to.

We come to the Schedule. The question is that the Schedule stand part.