Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this third reading. I was part of the committee that heard this particular bill when it was introduced. I spoke on the first reading. It started off with a bang a bang of embarrassment and that was because it was a reheated bill from 2007 from Labour Party MP and union boss Darien Fenton and we could see all over the face of the MP that sponsored this bill—it's in his name—that this was going to be problematic as it made its way through the course of this House and the committee. It was not hard to see that there was not a lot in the bill that was going to be tenable and palatable for us here in the House.We heard from submitters like Auckland Council. Auckland Council was a late submitter but they were very very clear—crystal clear in fact. They were so crystal clear because they had had the opportunity I think unintentionally to read prior submissions. They gave a response to the committee based on their reading of submissions that had already been put in and this is what they said: If the purpose of the bill is to afford greater protection/additional benefits our observation is that these may be better delivered in alternative ways. We noted that within the submissions made in support of the Bill"—submissions already put in—"the types of concerns raised did not appear to be well connected to the solutions/changes proposed within the purpose of the Bill." They'd surveyed what was already put in and they had said "Well whoever submitted on this the disconnect between what the bill actually does is very clear and apparent for all to see."—highly embarrassing as I just said earlier. They finished by saying "We do anticipate significant adverse unintended consequences which means that we do not support the proposed legislation." So that's the context as we heard from many submitters. So what happened next: the bill got gutted. The sponsor of the bill used staff to their fullest potential I'd say and changed it in all but two places—a completely different bill gutted and that's what we had to work with. No wonder it's been very difficult for submitters or anyone to keep track of what the full intention of this bill was. I wonder what Darien Fenton would be thinking.So we had to go through the process. There had to be something salvaged and brought out from the bones that we were given and the staff were scratching around to try and make it worthwhile. So what we've got now are changes as they are to some collective agreements and personal grievances and the result is quite frankly a continued barrage on business and a handbrake to our economy. If you want our economy to get ahead you need to create jobs you need higher wages you need people to be able to support their families. That's the basics; that's what we know. And yes that even applies to labour hire companies. They are part of a flexible workplace environment. We heard from many submitters who are helping out people in low-income families with just that: a flexible work environment and consistent and steady work especially from those submitters that we heard from from South Auckland. So what we have got here though is a Government slowing growth down and taking away opportunities and putting yet another set of handbrakes on business. The Labour Party are reviewing fundamental parts of our economy including tax ports and electricity and all of this is adding to knocking business confidence. We need to be really mindful when we pass any legislation in this House about what does grow the economy what does get people jobs and what does allow businesses to have the flexibility and the space to prosper our economy. Is this going to fundamentally help? We answer no. That's why we're opposing this bill here this afternoon. We want to stand for and we do stand for a flexible industrial relations framework and a flexible labour market. This bill does not assist in that. It's another set of regulations that someone in business has to look out for."