Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Firstly I too would like to congratulate the member Kieran McAnulty for getting a bill drawn.Kieran McAnulty: This is getting embarrassing.JAN LOGIE: Yep. Ha ha! I'll hold back my you know kind of envy but I think it's really great when good luck coincides with a good bill. It's not always the way but in this case it is and the Green Party is very pleased to be able to support this piece of legislation. While we've heard from the previous speaker Tim Macindoe that anyone supporting this bill is clearly just in debt to the unions and possibly union lackeys I would like to start my speech by acknowledging Kamlesh Prasad and Liutofaga Tulai who were two working people who with the help of their union E tū took a case to the Employment Court after working for years at minimum wage or just above minimum wage with no holidays no sick leave or KiwiSaver and even having to pay their own ACC coverage for years. Liutofaga had worked for 34 days in a row without a break—Marja Lubeck: 60 hours a week.JAN LOGIE: What I had is 62.8 hours a week on minimum wage as a parent trying to sustain her family.This case was taken to the Employment Court on their behalf from their union E tū challenging that arrangement which was justified because of their supposed employment by the labour hire company Solutions Personnel when their day-to-day management was with LSG Sky Chefs who provide food for many of the planes moving around this country. It was a clear case of exploitation that was being justified by this triangulated arrangement. The courts decided that those two workers were under the day-to-day control of LSG Sky Chefs and therefore should be considered employees of them rather than the labour hire company.That was recognising that in our legislation as it stands at the moment we've gone to some efforts to try and recognise that some employers may want to pretend that people are contractors when in actual fact they are employees. Despite what we've heard from a previous speaker often that means less compliance costs for the employer. They may not have to pay for sick pay or holidays or ACC and all of that burden is put on the person in the contracting arrangement.That's fine if you've set yourself up as a consultant with lots of social capital and you're going about your business in that way. Fine—that's fine. This bill will not affect those people. But it's not so great when people are vulnerable workers who are being set up to be exploited just to keep the costs down for the business. When we heard from the previous speaker that this bill will be bad for business and that it undermines the model for business in this country what we heard was that exploitation from their view is built in to the model of successful business in this country.This bill just protects people against exploitation. It doesn't stop contracting it doesn't stop labour hire companies; it stops exploitation. That is all it does. So when you're saying that undermines the business model you are saying exploitation is inherent in your idea of a successful business model and that is not something we support on this side of the House. We want our business model in this country to support good employment practice and basic decent rights and it clearly does not when people are able to be employed by a labour hire company and undermine the working conditions of the staff who are in employment arrangements—so that companies are incentivised to pay less by going to an employment labour hire company.