Ngarewa-Packer DebbieDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I don't want to make this debate about whether we are opposed to employers because sometimes the value is that we should be about promoting and encouraging good employers to be great employers. We should also be making sure employees can be safe employees and it is absolutely true what we've heard over here. We all know some really great employers; great employers which I've been part of since I was 18 years old being self-employed. Our small to medium sized businesses are really critical to our economy and I'm glad that I belong to iwi and to entities that are enjoying investing and being part of these types of businesses. However unfortunately that is not always the case. Some of this legislation is being drafted and created for the vulnerable and that is really what we're answering about and challenging about: our different views of where we see we belong in looking after the most vulnerable. So I do want to be really clear on what it is that we're asking for. I understand the debate and actually to be fair I understand the Minister's approach and what it is that she's wanting to focus on. But I guess what we also need to remind ourselves of is that the protection of the vulnerable has come because of the work the hard work of the unions. What we saw today and what we've heard in a really short amount of time is that multiple unions agree on what it is that we're looking at today. There is limited evidence that we've seen from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. They have told us that they were restrained or constrained because of time lines. They were constrained by the fact that there's a Government in with a very—depending on where you sit—progressive or aggressive 100-day plan and this urgency kaupapa that we have.New clause 8 in our amendment is actually about a repeal—to make sure that it is subject to a review. Now I don't think that's asking for too much. What we're simply saying to the Minister is that look let's assume that it doesn't go to plan and that we have a review undertaken in three years to investigate how the terms and conditions particularly for those who are disproportionately affected—and we've all heard that; that's not us making it up those are facts. We have a disproportionate group of our employees our workers who are often our whānau Pasifika Māori wāhine who are affected. We see it often in the sectors across early childhood education the bus industry the security industry cleaning supermarkets and hospitality. What we're asking is that there is a decency applied to this if it doesn't go the way—and this 100-day plan—that the Government wants and we have a pou we have a measurement we have a marker to say Is this going the way we want and how else can we ensure the terms and conditions of those who are disproportionately affected are going to be monitored?" If we get to a point and we say actually this hasn't going the way we thought it was it's working really well in this area for those of us who have been and are business owners who are employers but in fact it's made the gap worse for those who we didn't want to see disproportionately worse through this period. The other thing that I do want to ask the Minister again is what is the plan if it doesn't work? Can we surely put aside the differences that we have fundamentally or philosophically tonight and look at why the Minister wouldn't support our amendment to ensure that there is a review that we continue to be proud to grow as I said good employers to be great employers; good employees employees to be able to be looked after; and the most vulnerable are not targeted because at times that's how it's coming across. Kia ora rā."