Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to take a call on this pernicious bill. On clause 207 in Part 10 Subpart 2: Bargaining support services" I have to admit I'm confused. When I first looked at this and I had a chat with my colleague Simon Watts here I couldn't really believe this—207(1): "The chief executive must employ or engage persons to provide bargaining support services to support the following parties: (a) a union". I thought that's what unions did. I thought they were bargaining support. Why do they need support to do that? I find that extraordinary. If I were a union member I'd be pretty annoyed that I was paying a fee to belong to a union to provide bargaining support and they have to have support services to provide that service. I think it's extraordinary. It would be very poor value for money.I think this really highlights one of the issues with this bill: it's almost cartel-esque. You're setting up an organisation that has extraordinary powers. It's kind of rent seeking really. It doesn't have to actually earn its living because it's prescribed in legislation. It doesn't have to perform that well and have the people that are capable of carrying out that task professionally and at a high level because actually they don't need to because they're going to get support anyway. I can understand a bargaining party—is that to provide support services for people who have someone who's bargaining for them to ensure that they are getting good value for money? Are they actually getting what they want out of it? I think there's a lot of explanation that's required here.It goes on in clause 207(2) to say "Bargaining support services may include services that—(aa) help a union or employer association to understand the requirements to become a bargaining party"—extraordinary. It's even more confusing the more you read into this bill.Hon Member: Keep reading. STUART SMITH: Well I will keep reading. It goes on to say—that was (aa)—"(a) help bargaining sides to understand the process for bargaining". Well that's going to take a while—isn't it?—a professional union being helped to understand the process for bargaining. I think that's a doozy. It must have taken a lot of research to put this clause together. Then clause 207(2)(b) is "support bargaining sides throughout the process of bargaining". Why don't they just do it for them? Why have the union in the first place if you've got this chief executive providing bargaining support services that are going to support the bargaining sides throughout the process of bargaining? It is quite extraordinary.Clause 207(2)(c): "Support bargaining sides to ensure that bargaining is constructive and efficient". Well this is very prescriptive isn't it? And then clause 207(2)(d): "assist bargaining sides to understand the content requirements for a proposed agreement or a proposed variation". Well that would be helpful I suppose. If you're going to be bargaining on something you would want to understand what you're bargaining for. I guess that would be the case. Perhaps the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety might like to explain that. But it really is quite strange. I thought I'd heard everything in this debate but that's not the case. And clause 207(2)(e) is "assist in resolving any conflict within or between bargaining sides that are bargaining." Well I wouldn't be surprised after all that if they're not totally confused and they'll need a lot of help to understand what's going on.And then clause 207(3): "A person employed or engaged to provide bargaining support services under this section may also be employed or engaged to provide mediation services under section 204 of this Act or under section 144 of the Employment Relations Act 2000." So essentially what we find from clause 207 is there's probably very little need for any unions because it's all going to be provided by the chief executive who will appoint someone to do it for them."