Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Can I begin firstly by acknowledging the initial author of this bill Darien Fenton as Mr McAnulty has done. Ms Fenton and I were on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee of the 49th Parliament—one of the most unusual committees where in matters of road safety and the transport legislation more generally there was a strong degree of unanimity and collegiality whereas on matters of industrial relations employment law ACC and immigration probably not so much. But despite that and our different philosophical predilections Ms Fenton and I got on extremely well and I know that she was then and is now a very passionate supporter of workers' rights and I support that sentiment. I want to also acknowledge a relatively new MP for the good fortune that he's had to get a bill drawn out of the members' ballot. Nearly 10 years after arriving at this place I'm still waiting. I have had a member's bill passed but it wasn't drawn out in my name and I've authored a few but they were drawn out in other people's names so that's the luck of the draw.Look I want to start firstly by providing strong support for the sentiment that underpins this piece of legislation in so far as I certainly agree with the rights of fairness flexibility and safety in our workplaces. It was those three legs if you like of any policy or legislation that was being considered by me as the previous Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that was basically the lens that we looked through and I think we can stand extremely proud of the increases in employee protections that were provided in the last three years or so particularly—Marja Lubeck: Oh! Sorry—did I say that out loud?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: If she needs some medical assistance I'm sure we can help but actually that's the sort of reaction you get from the select committee and I know Ms Lubeck as a member of the committee that may consider this bill will be up like a meerkat on the things that she doesn't agree with.But look that employment standards legislation bill—the sorts of protections that we put the extra punishments for breaches of minimum employment standards the stand-down periods for employers that breach those standards who also rely on the international labour market and even the sorts of flexibility that underpin the 90-day trial and the sorts of rest and meal breaks provisions that I continue to maintain are actually good for workers—was certainly something that I think was very helpful.So it's necessary I think to deconstruct what this bill does and to try and understand whether or not there is an issue that is requiring a remedy and whether this is the correct remedy. Now I was very interested to note that Mr McAnulty referenced Prasad v LSG a recent decision of the Employment Court which deals with the issue of triangular relationships and indeed the Employment Court referred to them as such. The difference between the remedy that this bill seeks to achieve and that case is that the facts of that Employment Court were that those plaintiffs were considered to be independent contractors by—using the nomenclature in the bill—the primary employer and the secondary employer and the question was whether or not they should have been treated as such.Now we will probably be dealing with a situation such as the LSG case where the Minister brings probably phase two of the employment law reforms that he seeks to implement as part of the Labour Party manifesto and I think we're going to have some interesting conversations in respect of for example the collectivising of independent contractors. But the LSG case was significant. Indeed I think when we deconstruct this bill it reinforces the point that I don't believe that this legislation is necessary and the reason is this: very clearly the court determined that those plaintiffs were indeed employees and as a consequence in a triangular relationship they were afforded the protections that the Employment Relations Act and the Holidays Act and the paid parental leave Act and all the other employment law legislation provides for an employee.Now it is true—and the sponsor of the bill mentioned this—that agency relationships triangular relationships have been a feature of the New Zealand employment landscape for many many years. I'm not quite sure Ms Fenton would agree with his argument of the legitimacy of them. There is no doubt that she and many others in the union movement and the Labour Party believe that these types of arrangements add to the increasing casualisation of labour in the New Zealand workforce. Now I think it's quite an emotive term. What we do have is a much larger number of people who want to work flexible hours whether they're starting out whether they're returning to the workforce or whether they are part-time workers who are studying at the same time. There are many many reasons why these sorts of arrangements are perfectly necessary and appropriate and the overwhelming number of employers treat their workers fairly.Indeed when we see the sorts of temp agency overload sort of arrangements it's not unusual for the employee to be paid more than the permanent employee not less. I spent nearly 15 years in the health sector. It was necessary from time to time to use nursing overload services. Two things were apparent in my experience. Firstly the nurses were almost invariably members of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation the union that supports nurses—Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Good employer—a fine employer.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —which Mr Lees-Galloway knows very well—and secondly they were paid more than my staff not less. Now for temporary assignments that's often the case. There are a few employers who are using this—and LSG's a very good example in my view regardless of the fact that they were considered to be contractors wrongly—who work on a very long-term basis and that is not frankly the purpose of agency or overload services but nevertheless those employees are entitled to the protections of the Employment Relations Act. Even if they were on casual agreements they would if they have a regular pattern of shift work—as LSG did—be entitled to paid parental leave to holidays to bereavement leave and to sick leave according to the Holidays Act. Clearly the freedom of association provisions enabled them to join a trade union and bargain collectively with their primary employer not their secondary employer and I think this is the confusing feature of this legislation.It definitely is the case that there is—so getting back to the fundamental question: is there a problem to be addressed that isn't covered by existing law? My answer to that is no there isn't. All of the protections that are available to the employee are available now. Secondly is this the solution? Well again my answer is no and for that reason the National Party will not be supporting this bill at first reading.Now there is a case as the sponsor of the bill has said of actually supporting it to select committee and then having that conversation there. We've thought very carefully about that and try as I might I cannot see how the bill could be improved to the point where it would answer those two questions: a problem that isn't being addressed by existing legislation and is this the solution?I want to just finish by addressing in the second part of the bill the joinder provisions to a personal grievance. Now it is not my understanding of employment law—although if the bill goes to select committee we'll have this conversation—that a personal grievance is not possible against the primary employer for the actions that took place in the secondary workplace. But I think the more concerning feature of this is the asymmetrical nature of it where a personal grievance is one thing but what about a performance issue? Is it possible that a secondary employer could have a significant employment issue but there is currently no provision in this bill for them to act on that in employment law because they are not the employer? Those responsibilities and the employee's rights are with the relationship between the employee and the primary employer. And looking at current law I don't believe there is a weakness or a loophole that would justify this bill being necessary.So we will oppose it. We're not going to the wall over it and it may well yet get to select committee. So as a member of that select committee I'll be looking forward to the submissions and the exchange. I have no doubt it will be robust as it was in the 49th Parliament but I look forward to that conversation if we have it.