Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise in this second reading debate on this member's bill not because this is a matter that derives for any member of this House any degree of pleasure at all but simply because the House is considering this matter in a careful and thoughtful way. I listened very carefully to the contribution of Jan Logie and as my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell indicated there's not a member of this House or probably anybody in New Zealand that would doubt her sincerity in terms of commitment to addressing issues of domestic violence which as the Minister of Justice has just indicated is an absolute scourge upon our society in every shape form and manner.As the Minister of Justice said the real issue here is one of systemic and structural form rather than employment law. It's actually got very little to do with employment law and industrial relations but it has got an awful lot to do with our focus and our approach as New Zealanders as citizens as members of a functioning society where we have for too long accepted and tolerated domestic violence in whatever shape or form it presents itself.But to punish and hit employers is not the way to resolve this issue. There's something that is becoming increasingly apparent from this new Government—and effectively we can say with some confidence that although this is a member's bill it's going to be supported by members of the coalition parties that form the Government and that they are using this piece of legislation as part of that jigsaw puzzle part of that suite of legislative initiatives that are designed to add extra cost less flexibility and more rigidity to the industrial relations environment.They make some kind of connection between domestic violence and employment that gives a sense of somehow the employer being at fault being responsible. That's the sense of the discussions that we've heard from the Minister of Justice; that's the sense of the contribution that we heard from the member promoting this bill—that somehow employers and business people have an infinite capacity to pay for almost anything and everything that this Government thinks that they should.If there is a cost to be made to employers why not spread it more widely? If the way to manage domestic violence in our society and in our workplace is to hit employers well why not spread the cost of that more widely through our society as a whole? Why not have the taxpayer fund the annual leave that's being sought from this bill?This is a bill that as I said adds to that suite of legislation of which now there are about four or five pieces of legislation either in the House or going to be introduced to the House that just makes it harder for business people and for businesses to actually employ people. This is going to be a further burden upon an already struggling difficult commercial environment where business confidence is low and falling.If the Government was really keen on this they'd fund it out of their massive surplus. They'd fund it in a way that didn't apportion financial blame on employers and they would separate those two connections. Everybody would agree that domestic violence is something that needs to be resolved and addressed and ultimately removed from our society but punishing employers doesn't achieve that.Now I come to this House from a background of commercial involvement as an employer as a manager and as a senior executive in a number of large New Zealand businesses and I well remember personal situations where—I can think of one and this was a long time ago in a far less enlightened time. We had an employee in one of the branches around the countryside who would regularly arrive on a Tuesday or a Wednesday at work with a black eye and bruises. This woman often wouldn't arrive on a Monday because she was not able to arrive on a Monday because she had been so badly abused and beaten over the weekend.Now her work colleagues in that branch knew of that situation. They did what they could to involve legal officers—the police—they did what they could to provide personal and emotional support of every type and shape and as an employer we knew and made allowances as most responsible employers do. They do take care of their people and they do take initiatives to provide flexibility in the workplace and they do whatever they can. Sure there are always going to be one or two that are not going to do what they should do but that's true in every facet of human endeavour.But this is a Government that wants to somehow connect employers with a responsibility—[Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Apologise to the member. Kieran McAnulty will stand withdraw and apologise.Kieran McAnulty: I withdraw and apologise.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. So the vast majority of responsible employers do take these matters seriously and do what they can and making it compulsory to add an extra 10 days' annual leave simply doesn't assist the process or the problem. In fact what it actually does is in a perverse way it probably gets the back up of employers—good responsible employers—and it creates a situation where suddenly there's a degree of animosity and I think that's a very sad thing. I think that goes against the grain of what it is to be a responsible employer what it is to be a responsible staff member and what it is to be a responsible citizen in a society that doesn't accept or tolerate domestic violence.So we have this sense from the new Government that businesses have this infinite capacity to fund everything and to solve every social ill and actually that's not the case. The net result of this piece of legislation should it proceed through the House will be added costs to businesses and actually it will mean fewer job opportunities for people who probably need a job who need the support and the stability that comes from having regular income and a good job with a good employer. If those opportunities are going to be diminished or denied then that is a perverse and negative outcome of this piece of legislation—which I'm sure is well intended but like most aspects of hard-left socialism it's based on a premise that someone else should pay that somebody else should put to right issues that are actually not of their making or their concern in terms of their day-to-day business.Business people don't go into business to be regulated in such a way that means that they can't do business. So we already have a generous leave regime and to add further complexity and a new regime just adds I think to the difficulty of doing business and adds nothing to providing solutions to the problems and issues that the member Jan Logie so rightly wants to highlight and raise by this bill.So I am concerned that as the National Party we could support a more moderate bill. We could support a bill that had a tighter definition and that was more realistic in terms of understanding the needs and conditions of a modern flexible work environment but unfortunately this Government doesn't seem to get that and I think that's a shame. I think that's a real shame because ultimately it will be New Zealanders that don't reap the benefits of a strong and growing economy don't have the security of good jobs and don't have the security that comes from being an employee in a good fair and reasonable employment situation. So we think that this bill adds complexity rigidity and a further complex regime and we don't support it.