White Helen; van Velden BrookeHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to support the last speaker but also my friend Rachel Boyack's amendment which was to delay the bill coming into fruition. I think the point needs expanding a little bit because what we have in this situation is very very little evidence a lot of hunch about what will happen next. And while the Minister might be sceptical this is our perfect opportunity to do an evidence-gathering exercise. If we had three years of watching this and the Minister watching this and being the guardian of it then that would play out in that time. You have industries that have already opted for this option. So we have identified industries that have come forward and said that there's appetite for this solution. They are halfway through bargaining and it would be amazing if those industries could go through a process that a lot of work's gone into getting going. In three years' time if it's a failed experiment as you suspect it will be you will see and you'll be able to prove that on the basis of evidence.But if in fact it turns out that it makes a big difference to the kinds of workers who are engaged at the present time if bus drivers are on better money if they are safer if they in fact can get their toilet breaks if our younger workers and our women are in situations that are more flexible and work for them if our disabled workers are better off then you'll know that too. Because you're right this is a tailored situation that has been created. The work that has been done has been not exactly like Australia or not exactly like anywhere and wouldn't it be really such a sad thing to throw all that away when if we just did move your repeal out for three years and one day we'd have time to find out whether it worked or not and what worked and what didn't and improve on it.In fact this is something we should be doing much more with legislation—actually allowing ourselves to test things and see if they work and not being beholden to dogged ideology. That's actually a big deal because what I have heard from the Minister is that the reason this has to go ahead is because a commitment has been made and there is a belief in what has been an ideological position. We're basically back to trickle-down economics. We're back to eventually these workers will be better off". Well my experience is they are not better off.Just one example of this: I'll go back to the bus drivers because I know that situation very well. My Green colleague talked about the bus drivers having to pee behind a tree—right that's real. That happened. I actually had to prepare a strike notice for the bus drivers in Auckland and do you know what the strike notice threatened to do? The strike action was taking the toilet breaks. That's what the strike action said. They were going to take the toilet breaks. And do you know what the result of that was Minister? The company locked out the bus drivers. At that time they were on $17 an hour. They had split shifts where that meant that they were in the Auckland depot. So they came in the morning and they had come before the buses were starting so they had to be there and they had to do that work. If we gave these bus drivers three years of this regime we would see what happened next. Together with the work that's been done on the Public Transport Operating Model and changing it to a sustainable transport model—together with those things we ended up with bus drivers on good money in this country good terms and conditions safer work. We ended up with a sustainable situation for our bus drivers and imagine the impact if we just give them that time and we delay this for three years and one day. Imagine the impact that it could have on things like the children. Thank you.Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I'd just like to make the point that the last three contributions have little to do with the title and commencement of this bill. Helen White I don't think I heard anything there about the title and commencement of the bill. To the member Ricardo Menéndez March quite similarly: nothing to do with the title and commencement of the bill. Camilla Belich there was a question about GST changes with the employment courts—once again not relevant to this particular section. However you might wish to note that while it's not in the bill specifically in this section we are retaining the provision. So we are reversing all other changes but retaining this one so it's not in the bill. So being silent on it it's retaining the fact that changes to the forms are GST exclusive so it's not in this bill. But to the point that was actually about this section I heard a lot about delay but this is not a Government that delays; this is a Government of action."