McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I thank the member Parmjeet Parmar for the invitation to explain why I support the definition of a controlling third party". This side of the House understands that there is a power imbalance in an employment relationship. That is why there are minimum conditions applied to ensure that employees are treated fairly. That is why it is called a controlling the third party because in an employment relationship there is an element of control. I point the member to this quote which was said in the House on 3 March 2016 which I have very quickly become rather fond of. It reads "I can fully understand that feeling of power imbalance between employers and employees. That has come through quite a lot." Mark Patterson: Who said that? KIERAN McANULTY: Parmjeet Parmar. Dr Parmjeet Parmar in a previous Government when it was National's idea to include minimum standards for employees said that that member understood the power imbalance between the employee and the employer relationship yet she had five minutes to explain to the House why she disapproves and opposes this bill. Did she? Did she my foot. What she did was she stood up and she complained that the bill had been redrafted. Whoop-de-doo! That is what the select committee process is for. You bring a bill up to the select committee you listen to the submitters and then you change it. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Don't bring me into the debate thank you. KIERAN McANULTY: I apologise Mr Chair. I am rather perplexed however that on the other side of the Chamber we've had two speakers from the National Party. Both of them have complained that this bill has been changed through the select committee process and they have both highlighted the very part of the bill that has been removed as the reason why they oppose it. They have referred to submitters in front of the select committee that opposed this bill on the basis of the part of the bill that's been removed. I have heard no argument from the National Party as to why this bill as it is presented to the committee right now is bad for employers is bad for employees and should be opposed. They're opposing it on the basis of what it used to say not of what it does say. It's quite typical of the National Party living in the past—living in the past—not thinking about now and not thinking about what is right. I do wonder why Dr Parmjeet Parmar the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee was so worried about the power imbalance between employers and employees on 3 March 2016 but doesn't seem to care on 22 May 2019 and I'll tell you why. This is what I think. When it's their idea it's good and when it's our idea it's bad—that's the guts of it. This is the level of debate that the New Zealand people can expect from the National Party when this is the case. I will point to the committee's intention that both of them pointed out—both speakers the Hon Scott Simpson and Dr Parmjeet Parmar—about union influence on this bill. I've got another quote and I quite like this one. Mark Patterson: Who's this? KIERAN McANULTY: Well let me say the quote first Mr Patterson. This quote says "The first thing is that unions have a very vital role in our economy and in our workers' representation and [we] understand and acknowledge that. Collective bargaining has a very important role as well." That was on 22 October 2014 the Hon David Bennett—David Bennett. He's about as right-wing as you can get but when the National Party put forward a bill that looks to seek and to preserve minimum standards for workers' rights they're all over it kowtowing making themselves look good. But here the proof is in the pudding. This is where the rubber hits the road and in a very basic bill that extends the provision of personal grievance to all workers workers that that side of the House—Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Explain the definition—explain the definition. KIERAN McANULTY: —and the member that's interjecting—sought to provide for when they were in Government and they now oppose it when they are not. I think that sums up very clearly that in the opportunities that they've had to oppose this bill and outline why they've talked about parts of the bill that no longer exist and they've talked about things that in the past they supported. I don't think that side of the House has any opposition to this at all; they're simply playing politics."