Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to contribute here in the committee stage of this particular bill. You'd be forgiven if you thought that this particular atmosphere that we have traversed in this bill was simply to undermine labour hire companies and that's what those of us on the Education and Workforce Committee found as we traversed through the public submissions stage and certainly listened to the contributions from our colleagues across the table from us. There was a pervasive attitude that if you weren't in full-time employment then something attributable to a labour hire company was precarious or vulnerable or an undesirable type of employment but what we heard from submitters from labour hire companies was actually a very different story. I remember with clarity one particular company coming to represent from South Auckland and the way that they were able to offer some flexible and some really good arrangements for their employees and how they were getting people into employment—the type of employment that they wanted and look forward to. I would like to just quickly run through what clauses have changed but I want to bring out one particular submission in relation to those clauses. It was a late submission and it was from Auckland Council and the fact that it was late is really telling. So as we know the bill does two things. First those employees in triangular employment will automatically be bound by any collective agreement in the workplace of their secondary employer and second those employers will be able to raise a personal grievance against their secondary employer. We go on to amend section 5 in clause 4 and insert a new section in clause 5 and a new section in clause 6. So as my colleagues have said before the original bill was gutted and what we have here is something quite new. In Auckland Council's submission which was late—and that allowed them to do something very specific. It allowed them to analyse the submissions that had already come in and analyse them quite clearly and succinctly. What Auckland Council said was that noting the submissions that had already come in to support the bill the types of concerns that kept popping up in those submissions of support didn't appear at all well-connected to the solutions that the original bill was offering. Now I realise that the bill has completely changed but this is important to understand what Auckland Council saw as the tenets of the original bill. For example they said that the solutions were a real mismatch to unfair treatment by a secondary employer there was a mismatch on lack of clarity around entitlements as a temp there was a lack of understanding of the relationships or terms of the contract and there were even problems—basic problems—with the agency and the primary employer. So this is my primary question for the bill's sponsor. What they were saying then was that a better solution if that's what was coming through—and we know the bill's been gutted. Why were these concerns addressed in the way that the bill now addresses them when in fact as Auckland Council points out—and this is what they said—surely we should be just ensuring primary employers are providing adequate information and support to the temporary employees for their contract? Better contracting could have been a different solution. I'd like to back up what my colleague Dan Bidois said in relation to these concerns. Another solution could have been a registration system. Why didn't we debate that and look at that—a licensing of the industry. Some of the industry players said that and they offered it themselves. Why aren't we looking at that? They wouldn't mind having that discussion. They weren't afraid of that discussion. A reference has been made again by my colleague to the Queensland legislation which is essentially a fine system an infringement system and a beefed-up inspectorate. So when you look at what Auckland Council analysed from the original bill and they were saying it didn't even match up to what the proposed intent of the bill was why then did we go down this path and not do what they were suggesting?