Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. I too would like to commend the member Kieran McAnulty for bringing this bill to the House for its intention is good. It is there to protect exploitation and he repeatedly talked about the exploitation of workers being his primary purpose for bringing this bill to the House.But this bill does not contribute to the protection of any exploitation of workers in New Zealand. In fact there are very good rules and regulations and laws already in place that protect the worker. Even in the last Parliament Mr Lees-Galloway was part of that committee which strengthened and protected further the rights of workers particularly immigrant workers. There was legislation that punished and—what's the term?—exported the offending employer if they happened to come from an offshore country if they were caught seen to be abusing or exploiting other colleagues or immigrant labourers. They would themselves be—what's the term?Hon Michael Woodhouse: Liable for deportation.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Deported—deported. Thank you Mr Woodhouse. They would themselves be deported forthwith. So we strengthened the law around immigrant exploitation. We increased the number of labour inspectors in the market and I would like to also commend Mr Lees-Galloway's initiative in increasing that even further.Hon Michael Woodhouse: We'll see.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Apparently—if Mr Robertson allows the funding to take place.So that is the programme that has been put in place by the National Government. That is the programme which I'm sure will be continued and supported by the Labour Government to make sure and to minimise exploitation of workers.Triangulation is not the reason for the exploitation. The triangulation agreement doesn't necessarily bring about exploitation at all. Exploitation happens in bilateral—in two party—arrangements. The exploitation is going to happen whether or not you've got triangulation so let's address the issue of exploitation directly and not try and fudge it by blaming some triangulation arrangement on the exploitation of immigrant workers.That brings me to the point that this legislation is redundant. It is not necessary. In fact you'll remember in a triangulation arrangement you're talking about a different group of people who want to work as contractors who want to work part time who want to be temporary workers. And they can be paid more. In fact I was one of those in London a long time ago and that's quite right: nurses accountants and labourers—temporary workers—tend to be paid more than full timers.Marja Lubeck: Ha!ALASTAIR SCOTT: Absolutely right. Ha!"—there's a scoff across the room. But has that person across at the back behind Mr McAnulty ever employed anybody? Has she ever employed anybody? Contractor—has she ever employed a contractor? Has she ever employed full-time workers? Has she ever run a business? And if she has she will know that to get someone on short notice short term is expensive. You have to pay over the odds because of the nature of the work. And that is a good thing because that enables more people to enter the workforce on the basis that suits them. It allows flexibility in the labour force.This proposal from Mr McAnulty will actually reduce flexibility reduce the ability for people to enter work on a temporary basis because they are going to have to comply with a bunch of regulations that are set quite rightly by those who are in different conditions by those who are wanting and are in let's say full-time employment. But temporary workers are a different group; they want different things they have different needs. Whether they are temporary or full time there is room for exploitation. There is room for prejudice against pregnant women homosexuals different races. Triangulation doesn't cause that; triangulation is not the problem. So I suggest that dealing with the nature of exploitation as we have been doing for many years is the right method and that this bill should be opposed."