Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Speaker. I want to commence my contribution on the first reading of this Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill in the name of Ibrahim Omer by congratulating him on having a bill drawn from the ballot. There are many MPs who in the life of their parliamentary careers either don't have a bill drawn at all and then there are some who seem to have remarkable luck. I'm thinking of Louisa Wall particularly who seemed to have incredible good luck at having member's bills drawn. But on this occasion this bill has been drawn. I'm sure that the member in whose name it is Ibrahim Omer is very committed and very sincere about the objectives that he seeks to achieve from this piece of legislation. But it's a piece of legislation that is affectionately referred to around these precincts as a ballot-stuffer". It's a piece of legislation that is put in by a backbench Government MP to load the ballot in order that Opposition bills are less likely to be drawn. It's a classic ballot-stuffer. It seeks to essentially be a solution that is looking for a problem. It's been widely acclaimed by only one organisation as far as I could see and that was the Council of Trade Unions (CTU)—Richard Wagstaff. I did a little bit of a search into media commentary or analysis of this piece of legislation. All I could find was an endorsement from the CTU. I think that gives people who may be listening to this debate at home or on television watching it or in their cars listening to it on the radio a sense of what the purpose and tradition and history behind this piece of legislation is. It's a piece of union legislation. The Labour Party and the trade union movement their history their politics and their connectedness is very well known and needs no further elucidation in this Parliament. But I suspect that the intent as I say though well meaning doesn't really match the reality. Notwithstanding the speeches that have been made by Government and Green members in the debate this afternoon there simply isn't any evidence of systemic and widespread abuse in this area. Naturally and of course worker exploitation is an issue that is serious and from time to time does occur. But the vast majority of employers are good employers. The vast majority of employers are good employers. Yes just as in any other sector of the economy or any other sphere of human endeavour occasionally there are people and businesses that don't meet the measure of acceptable behaviour in terms of how they account for workers' wages. That does from time to time occur. But that doesn't mean that we should suddenly change what has been a long held practice in the New Zealand civil jurisdiction of applying matters of this sort through a civil process rather than a criminal process. It doesn't mean that we should necessarily just toss the baby out with the bathwater. What this legislation would do actually has potential to achieve a perverse negative outcome. The proponents of the bill including the mover the member whose name it is in Ibrahim Omer would indicate that by putting it into the criminal jurisdiction it's going to have some kind of better outcome for people who have been the victims of poor employer accounting and management of employee wages and funds. That's not going to be the case because we know we know that our criminal justice system is already under immense pressure—immense pressure. The likelihood is that any action that comes as a result of this legislation—should it ever see the light of day by the way—is going to actually slow down rather than speed up. And it will put the criminal justice system—already under great pressure—under even more pressure. So look this bill will get a first reading. The Government will use its majority. The Green Party will support it. But we in the National Party don't support it. It will get a first reading it will go to a select committee and then it'll be up to a future member to lead it through to its natural conclusion at some point."