Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Those were the words of a man driven by an Ayn Rand world view hanging on by his fingernails to relevance. This bill is about fairness—simple fairness—something that that side of the House really doesn't practise doesn't understand and certainly doesn't allow to prevail in our country when they have the Treasury benches. Thankfully this side does. Ultimately—to boil it down—for workers employed by one employer but working under the control and direction of another business or organisation it allows those workers simply to apply to the Employment Relations Authority to have their host employer or controlling third party joined to a personal grievance. It's not that complicated and it's ultimately about fairness. Certainly in the select committee process—and I was on the Education and Workforce Committee for part of the time—it was identified that there is a gap in the law around fairness and that is what Kieran McAnulty's bill is seeking to address. So for all those listening at home and thinking What on earth is this all about?" this is what it's about. I want to just reference what the select committee was told by officials during the process of its deliberations just to explain how that works. They referenced the case of Boyce v Kelly Services (NZ) Ltd. In this case an on-hire worker was on assignment with a controlling third party and the assignment was ended early by the controlling third party and with little notice due to the worker being unable to work on a particular day. The authority found that the worker was unjustifiably dismissed not by the controlling third party that entered the assignment but by the on-hire firm. It made no effort to provide ongoing work for the worker or to represent the worker's interests to the controlling third party. That third party was entirely within its rights they found to end the assignment and the on-hire firm had the responsibility and duty of good faith to attempt to resolve the situation for its employee. Had they met their duty of good faith it would not have been an unjustified dismissal. What the officials said to us was that the status quo already allows employees to raise personal grievances if they have been unjustifiably dismissed even if they're working in a triangular arrangement. The bill does not propose to change this or to shift the responsibility of—Andrew Bayly: You don't need to read it Clare. Hon CLARE CURRAN: —well it's because I don't think that the members over there understand—providing work to the controlling third party but rather what it does is it provides on-hire workers with the ability to raise a grievance which relates to the actions of the controlling third party and provides for that third party to be responsible for their actions if they led to the grievance. That is what this bill is about. It's quite simple. It just gives that worker who has very little power and very little opportunity to address issues that arise in their employment anyway—and as I think the member from the National Party said he seemed to think that it was thousands and thousands of workers. Where is the fairness for them? It's a small bill and important—small can be important—and is fixing a gap in the law. It's about fairness. Let's just get on with it and pass it."