White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): It's been a real pleasure to listen to the contributions made by colleagues from all sides of this House but I would like to start by addressing the challenge to my assertion that this was something that was actually in the interests of business and of productivity. This is a subject I care about so I appreciate that not everybody has gone away and done the research but I want to draw your attention to an article that talks about the situation in California. This is an article that comes from I think the Financial Times. It says: In the early days of the computer industry Silicon Valley was rivalled by the Route 128 corridor"—this is the road through the Boston suburbs in Massachusetts—"as a hub of innovation." But California won out decisively here and many people think the lack of non-compete agreements in the "Golden State" is part of the reason. To see why think about why Mark Zuckerberg moved Facebook to the Bay Area when he decided to get serious about it. He and his investors believed in the Facebook promise. They thought it was possible that it would become a huge super-successful company. For that to happen you need the ability to literally grow the enterprise at rapid clip hiring lots of technology workers hiring lawyers who are familiar with the tech legal issues hiring HR people who are used to dealing with computer people. That is actually the way Silicon Valley grew and California has one of the most liberal restraints. It takes away most of the ways that you can cut a non-competition clause. And business thrives as a result.So I ask you and I ask all the people who look at this to consider this and to actually think about it really seriously because we have a problem in New Zealand. We have a problem where our wages are too low and our productivity is sluggish. The way that we are going to move that is not by doing what we've been doing before; it's about staying ahead. That's why America is bringing in a ban across the entire United States which does effectively what I'm proposing here. So do you want to be after it or do you want to be before it? And now tell me: which is the party that is actually looking after small and medium businesses? Which is the party that's thinking into the future? Because we must—must—adapt. And I would like those who are interested in this area to make submissions. It's going to be really important we hear your stories. I've heard them because when I announced that I was bringing in this bill I heard from New Zealanders and I was quite shocked by some of the stories I heard. It brought up related issues. It brought up things that I had not heard of. I had not seen the Starbucks agreement. This is an area where we need to hear from New Zealanders; we need to know your stories and make sure that the version of this bill that comes in after the select committee process is one that meets your needs—the needs of ordinary New Zealanders—but also meets the needs of business.I appreciate there will be some fear around things like protection of client lists but remember that this bill also protects confidential information. It also has reinforced the duty of fidelity. This is an attempt by me to write a law which will actually be right for New Zealanders and progress both wages and productivity. It will foster small businesses. It will foster medium businesses. What it won't do is allow the monopoly of workers and the restriction of their capacity to move in their careers by large multinationals. That's the truth of it and that's a very very important truth. So while I acknowledge Tova O'Brien for actually bringing an issue like this forward in her own case even Tova knows that this law is not particularly about people as articulate and confident as Tova O'Brien; this is about people who are not. This is about the women of New Zealand who actually have been disadvantaged as a result of us neglecting this aspect of the law. This is about our baristas. This is about our mechanics. This is about New Zealand workers. Thank you."