Kaye NikkiHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I'm very delighted to speak on this piece of legislation. Can I start at the outset by acknowledging that this is a very important piece of legislation for the House.This side of the House has launched a campaign called Protect NZ Jobs and the reason for that is not that we don't care as much as the Government do about the rights of workers but what we do understand is that when you get that balance wrong if you lead to increased costs to businesses and you muck with the 90-day trial period—when members do that with pieces of legislation then jobs are lost. That is the reality. We live in a country where many small businesses are mums and dads working their butts off. They are not making huge amounts of money. So from this side of the House what we will be doing with this campaign is to make it clear to New Zealanders where the costs are and what will happen in terms of jobs.The other point that I want to make is that I do want to make the point that we need to be honest about what the Labour Party's intentions are here. I want to quote a Labour MP—Madam Deputy Speaker it's very difficult to hear.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just ask—all members are entitled to speak in this House so interjections should be rare and reasonable—and to quote an earlier colleague preferably witty—but not a barrage. It is difficult for me even to hear.Hon NIKKI KAYE: I want to quote Clare Curran actually. Clare Curran—and it is an important point. We are debating a piece of legislation that significantly increases the rights of unions and I do believe that the Labour Party are conflicted. The reality is the Labour Party have a mechanism for their leadership for which unions have a percentage of the share of the vote and this is what Clare Curran said about this. Clare Curran said a discussion was needed about unions and party members continuing to say who leads. The reality is there is a clear conflict there and I think we need to put that on the table to New Zealanders.They need to be aware of that because this bill—let's walk through. And again it is about a balance. Unions can do a great job but when you look at this bill the number of privileges—the increased privileges—to unions is very significant. I do want to list some of them: forcing businesses to accept multi-employer collective agreements even when those businesses were not part of the negotiations; requiring businesses to sign up to collective agreements even if they don't agree to them; forcing businesses to pay unions for representing workers who are not even members—the list goes on. So I do want to raise that point.The next point that I want to make is about young people. The reality is—and I do want to acknowledge the Government. The Government has shifted around the 90-day trial period and that is a very important point. What we know is that that 90-day trial period has led to some young people getting a job that wouldn't have been offered to them because people have been prepared to take a punt on them.What members on this side of the House will be asking at the select committee is why would you allow only small businesses or why would members allow that only to small businesses when it's working? It's created jobs. Solo mums a number of people returning to the workforce and a whole lot of young people have got jobs as a result of that. Why wouldn't we continue to keep that policy in place?The other point that I want to make here and now is that while we are debating this legislation this is only part one and we know on this side of the House—and what we're concerned about is that we have a situation where we've had 10000 jobs created each month. We've got ourselves out of a terrible situation around the global financial crisis. We're a national of small businesses. We've got this legislation we've got changes to the minimum wage—all of this adds significant cost and can lead to a loss of jobs. But this is only part one.We know there is another agenda here. The Labour Party campaigned on that—minimum redundancy protection protection for dependent contractors abolishing youth rates reducing—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speak to the bill. Speak to the bill.Hon NIKKI KAYE: The point is that in a nation of small businesses this matters. The choice for a mum and dad business to keep going can be the difference of a couple of hundred bucks a week—or a policy like 90-day trials. And this is part one.We are very concerned. That's why we are running a campaign to ensure that New Zealanders know that that side of the House are tipping the balance that will lead to a loss of jobs that will lead to costs for businesses and that will lead to some of our most vulnerable workers not getting the opportunities that they deserve. As I have already said I think that New Zealanders do need to know. They do need to have absolute transparency about the conflicts of interest that exist on the other side of the House.This is not a level playing field. This is a situation where the other side of the House actually have union votes in terms of their leaders. We know that our existing Prime Minister was able to not go through that process because it was three months before an election process but I think it is something on which we need to have a public discussion about.This bill is totally loaded towards privileges for unions and the reality is if you get that balance wrong then jobs are lost and costs happen and that is not about fairness.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next speaker can I just draw the House's attention to Speakers' Rulings on page 49. Now I'm not saying that the previous speaker broke those but you do need to be aware of those Speakers' rulings when you're talking about the motives of a Government.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I was looking for those.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Page 49.