McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I thank the member Nicola Willis for her comments particularly the reference to the departmental report. I am puzzled however why the member chose to stop halfway through a paragraph so perhaps I might be able to enlighten the committee on what followed what that member referred to. She is correct that the departmental report said The personal grievance provisions in the Act already apply to the relationship between the worker and the on-hire firm"—of course it does because that is the whole point. The employee is employed by the labour hire company but they have no provision to take a personal grievance against the company that they are under the direct control of. It continues: "This part of the Bill has the effect of mirroring those personal grievance provisions for the controlling third party"—there we have it. These employees do not have the right to a personal grievance under the controlling third party although Nicola Willis due to her speech would make it sound like they do by quoting the departmental report. It would appear that Nicola Willis forgot that I also have a copy as do the general public. The fact is that it doesn't matter how they spin it or how many times they complain that the bill has changed or how many times they refer to submitters that were complaining about the part of the bill that has been repeated—which is a common theme of all the speakers thus far—this part of the bill is very simple. As it currently stands the departmental report confirms that employees under a triangular employment agreement do not have recourse through a personal grievance against the controlling third party—that is the point of the bill—and the other side say that they do not need to. There is no example available where they can show that a worker who was treated poorly by a controlling third party was able to take that third party through a personal grievance. There is an example where through E tū union some workers took Sky Chefs to court and the court said that they were essentially full-time employees. It doesn't apply here because the law has not changed. Actually we should look at this because the court is sending this Parliament a very clear direction that these employees should be treated as the employees under the direct control of the controlling third party and this is what this bill seeks to do. Since I last rose we've also heard from two speakers that this bill is not necessary. Either they cannot have been listening or they cannot have a heart and I'll explain what I mean by that. In the first reading and the second reading and now again today I alert the House to the example of a worker who was employed by a labour hire company and placed on placement with a controlling third party for seven years. Now there are some serious questions to raise about why a company is using a labour hire company to take on an employee for seven years but that is not what we're here to discuss tonight. What we are here to discuss tonight is the specific conditions as to how she was dismissed. This employee was under the direct control of a controlling third party for seven years. She found out she was pregnant and was dismissed the next day. Now if the National Party are comfortable with that by all means I invite the members to stand up and say so instead of skirting around the issues and saying it's not necessary. What we say is that in any circumstance when an employee is unfairly dismissed—be it the extreme of the one that I have just given or any small example where a worker is treated poorly—they should have the recourse to a personal grievance that the rest of us enjoy. Thus far I have heard nothing but repeated arguments and failed arguments to explain to this committee and the nation why they oppose this bill. They have failed to directly address that. They've talked in rhetoric and all sorts of flash words. They've even resorted to having a crack because I'm a list MP—you know you're winning the argument when that is the best they've got. All I've heard tonight are pathetic attempts to try and prove to their mates why they oppose the bill when in previous attempts they've said that they support the exact thing that this is trying to achieve."