Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): It is a true pleasure to speak in support of this bill here this evening the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. I really would like to congratulate my colleague Kieran McAnulty for the work that he has done in shepherding this bill through select committee to the stage that it's at at the moment. In fact I would have to say that it was a pleasure to watch Mr McAnulty and the way that he was able to operate with the different submitters and work with them to strengthen this bill to the point that it is now a very good bill that meets the needs of a modern labour workforce. I was really interested to hear the contributions from the other side of the House because I felt like they were stuck in a bit of a time warp. I felt like they were stuck in a time warp before the bill had actually come back from select committee. In fact we even heard Max Whitehead being quoted by Mr Bidois across the House. Now I remember very well the afternoon that Mr Whitehead submitted and at the end of when he submitted Mr McAnulty was so fascinated by that submission and impressed by it that he contacted—right there at the select committee—Mr Whitehead to see if there was further input that could go into that bill. In fact on 17 December after this bill was reported back Mr Whitehead sent this email—a second email—to Mr McAnulty: Good afternoon Kieran. I have just read the report that was published today. Overall I'm very happy. I think this is a fair"—Kieran McAnulty: Yeah very happy.JAN TINETTI: —very happy; that's right—"and reasonable law. Thank you for indulging me and allowing me to have my input. Regards Max Whitehead from the Whitehead Group." This bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000. It strengthens the personal grievance provisions of this Act. Tens of thousands of people—and I heard that from my colleague from New Zealand First Mr Clayton Mitchell over here—are employed through hire companies daily weekly and on a yearly basis. We have heard from many of the speakers on this side of the House that one of the reasons that this bill was first drafted was because of the lack of clarity in those employment situations. It has been really hard for some people. We have heard some examples being given. Mr McAnulty here told us of the example of the woman who had got pregnant and then was fired straight away as soon as that pregnancy was announced. Now we did hear some interjections being thrown across saying that they had a right to do something about that but the law is unclear as it stands at the moment. The whole idea of this bill is fixing a gap that exists in our employment law. Now we also heard "This is 2019. What are we doing looking at this law when it's 2019? We're going back in time." Well it's because it is 2019 and changes have occurred in work structures so that we have a far more casualised workforce than we've ever had in any other point in our history and we are looking at strengthening the law to protect them. Not only does it protect them but it protects our businesses as well which will in turn lead to a stronger economy. That's where I fail to understand why our Opposition failed to see that strengthening workers' rights is actually good for business and our economy. As I said the bill fixes a gap in employment law because an employee in a triangular arrangement has a limited ability as it currently stands to raise a personal grievance against the controlling third party and it's the controlling third party that at times can make the work conditions extremely difficult for that particular worker. I am excited to see this bill progressing. Something else we heard from the other side was "This is just a small number of employers." Well it was really interesting at the Education and Workforce Committee. In fact I was sitting next to Mr McAnulty in one of those select committee hearings and every time we had a hire company come in I could predict that they would tell me that "We know that there are rogue operators out there. We're not one of them. We're a good employer but we know that there are rogue operators and it needs to be fixed up." Every single one of them said it—every single one. So that tells me that if they're there and they know that then it is more than just a few. It is actually quite a number and they know who they are within their industry. This bill puts protections for the worker and adds to those protections and anything that adds to the protections for the worker and for the vulnerable workers—and as I said we heard from a few of those vulnerable workers as well—has got to be a good thing. We need to look at those rogue operators too. Maybe Mr McAnulty that's a piece of work down the track a wee bit. But at the moment we are looking at strengthening the rights for those workers. We heard a number of submissions and I just really wanted to end on this point. We did have 174 submissions. It was pretty evenly spread: 89 of those submitters were in support of the bill and 81 submitters opposed the bill. We heard some of those submitters who supposedly attended in front of our select committee and presented in front of our select committee quoted here this evening from the Opposition. It was really funny because we heard one of those submitters and what they submitted to in select committee and they read a piece of their submission. The only trouble was that that group never did submit an oral submission to our select committee. They pulled out at the last minute and never got another chance to come in front of us. So I really wonder how much thought has been put into the argument by the Opposition at this point or whether it's just "We see this as being something that we're going to have another attack at unions about so let's just get in there and see what we can do." This isn't about unions. This is about workers and protecting their rights and in my mind and in the minds of every person on these Government benches when we can protect workers' rights that is a good thing. I commend this bill to the House."