Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Well that member Marja Lubeck hasn't read the bill. That member has not read the bill. This bill affects only those who are earning over $150000 for a start. That member earns over $150000 and is able and capable of negotiating her own contract with any employer. I know she can I believe she can I trust she can because I believe that those people who are earning over $150000 have the ability and the capability to understand the contracts that they are entering into. In fact I believe people who earn less than $150000 also have the ability the capability the understanding to negotiate their employment contract.And yes the previous speaker was right: there is pressure from employers on employees—to say Are you in or are you not? Do you want to do this or do you want that? Do you want the car? Do you want the superannuation as part of your benefit? Do you want $150000 or $160000?" That's just the way the market works. That's the way employment contracts work on an individual basis.See the difference between that side and this side is this side believes people have the capability the understanding the wherewithal to negotiate for themselves. We have trust in the individual. That side thinks that the people of New Zealand particularly those who are earning over $150000 are idiots. They don't understand the contracts that they might enter into! They need the goodness of the Labour Party to help them out negotiating their individual employment contracts! Now we are all earning over $150000 and I believe most of us—no let's just say all of us to give the benefit of the doubt—are capable of negotiating with a counter-party an agreement and I'm talking about employer-employee agreements.Coming to a couple of points Iain Lees-Galloway made—he had not read the bill either. The fundamental difference here—Brett Hudson: He sat on the committee and he hadn't read the bill.ALASTAIR SCOTT: But he chose and I am going to get to choice again not to read and understand the workings of the bill—the amended bill after it had gone through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. There were a number of changes that occurred in the select committee and that was a good process and I acknowledge the select committee work from both sides in improving the bill. It did need some work and it has been worked on and there are some good improvements.But the fundamental problem Mr Iain Lees-Galloway has is that he does not understand that this is a choice for the employee. There is no obligation. There is no obligation to enter into this agreement. There is no obligation for the employer to force compulsorily the employee to join and create this agreement. It is an option. It is an option. It's like cream on the cake. It's like something you can have that you don't have to have. It's like dessert. You can have your main meal you can have a good feed and be looked after well but this option gives you the dessert—the cream on the cake—if you choose to indulge. That is the fundamental difference that that side has chosen not to listen to. They hear it but they have chosen not to listen to it.Now the way I look at it it's like a prenup. Imagine a prenup. Now that's an option for those who—[Interruption] It is exactly that. It is an agreement to join together in an employment contract but you are able as you are in a marriage situation to arrange for yourself a prenup just in case it hits the fan things don't work out and you choose not to be part of—whatever the marriage—Kiritapu Allan: Relationship property Act mate.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Thank you—the Property (Relationships) Act. You can write this—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I would just caution the member about relevance. Thank you.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well my analogy Madam Assistant Speaker was that a prenup is the same deal in going into the Property (Relationships) Act as this option to create an agreement between the employer and the employee outside of the Employment Relations Act. That's all that is. It's just a choice. It's an option. It's something that individuals can choose to do if they're both willing and agreeable—both willing and agreeable. So they're both here and they're coming together and they are agreeing. That is the fundamental problem that Mr Iain Lees-Galloway has with this bill because he has chosen to ignore that fundamental fact.Just remember if one is concerned about one party or another that both parties have to consult—well at least the employee; correct me if I'm wrong. But they have to take legal advice. They must take legal advice to be part of this mutually agreeable agreement. They can't just stroll in and somehow one be coerced by the other to enter into this agreement. They must take independent legal advice. And of course if you've got independent legal advice you'd think that legal advice would be advocating for the employee's interests—the best interests of the lawyer's client the employee. That is also a fundamental point that no one on that side has chosen to read and understand and accept.Now coming to some of the points Jan Logie made—I think they were good points and this is reflecting some of the work that was done in the select committee—it was noted that section 103 the Employment Relations Act 2000 which is what this bill affects directly; the bill should only apply to 103(1)(a). That is what has changed and that's the process that went through the select committee and the result is that those things that are—the employee is still protected from discrimination against the employee from being discriminated against in the employer's employment or from sexual harassment racial harassment duress or being biased against because one is a member of a union. That has been absolutely protected—paragraphs (b) to (j) are totally untouched totally unaffected by this bill. It only affects section 103(1)(a) and that relates to "that the employee has been unjustifiably dismissed;" and that is the point. It's a very narrow part of the Employment Relations Act 2000. It's only a very narrow part.There is consent from both sides to opt out just as there is in a prenup. There's legal advice that must be taken to ensure that both parties are protected and the bill enables those who wish to enter into this arrangement to do so. That's a great thing. Isn't that a great thing that people are able to do what they wish to do? They don't need some nanny State to say "You are not able to do this. You will take away the State." That side of the House chooses to take away the option that an individual can have with an agreement or a relationship with their employer and that is unfortunate. That is extremely unfortunate.So this is a very—Brett Hudson: Tell us how unfortunate.ALASTAIR SCOTT: It is so very unfortunate. Iain Lees-Galloway was right that I advocated and questioned—I asked the question in select committee: is $150000 the right amount? Is that the right number to consider people able to be with the capability of to have the understanding of and to have the ability to choose for themselves whether to opt in or out of this legislation? And I questioned that because I think $150000—personally I think it's too high. I think anyone should be opt in or opt out of this—Kieran McAnulty: Rubbish.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well you might say "Rubbish." but you're not reading the bill Mr McAnulty. You have not even listened to a single word I've just said about the protections that this bill gives to all employees whether they're earning $150000 $200000 or $250000. Those protections are in place and that is why—Kiritapu Allan: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Forgive my ignorance as a newer member of this House but my understanding of these debates is that the time must be spent debating new information and you've got 10 minutes to express new points. However throughout the course of these 10 minutes we've heard of matters that are completely irrelevant including the Property (Relationships) Act and the member just came back to that point now.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the member for her intervention. I will allow the member to continue with his speech if he so wishes.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It would be a fine thing if those members on the other side actually read the bill and understood the protections that the bill afforded to all employees notwithstanding the amount that they earn. I commend this bill to the House."