Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Madam Assistant Speaker thank you so much. I'm delighted to stand up and take a call on Brett Hudson's excellent bill the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill. You could have done with a snappier title but it's a very good bill.I just have to start by reflecting on the somewhat surreal experience of hearing the member who's just resumed his seat Jamie Strange concerned that we're wasting the time of the House with this bill. We're wasting the time of the House—this from a Government who on the very same day they finish their first Address in Reply debate is debating such important ideological reforms to our country like the Statutes Amendment Bill and the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill. This is a Government who a third of the way into their 100-day plan has got nothing in the tin and is debating statutes amendments and subordinate legislation.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings require this member to actually address the bill before the House—not a montage of her memories but the bill before the House right now—and she's had enough time to get to it. So would you please bring her to the point of the business of the House thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the honourable member for his intervention. This has been a very wide-ranging debate but I invite the member to continue.Hon AMY ADAMS: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker—speaking of time-wasting from that member across the House we have this speech worrying about this; well actually this is what members' days are about. Members' days are about allowing individual members to find small aspects of the law that actually can be improved and make a lot of sense. And I support this.I've also got to take issue with the comments of the last speaker that this bill somehow removes choice. I sat there and tried to work out on what planet allowing a senior high-paid highly remunerated staff member to agree with the employer removes choice. After taking their own independent legal advice—no one's been tricked into this; intelligent clever highly skilled people who have taken proper advice—why shouldn't they have the choice to remove this process?So far from removing choice Mr Strange it is the absolute opposite of that. It is saying this to mature intelligent adults—who we don't treat like children on this side of the House; who we don't assume need the nanny State powers of the Government to protect them from their own basest instincts; who we actually agree can make a sensible balanced mature decision on the facts with good advice. And why wouldn't we let them? Australia does it. Has it meant the end of civilisation as we know it and the horrible outrage and intimidation and exploitation of those poor highly paid CEOs? Of course it hasn't. It is a nonsense the argument. There is no reason at all that we shouldn't allow it.And it is important to note that this doesn't apply to whistleblowers. There is a clear protection in the bill for whistleblowers. It doesn't apply to most of the grounds set out in section 103 of the Employment Relations Act at all. It is very clear that the employee can still seek assistance where a term of their employment contract hasn't been given effect to where they've been discriminated against where they've been sexually harassed and where they've been racially harassed. There is a whole list of grievances in section 103 against which the employee is still absolutely protected but to give them the right the choice the entitlement to choose a different set of processes for themselves like an adult we support.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.