Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you so much Mr Chair for giving me this opportunity to take this call. This bill when it came to the select committee had two components as we heard from the member in charge and also from the member who just finished before me. During the select committee process as another member from our side said this bill was rewritten entirely. I won't use those words so let me describe it. In Part 1 there was clause 4 clause 5 and clause 6 and that was it. So clause 4 has been fully rejected and there's a new clause 4. Clause 5 has fully gone clause 6 has fully gone and there appears to be a new clause 5 a new clause 6 a new clause 7—there was no clause 7 before—clause 8 new clause 9 and new clause 10. So the Education and Workforce Committee didn't only rewrite this bill but they also provided for other provisions that were required to make this bill actually a bill. The member clearly didn't understand when he decided to take this bill up. Before the select committee process and during the select committee process the member had the opportunity to decide to pull out rewrite this whole thing and bring it back. But no the member didn't do that. I don't know if it's visible but I've deliberately got this coloured copy because all the red marks are crossed out and the blue ones are the rewritten parts. So we can clearly see that. Now let's come to what the member Clare Curran who just finished speaking before me said. The member repeatedly kept saying that this side doesn't understand. From day one we opposed this bill for several reasons and one of the reasons was the collective bargaining issue—the provision in this bill. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment advisers thought that it was a risky thing and should be taken out. Yep they said that the aim of this provision was to improve the terms and conditions of on-hire workers extending access to collectivism protecting the bargaining position of already unionised workforces. But they said that the bill does not align well with the objectives and has significant risks so that's why that provision was taken out. Talking about submitters we had this huge number of submissions coming from E tū—that is the union. Seventy-two submissions were facilitated by E tū. So of course they thought This is 72. This is going to be the biggest delivery by the Labour Government." giving them the opportunity to bring more people into their union. That was a big goal of this legislation. It has been chopped into half so what we have left now is just one provision that we have already heard about. But in this I want to share my concerns about how the controlling third party has been defined. The member came up with this idea of having a primary employer and a secondary employer. If a person is registered with a hire company that hire company becomes the primary employer and the place where that person actually goes to work becomes the secondary employer and that was going to create a lot of confusion. So in the select committee process we said that the secondary employer should be the controlling third party and that they should be only employee and employer—that's fine. Let's look at this definition now. It says " 'controlling third party' means a person—(a) who has a contract or other arrangement with an employer under which an employee of the employer performs work for the benefit of the person;". So I have concerns about this "benefit of the person;". Why only for the benefit of the person? "Person" here is the controlling third party. When somebody goes out to work they're not working only for the benefit of their employer. It's mutually beneficial because the employee also gets benefit out of it. It's not just the income but there are so many other indirect benefits that the employee gets. But the member is very happy to accept this as the definition of the "controlling third party". This is a very typical attitude of the Labour Party that when people go out to work they're only working for their employer not for themselves. People want to be in employment because employment of course gives them income but it gives a lot of other things too. So I have concerns about this definition and it would be really good to have an explanation from the member to understand how this member thinks that this is appropriate to say that "controlling third party" means a person for whom this employee of the employer performs work for the benefit of the person. The person here is a controlling third party so the person goes out to work for themselves too. That's why we reject this provision as well in this bill."