Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to thank the Minister for his comments because they go to some of the broader issues that we on this side of the House are concerned about in terms of this legislation. I want to pick up on a couple of things that the Minister has said and pose some questions which I suspect he will take an opportunity to answer in the course of this debate. The Minister mentioned that his driving rationale for pushing through this legislation at this time was twofold. Firstly it's in response to the COVID situation where the world has been thrust into an incredibly unusual health and also business and economic situation and New Zealand businesses like those around the rest of the world have struggled in some cases to come to terms with the situation that has confronted them. But to use the cover of COVID as essentially an excuse and a methodology for bringing in what I suspect has been long-time Labour Party policy driven from trades hall—that an extension of paid sick leave should come through in a legislative framework—I think in some ways is to devalue the seriousness of the COVID situation. The Minister made the point that those employees who have dependants are likely to be the big beneficiaries of this legislation. As a parent myself I can well recall having to take the occasional day of sick leave when my own children were not well but that obligation falls disproportionately on employers who employ people with dependants. The perverse net outcome of this piece of legislation is likely to be that in a candidate interview scenario where a new job is being created or a job being is being filled and there are let's say two candidates with equal skill and ability and background and competency but one of those candidates has no children and one candidate has a number of children—I put it to the Minister that in many cases it will never be stated by the employer but the employer is going to be thinking What is the risk to my business of taking on the candidate who has a number of children?" Because effectively what this piece of legislation is doing is asking employers to underwrite the good health of their employees' dependent children. I don't think that's a good basis for making legislation and I don't think it's a good basis for encouraging job creation. I don't think it's a good basis for encouraging economic growth. I think it will have actually the perverse opposite impact of what the Minister is looking for. I want to talk—and maybe I will do so in a later call Madam Chair—but when the bill was introduced the Minister actually asked the select committee to consider a range of items. Members will remember that the bill was introduced under urgency with a truncated select committee process where select committee submissions were sought over the summer break. The Minister then asked the committee to look at a whole range of things. So submitters put thought and consideration into those matters and then subsequently the Minister has accepted the recommendations in relation to the Holidays Act per se. So some of those things that were considered by submitters and also by the select committee are now almost of no value except I guess if further legislation comes into the House at some future point in time. So that was a bit of a waste of the committee's time it was a bit of a waste of submitters' time and I don't think it helped focus submitters' or the committee's thinking on what the real impacts of this legislation would be. One of them is about the prorating or the lack of ability to pro-rata sick leave entitlements to those people who are part-time employees. So there's a Supplementary Order Paper in my name and I will take a call further on in this debate to go through the pros and cons of that."