Mitchell Clayton; Rurawhe AdrianCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I was sitting there chuckling away to myself watching the two sides go head to head on this bill and it does create some amusement although the topic's not an amusing one—it is very serious.Look when I first came into Parliament in the 51st Parliament one of the biggest bills that we had in front of us to go through—and I mean to really go through—was the Health and Safety at Work Act. And it was actually a very good very sobering process. The number of submissions that we had—and I was actually with Iain Lees-Galloway and Alastair and many others that actually listened to those submissions and heard the backwards and forwards. There wasn't anybody in those submissions that was opposed to a change in ideology—the way we are dealing with health and safety in our workplaces. As it's been already articulated on a number of occasions we do have a serious problem in this country with the number of people that don't come home at the end of a day at work and that's a serious issue.And I have to also say New Zealand First didn't support National in that Act although we 100 percent supported the intent which was to reduce serious injuries and fatalities in workplaces by 25 percent in 2020. And sadly—and I mean this—the rates of serious harm and death have actually gone up in the last two years. I don't believe it's because of that Act and I'm not even for a second trying to suggest that it has. There is a definite culture shift.However what we opposed that Act on was some of the unintended consequences that the bill possessed and I believe that this is one of those unintended consequences that we were talking about—that we made reference to during the select committee process and even here in the House as we put a number of Supplementary Order Papers through to amend the bill to tidy up some of these potential issues.If I look around the House and I see the number of volunteers that are here in this House alone let alone the 115000 other Kiwis that give their time put the shoulder to the wheel for their churches for their organisations—I myself am heavily involved in sports and recreation and give a lot of time in that field including surf lifesaving. So I can use examples that relate to my world and I believe that this bill should be going through to select committee which is why we are supporting it through that process. We are concerned about some of the potential unintended consequences of this bill that we'd like to have addressed at that select committee process.But I can see when I go down to my surf club—and we've got nearly 500 members there at Ōmanu. Most of them are active in some way or another and we have two part-time paid casually semi - full-time workers that come through into this organisation. Now because I'm a volunteer and the plethora of others are volunteers we have that duty of care that Minister Lees-Galloway has just spoken about and we absolutely make sure that we do our best to make sure that the workers that we work alongside are safe as well as patrolling our beach and ensuring that the swimmers are safe. But because we've got two workers that work in our office to ensure that everything is in order and the paperwork's done those two people are captured—albeit in a voluntary organisation albeit in a not-for-profit—as persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) under this current legislation.And I don't think it was ever the intention of this legislation to capture those people but there are hundreds and thousands of examples where people are inadvertently captured as a PCBU when they're actually working right alongside people that are volunteering their time—wholly solely—but they because they are being remunerated for that job are being treated differently. And that gives them a higher duty of care in the fact that—no more in the duty but more on the legal culpability if there is an issue on their watch.And so I believe that this bill is a well-intentioned bill. I believe that through the select committee process we'll be able to see and hear from submitters that may be able to give some light on it. Some of the questions raised are to do with health and safety equipment in the workplace and should those part-time or casual employees—under 100 hours per week in a not-for-profit organisation—have to supply their own health and safety equipment. I for one don't believe that should be the case. And so we need to look at the simplicity of the bill and perhaps without complicating it too much look at how we can ensure that if you are a worker on limited hours inside a workplace in a not-for-profit organisation you do get for example health and safety equipment supplied to you so it's not coming out of your small salary that you may be taking.I do have to say as I said we have raised this on numerous occasions and spoken about it. It's great that the bill is now in front of us. It's fantastic that it was drawn out of the ballot—potentially divine intervention—but I also say that you know it is—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired.