Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): What an extraordinary contribution from the Hon Willie Jackson. The first part of that reference to his name I struggle to endorse given that he has supposed to speak on behalf of the Māori nation in reference to my colleague Dan Bidois who gave an excellent contribution and as our chief whip referred to referred to his own family. And what do we get from the other side of the House? Mr Willie Jackson you do not have the mandate to speak on behalf of the Māori nation. You know it and we know it.Now I'm going to get on to the bill unlike the previous member's contribution. Industries are evolving and as my fantastic colleague Dan Bidois made reference to there's an evolution and there is a different set of expectations coming to our workforce. Basically we're modernising. We're looking at global expectations global examples and we know that we need the flexibility in our labour in our workforce to respond to changing needs. Now for those of us that sat through hours and hours and hours of submissions on this bill as I and others did unlike the Hon Willie Jackson that's exactly what we heard. Two hundred and forty-nine people opposed this bill and dozens and dozens and dozens of them appeared before us at the Education and Workforce Committee. What we heard from them is that this bill goes back to a rigid and an outdated system encouraging business to take a risk-averse approach to hiring staff. It's as simple as that: a risk-averse approach to hiring staff. It takes away people's ability to decide for themselves what's best for themselves. Now how do I know that? Again it's because I listened to them in select committee—hours and hours.When I think about the impact on businesses I can't help but think about my particular area in the electorate of Maungakiekie and specifically the Penrose business industrial area. Now I'd like to think I have something substantive to say in that regard because Penrose business area is the largest industrial area in the country. And it was only a few weeks ago that I was speaking along with a Labour Party member in a business forum and we heard very clearly—and she would have too—businesses speak up on the coming impact of this very legislation that's about to be signed off in a few minutes. What they are saying is that in this legislation not only has the Government disregarded the impact on them as businesses but also the impact on individual people on individual employees and in fact also the wider social impact of this particular bill.Now here are a few examples of why I say there'll be wider social impact. Under this legislation all new employees who are employed will be required to be employed under terms and conditions of the collective agreement for their first 30 days on the job even if they're not part of a union and they never intend to be. And then if they don't want to be part of that collective agreement they've got to be part of it anyway. What sort of system is that?Kieran McAnulty: A good one.DENISE LEE: No it's not a good one. Who are we to tell people Mr McAnulty that they can't choose what works best for them? Why should they be forced Mr McAnulty to work under conditions that may not be suitable for them or their needs or their family needs?My colleagues have spoken extensively about the removal of 90 days. Well we heard from people in select committee—here's a good example: Federated Farmers. They have taken on high-risk employees that have come out of ex-prison pathway schemes. These people are living on site in farming communities and they've had to take risks of them living on site in a farm. We heard from them that they will not take that risk if the 90-day rule is not in place. They told us that very specifically.This bill is pragmatic-poor—it's not pragmatic at all. This is a handbrake on business. This country deserves better and we will repeal all that is within this bill the moment we become Government in 2020.