Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Madam Speaker for this opportunity to take this call. I would like to start by actually congratulating the member in charge of this bill the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. While I congratulate the member Kieran McAnulty I also want to say that the member is in a very unfortunate situation. We can visualise what actually happened. As the members came in after the last general election there was this big pressure on them to put their members' bills in the ballot because they could clearly see that the Opposition side was winning when it came to members' bills. So the member had no choice; there was this bill sitting from 2007—Darien Fenton's bill. So he decided to quickly put his name on that bill and put it in the ballot. And it got drawn. So I don't know if it is a fortunate situation or an unfortunate situation for the member.We are opposing this bill. We are opposing this bill because we know that this bill is not good for the labour market. We know that submitters clearly said that this bill is not a good bill because this bill is not providing any flexibility or fairness that we stand for. So we don't see any reason why we need this legislation. As this bill was introduced there were two main provisions. During the select committee process we got rid of one provision completely because it was that bad—and I'll talk about that in a minute—but the second provision which remains in this bill I have to say is a redundant provision because any employee can take up a personal grievance case. What this bill does is just set up a framework set up a process for how they can join in the third controlling party. It's not like the third controlling party as defined in the legislation cannot be joined in in any personal grievance case; they can be. But setting up a process for how they can be—that's all this bill does. So it's not like there are employees that do not have access to this kind of provision to raise a personal grievance; that is not the case. Anybody can take up a personal grievance case against their employer and then later on the third controlling party can be joined in.In this legislation—let me just clarify that Employer" is the hire agency for example "Employee" is the person that is sent by the hire agency to different businesses to work and the "Business" where the employee works is the third controlling party. From the start we saw that this bill was all about unions—all about the unions. The collective agreement provision that we got rid of was about unions. This one is also about unions because I have heard unions repeatedly going out and saying that they have a better ability to take personal grievance cases. So this is to say that if an employee has a personal grievance case they should become a member of a union so that the union can go out and represent them. That is all this bill is about. We know that a big proportion of people in the private sector around 90 percent of people are not union members. That is what is hurting that Government—90 percent of private sector workers are not union members. So they know that yes they want to support unions they want unions to do well because in return they're going to get favours from unions. That's all this bill is about.Now as this is a third reading—Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We all encourage robust debate but it is highly inappropriate and against the Standing Orders for a member to suggest that this Government is putting forward legislation and then in turn to get kickbacks from another organisation on the back—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well you're correct but I was listening and I didn't think that the member actually said that. I thought that she was making a link between this piece of legislation and what the unions were actually saying. The member can continue.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you Madam Speaker. During the select committee process while chairing the Education and Workforce Committee what I noticed along with the other members on the select committee is that the bill was totally rewritten. When I say "rewritten" it was really hard to find what is there from the original version of the bill. Then during that process I asked the officials if there was any influence from the Minister's office or from the Minister in the way the bill has been put forward in the revised form to the committee. Then what happened? I received a letter from the Government side; the letter was signed by Jan Tinetti the deputy chair on the committee saying that that was really actually wrong—I should not have done that; I should not have asked that question to officials. How could I even think that there was a link between the officials and the Minister's office? So what I have done is I have requested under the Official Information Act (OIA) some documents—and I'm very happy to table these documents—to make it very clear to Government members that there was direct communication between the Minister's office and officials. This is not a new process so I hope that members on that side will understand how the process works. To my good friend Jan Tinetti I would say: please be careful next time before you put your name or signature on other people's words because it will be your name and your signature on that document. Here through this OIA document I can clearly prove the kind of communication that happened between the Minister's office and officials. That is the reason why the collective agreement provision has been removed from that legislation. It wasn't about submitters; it is about the direct communication between the Minister's office and the officials. There are several documents which I have stapled in this; the recommendation under the impact of bill proposals reads "We note there may be possible benefits in addressing some of the inequities between permanent and temporary workers especially where those workers may be in artificial triangular relationships. It's unclear to us at this stage that the potential benefits of the proposal outweigh the possible harms". So this has come from them. Another document here says "The purpose of this is to provide you"—this is to the Minister—"with a copy of the initial briefing we will present to the Education and Workforce Committee on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill and to invite any comments you have on the initial briefing. Then we will brief you on policy options regarding the bill and whether a Government position would be helpful". Yes there is more. Then there is another document different date—2 August 2018 to help members to dig out this document from the Minister's office or the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. It's action sought from the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. Actions sought: "Agree to develop a Government position on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill so that changes can be sought through the select committee process"—a recommendation clearly of what we saw in that rewritten bill. It states here "The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment recommends that you agree to develop a Government position on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill so that changes to the bill can be sought to: a."—it says—"extend the personal grievance provisions so that the Employment Relations Authority or court can independently join a host organisation to a personal grievance. B."—very clearly—"remove the collective agreements"—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order Kieran McAnulty. I can anticipate your point of order but she is actually talking about—the third reading is quite an open debate—the processes through the select committee process of the passage of this bill. It is perfectly in order. Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is Madam Speaker; that's not my point of order. My question is: is it OK to use a third reading speech in the House to subvert the leave process of tabling a document? The member indicated that she wished to table the document then started reading from it. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well she's perfectly entitled in the debate to read from a document. If she desires to table it at the end of that or in the middle of that or at the beginning of that that's entirely up to the member—Kieran McAnulty: Thank you for answering my question. DEPUTY SPEAKER: All members have the responsibility to work that through. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you Madam Speaker. This "b." part in this says "Remove the collective agreements". I repeat: "Remove the collective agreement provisions"—that is what the recommendation says—"due to the complexity and potential unintended consequences that the provision would introduce". I can see it's hurting those members. I can see it's really hurting those members so I suggest that next time my friend Jan Tinetti be extra careful before she puts her name and signature on someone else's words because it's not a good look. It's not a good look because it reflects on her. Yes the whole document continues like this. Clearly we know that there was a clear communication and the officials didn't like this provision and that is why the collective agreement provision has been removed from the legislation. So the one provision which remains in the legislation is again to discourage the triangular employment relationships that exist that are working really well for our labour market. They provide the flexibility; there are several kinds of circumstances in workplaces where people have to go out and seek somebody who is there to fill in just for two or three months. They don't have enough time to go out and recruit from the start and then train them. By that time the time they wanted that person for could be finished. So we do not support this bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Jan Logie. Hon Member: This will be much better."