Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): The reason that business confidence is at an all-time low with this Government is because of speeches like that—speeches that send a very clear message that this Government does not trust small business. This Government does not trust business. This Government believes that businesses don't want to do right by their staff; that businesses are all there to crush workers. And I would encourage the members opposite to spend some time visiting the real businesses of New Zealand because the business people I sit down with—and I've sat down with more than 50 businesses over the past six months—say to me that what they want to do is do right by their staff they want to ensure that staff want to stay working for them and that they want to progress within the business and they say that this bill does not help them do better by the workers. They don't see the reason for change all they see is problems.The members opposite think that this is some sort of amorphous thing. Business is actually the IT businesses growing in Wellington. It is bars. It is early childhood centres. It is the organisations that are at the heart of our community. And when I've talked to these businesses—Hon Andrew Little: It's way more than that.NICOLA WILLIS: —about what these changes would mean for them—let me tell you a story Mr Little about the bar in Wellington I sat down with. I said Are you aware of these changes?" They said "Yes we are aware of these changes and here is our plan to deal with them Nicola. Because it's going to be much harder to hire people in future without a 90-day trial period we've thought up a really great scheme. Our scheme is that we going to institute buzzers in our bar." So what the bar said was "We realise that now bringing on lots of people is going to be difficult. So what we're going to do is have a buzzer system so that customers who are wanting orders taken to their table will take the buzzer with them and when it buzzes they can get the food." And that's an ingenious and innovative response but it doesn't mean more jobs for New Zealanders; it means fewer jobs for New Zealanders. It means fewer jobs in the hospitality industry; fewer jobs for young people maybe who need a second chance because things haven't gone so well for them; fewer jobs for students who might actually want to earn some money in the summer break fewer jobs for people who are wanting a second part-time job to get ahead. So actually these changes matter. They insult businesses they reduce their confidence and they will reduce the health of many businesses across the country.These changes are also Draconian. They take us back in time and if there's one person who articulated that well it was the Privacy Commissioner. What the Privacy Commissioner took particular issue with—and I think New Zealanders would take particular issue with—is the idea that it's OK to give employees' details out to unions so that they can recruit them. That is an appalling breach of privacy and in the words of the Privacy Commissioner he said this "is poor privacy practice … [It] is against"—Kiritapu Allan: It's a fantastic idea. The workers can be protected.NICOLA WILLIS: I want to talk to you about individual rights Kiri Allan because I think you studied them at university. This is what the Privacy Commissioner said. He said it "is against an individual's right to exercise some autonomy over their personal information." But the members opposite don't care about an individual's right to privacy; they care about the union's right to recruit individuals in a workplace. They care about unions having businesses being forced to help them recruit. So this is a Draconian bill. It's a bill that damages business confidence.It's also a bill that doesn't take into account the realities of our changing and evolving workplaces—workplaces where there are factories like the one we heard about in Canterbury that has a continuous operation system so it operates for three days in a row. And so pragmatically the good employer has said "OK so what we're going to do is we're going to pay you for the breaks that you miss. We'll pay you additional and we'll make sure you have a meal the end of your shift because what we don't want to ever have to do is down tools and stop our continuous manufacturing process because that will be inefficient for our business. But we are really concerned"—they said—"about this bill because it would make sure that we have to have meal breaks that are prescribed by law and alter the efficiency of our business." And what's the solution for them? Automation—so yet again bad for jobs; bad for the realities of businesses.I want to just finish by talking about early childhood services because early childhood services up and down this country have raised concerns with me about this bill and what it means not only for them but for the quality and viability of their services for children and parents. What they have said to me is that they think it's wrong that they would be forced by this bill in some circumstances to reinstate an educator that they have dismissed. They think it is wrong that they would potentially be required to put children at risk in that way. They think it is wrong to take away the flexibility to say to a working mother "You can work through your lunch break and go home early to pick your kids up from school." They think it is wrong to make sure that trial periods are removed.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has—NICOLA WILLIS: This bill—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I just want to remind members that when I stand the member's speech is over."