Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill and I'm speaking to this House today not only as a National MP opposing this bill but also as National's spokesperson for the future of work. I must say that the future of work looks bright and while that side of the House may look at workers and think that they are all victims with things like technology and the likes of AI and the automation that's going on we've got a lot of opportunities in New Zealand to raise productivity to raise incomes if we get our legislative framework right.On this side of the House it's very clear that productivity is our No. 1 goal for employment relations in a flexible and fair working place. And unfortunately this bill takes us backwards. It does not contribute to productivity and that's why we are opposing this bill. This bill as the Hon Scott Simpson said is not necessary; it is going to reduce flexibility in the workplace. It's watered down because—remember—this bill came to the House 10 years ago under the name of Darien Fenton and that bill was gutted in the select committee.Simeon Brown: How much is left?DAN BIDOIS: Virtually nothing—all there is is a statement about personal grievance and it's not very clear to us how that helps workplace productivity. It's also sending the wrong message to our community to our workers engaged in labour hire and also to our business community about how we see productivity in the future and how we see the important role that these people play in national productivity.The effects of this bill are going to be very clear from where we stand: it's going to raise the cost of engaging labour hire companies which will reduce the job opportunities for people that in fact do that—Marja Lubeck: How?Kieran McAnulty: How?DAN BIDOIS: Because it raises the potential or perceived costs of engaging labour hire companies. And it's very telling that that side of the House asks the question about how because probably none of them have worked in the business world and understand the likes of the negative effects of this.So that side of the House clearly sees labour hire companies as evil and as companies that they don't want to have proliferated or increased in New Zealand but we heard very much in the select committee that a lot of these labour hire companies are not in fact evil but are providing opportunities for workers that they treat their workers and those that use labour hire with respect and that they hold the third party companies accountable if they are not playing host to their workers very clearly. So most are in fact good employers and the question is: well if they are not good employers what do we do about those? And National would encourage this industry—let me make this very clear—in a flexible workplace with growing opportunities and a growing gig economy and flexible contracting expected to be the case in the future—we want to see more of these types of companies in the future where people choose this type of work because it's flexible because they've got families and because they don't want to work the nine-to-five day that that side of the House expects everybody to work: a nine-to-five robots-coming-to-work - type arrangement.So National would encourage this type. Maybe we would consider—and this is not party policy but it's something that we ought to consider—better regulations around this sector. We heard in a select committee process about what's going on in Queensland and the labour hire licensing laws that they in fact instituted just last year. It's been hugely successful and I would certainly encourage my colleagues and also that side of the House to look at implementing something like that in the future as well.Now we've heard a lot about wellbeing and about how this Government is focused on wellbeing. Well it's not clear about how this contributes to wellbeing. How does this weak bill that is really a nothing bill actually contribute to productivity or wellbeing? It's driven by ideology. That's very very clear. They just don't like these innovations and these sectors sprouting up and therefore they want to stamp that out very very clearly.So in summary I do not support this bill. National will vote against this bill because it's not helping our productivity; it's making our workforces far more inflexible in the workplace. I do not support this bill in the House. Thank you.