Rurawhe AdrianRt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Heamana. I'll join with other colleagues as well in congratulating you on becoming a presiding officer and also acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Hon Brooke van Velden on becoming a Minister of course and actually in the interactive way that you've participated in this debate—it's really helpful I think.I was really keen to take a call on Part 2—in particular to speak briefly on clause 5 and what it actually means to me. It represents the whole passage of that legislation. It represents the enactment of that legislation. It represents for me the start of the use of that legislation and the progress by a number of different unions of different sectors that have started to progress under that legislation. That means even though it's one sentence it means so much. And I want to address all of it that it encompasses within that one clause.In particular I want to reference the amendment that I've tabled in support of security guards throughout Aotearoa. I referenced the second reading speech of my colleague Camilla Belich when she mentioned a young wahine from Kuki Airani actually—Rosey Ngakopu is her name. I got to speak with her today. She had followed the whole process represented by clause 5 participated in every part of its progress through this House and also participates in trying to get better wages for security guards by participating with her colleagues. Now it's going to be taken away. They had all that hope—aspiration for themselves their families for the next generations—that that was going to make a difference. Because what they do know is that throughout their careers of being in the security business nothing else has worked. Absolutely nothing else has worked. We know that. We know it because they've experienced it. And now we're told it's no good got to take it out go back to where we were and that will fix everything. Well—hello—it will not. It will make things worse—worse for those families; worse for those workers. This House owes it to every New Zealander—not just Rosey; all her colleagues.Oh well I do want to say one thing though about employers. There are some really good employers out there because actually—actually—there are some employers of security guards who value their workers and they value their business. They know that the productivity of their business is impacted by the good work that their security guards do because they keep their properties safe they keep their workers safe—they even keep us safe in this building. And they deserve better. As I said before under the previous system they have not experienced better and now in 2023 they get to operate under another piece of legislation which is about to be repealed by this House without even being given a chance to succeed.The worst part of it actually—the worst part of it—is that taking something away takes us backwards but there doesn't seem to be any vision of how the future will be for those workers. I think we need to rethink across this entire House about how we actually do this kind of kaupapa. Like I said there are lots of good employers out there who know that value and use it to make more money which is great for them. And they don't mind sharing some of that additional income that they generate with their workers. That's really all I wanted to finish that off. That's all I really want to say: that we need a better way for those workers into the future.