Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): The member who has been promoting this bill spent five minutes pretty much talking about anything and everything except his bill and there's a reason for that. The reason for that is because it's a nothing bill—it's a nothing bill.It was a bill that he signed up to when he came into the House. It was a bill that was put into the ballot about 10 years ago by a former member Darien Fenton and I think that in the previous speech I referred to her as Darien Fentonne" and apparently it's "Fenton" and she took some offence at the pronunciation of her name. So it's Darien Fenton I think. She came from the trade union movement has done her time in the House her compulsory Labour Party service in the House and has now gone back to the trade union movement. This fellow picked up the bill—didn't realise how out of place it was or how hopeless it was. It went to select committee and was completely rewritten—completely rewritten. Never before have I seen in my time in this House a bill so woefully inadequate passed at first reading gone to select committee and then being completely rewritten. The bill was gutted in every possible respect. The primary purpose of the bill was originally to provide for increased trade union membership through ensuring that people who were employed under triangular contracts would eventually become members of various collective union agreements. That was utterly unworkable. Fortunately the member sponsoring the bill had the good sense to delete it and take it out before it got to this stage.So what are we left with in this bill? Well we're left with a bill that purports to provide for people who are employed by labour hire companies maybe temp agencies—those sorts of things—where they may be employed by the agency but actually do work for a third party. Those sorts of people are under this bill on the face of it given an ability to take a personal grievance should the need arise.So here is the nub of the nothingness of this bill: they already have that ability. They already have in statute that ability and I refer to the departmental report from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment on this bill which points out at paragraph 2.4 of their report "The personal grievance provisions in the Act already apply to the relationship between the worker and the on-hire firm if the worker is an employee." They already find that the primary purpose of this bill exists. It's a nothing bill so the Parliament has gone through a charade really where time has been spent on a bill submitters have presented on the bill changes have been made on the bill the bill has been gutted reformatted and sent back to us. It will pass because the dynamics of the coalition Government are such that it will pass but on this side of the House we oppose it. And we oppose it quite simply because it does nothing—it does nothing but confirm what is already available and in existing statute. So on the basis that the bill is a nothing bill that the member took up from a long since gone former member without really understanding it on the basis that it's been gutted and rewritten on this side of the House we oppose it and we do not commend it for further advancement."