Simpson ScottSCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): This has been a really interesting debate. It has been interesting because tonight of all nights—on a night when we heard a valedictory speech from a Prime Minister who has given us as a nation the pride and confidence to go bravely into the world full of our own faith and ability in ourselves—we have this delineation between those on this side of the House who want to give people choice who have faith in people's ability to make their own arrangements and who have faith in their own ability to negotiate contracts terms of engagement and severance arrangements of their own free will and those on the other side of the House; an Opposition that has resorted absolutely to type. Oh no no no we cannot have people making arrangements that they know best that they want to enter into freely and of their own volition!This bill actually represents a very clear delineation of the philosophical differences between a Government that is aspirational that is confident and that has people's best interests at heart and an Opposition that wants to be narky and snarky and say: No Government knows best. We do not believe that you are going to be big enough bold enough and brave enough to make your own employment arrangements." This is the fundamental philosophical difference between an optimistic positive centre-right Government and an Opposition that wants to revert to big government Government knows best and "Let's wait and let the legislators arrange all the conditions of our employment."This is a simple bill. It is not a radical bill. It is a simple little bill that gives people a right should they choose non-compulsorily to come to an arrangement in terms of their own employment negotiation that allows for a severance package to be negotiated favourably in terms that are agreed between an employer and an employee. Then when an employment situation ends it provides certainty and confidence for both parties so that they can proceed to end their employment relation. The employee receives a severance package that has been pre-agreed and an employer has the confidence that they are not going to have the sword of Damocles of a personal grievance hanging above their head and an employee who might want to just say: "Well there's nothing that I'm going to lose by having a crack at clogging up the Employment Court system or a mediation process; I might as well have a go." The employment agreement has actually been agreed prior to the termination and this bill seeks to allow voluntarily non-compulsorily with the protections of legal advice legal counsel a situation where should the two parties agree they can. Personally I do not have a problem with that.To hear the last speaker stand in this House and say that the motivation for legal reform in this Parliament should be protest is I think appalling. I know that that member comes from a Vietnam generation. She was born and raised with a protest banner and she is proud of all that sort of stuff. But that is not the only method for legal reform in this Parliament and Lord may it never be. There are people who want to have civilised open and free employment negotiations and they want to make the most of those. Why should we as a Government and why should we as politicians get in the way of that?In my introductory speech on this bill I made it clear that I hope that some matters will be addressed at select committee. There is an easy and simple way to address the matters raised on the other side in terms of human rights and those employers—and there are some—who are just bad employers. Those provisions can easily and properly be included.I want to conclude by reciting what Andrew Little said when this bill was drawn from the ballot. He said that it was the sort of thing a Labour-led Government would be keen to look at especially for chief executives. He went on to say that subject to a discussion about the threshold he agreed that the bill would in principle be a good one and he thought that Labour would support it to a select committee. I am very surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has flip-flopped again and they are not supporting it. This is a good bill. I commend it to the House."