DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): On behalf of ACT I'd like to support the second reading of this bill. It's a very interesting debate. I think the facts remain that we're here because of a novel finding in a court case that the Government of the day had a choice about. They could either legislate over the top of it and say, "Actually, that's not what Parliament intended.", or they could kick for touch—and they kicked for touch. They said, "You've got five years to figure it out. Make your settlements and then after that who knows?" Well, we've got to the "who knows?" One side kicked for touch and now the other side is having to kick it even further into touch and buy more time, because there's no enduring solution. The fact is that the Terranova case, or at least the findings in it, were unsustainable. They allowed judges to effectively set wages, and when this legislation expires—and the part of it that extinguished that right will expire despite the pay rates being extended for another year and a half—we're going to be back to people taking cases where actually the judge can decide whether a whole group of people should be paid differently based on the judge's view of their identity and the work they do. That's not a good place to be. It doesn't work. It's interesting at the Auckland University of Technology, specifically one of the researchers there, Katherine Ravenswood, has done a lot of work on what the outcome of the pay equity legislation has been for the people who are actually affected by it.