Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair. I very much appreciate the opportunity to take a call and I want to speak to the first of two amendments that I have on the Table that are relating to new clause 6 although noting that my amendments are considered more of an addition to the existing clause 5. So I am looking forward to being able to take a couple of contributions the first one just to speak about the amendment that I have which is After section 67B(2) insert '(3) employees who are dismissed under a trial provision are entitled to a termination payment of three months of ordinary pay by their employer to be paid out over the three months following termination'."Now a clause such as this would achieve a number of objectives. First I wish to note that as other colleagues have mentioned for many people who are employed under these provisions they are often precarious workers. We've heard examples tonight about my own family member and about the devastating example used by my colleague Jan Tinetti around young people being employed under a 90-day trial and then losing their job within that 90-day period. Those of us in the committee will be aware that a person in that situation would likely then have to turn to Work and Income and could be subjected to a 12-week stand-down period. It could be very difficult for that person to access funds during that time.This is very much around fairness and ensuring that vulnerable workers aren't then left without any access to income after having been dismissed under a 90-day trial. I say to members opposite that actually all members of this House have a clause of this nature in our agreements as members of this Parliament. Any of us who are turfed out after an election are able to access a three-month payment so I say to members opposite: if it's good enough for us surely it's good enough for some of New Zealand's lowest-paid workers? We don't have redundancy provisions in this country. We have a stand-down period for accessing Work and Income support. So for vulnerable workers who perhaps have given up being on a benefit to go and try a new job—which is something we would all encourage—to end up potentially without having income for a period of time as a result of what this side of the House believe is bad law is around fairness but also ensuring that there is that financial support for people.Also a clause such as this would also have a precautionary effect I believe on employers to just take that extra piece of care—to consider whether a 90-day trial is the best course of action in the first place; furthermore whether a dismissal under a 90-day trial is a fair course of action. As we all know—well some of us in this House know—there are existing trial provisions in the law. From my experience those existing trial provisions do work. They allow a proper process to be followed. So a clause of this nature would basically say "Look if that employer was going to take a less rigorous approach to the dismissal of someone who may not be working out well then there would actually be a financial consequence to them." So in my view a clause such as this would really encourage employers to think a bit more carefully about whether they would use a 90-day fire-at-will no-process clause within an employment agreement versus a trial period that does require there to be a process that does require an opportunity for the employee to improve and that does require feedback and further training to be given so that that person on a trial period would be able to engage in a more rigorous and fair process as the employer is considering their suitability.So a clause such as this—such as my new clause 6 which would insert after section 67B(2) a provision for three months of ordinary pay to be paid out—in my view would achieve two outcomes. One would be to ensure that that vulnerable employee if they were dismissed wouldn't end up being financially disadvantaged especially if they were having to wait to receive support from Work and Income and it would also I believe give employers just some time to consider what would be the better option for them to ensure they're running a fair process within their business. I look forward to a further contribution on my other amendment. Thank you Mr Chair."