Menéndez March Ricardo; Andersen GinnyRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. It's been canvassed in previous debates as to disabled people and with regard to clause 5 with the expansion of 90-day trials to those bigger businesses I wanted to check whether the Minister had sought any views from Whaikaha or whether that was explored around the impact of the expansion of 90-day trials on disabled workers particularly because of the minimum wage exemptions and other kinds of specific interactions that disabled people experience in the workplace. I ask whether she had sought any second opinions there or in fact from any other ministry that are population-specific.Particularly with regard to disabled workers I did want to see if the Minister had any reflections around the fact that there are specific discriminations that are already felt in the workplace both in law but also in practice and in culture. I think if there were no opinions sought from Whaikaha just what are her views on how this may impact disabled people more generally? I know that she's talked about the flexibility element but with it being extended to those larger businesses not all of them have the management practices to support new disabled workers into the workforce and so I'm interested to see how she thinks those 90-day trials may impact disabled people. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'd like to speak to my proposed amendment for a new clause 6 and this is the second one. So this is the implementation of this bill contingent on a review in three years' time. The proposed amendment is made subject to a review being undertaken in three years in order to investigate how trial periods and employment agreements have improved the outcomes for workers. Tim van de Molen: Point of order Mr Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): If this is a point of order regarding the relevance of this that is a job for the Chair. I'm well aware of what's going on. If that's your point of order there's no need. However point of order Tim van de Molen. Tim van de Molen: OK—all right. My point of order is to seek consistency. What we heard from Ms Belich earlier was a clear agreement that had been reached that Ms Andersen's amendments were not part of clause 5; they were part of clause 6. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That's correct. Tim van de Molen: Now I'm interested in whether your view now is that that's incorrect. If they are to be in this part then presumably they will not be available for debate in the next—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The member is actually speaking to another part from the part that actually became part of clause 6 but thank you for your assistance. Carry on.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you very much Mr Chair. This amendment is made subject to a review being undertaken in a period of three years in order to investigate how trial periods and employment agreements have improved the outcomes for workers in employment. The report of this review will be important information to understand the impact of what this legislation has done to those New Zealanders it directly impacts. My amendment also stipulates that this must be provided no later than six months following the three-year anniversary of Royal assent of the repeal bill and it also states that the Minister must within 60 working days of the day the review is provided to the Minister present it to the House of Representatives.The purpose of this amendment really speaks to that part identified in the regulatory impact statement that says that there is simply very little evidence that New Zealand has right now that indicates what the impacts are of this not only to businesses but also to working New Zealanders. The regulatory impact statement lists three different sources of information that have been made available to try to understand the impact of what the legislation will do and it's quite clear that that is scant and that there is insufficient evidence to fully understand what this will do to the rights of working New Zealanders over time. So I think it's only right and fair if we want to learn from our mistakes and if we want to learn what the outcomes are and how this directly impacts upon people in New Zealand that we build into this hastily made legislation a built-in clause that we can take a look at it after a significant period of time and understand how it has made an impact upon that.Taken alongside of some of the other recommendations which are to require the recording of information this is a really important step to make sure that in 10 or 20 years' time when we are going through processes such as this again as we go in political cycles—to understand when we go to do this again what the impacts of the law we make today are and how that impacts upon workers' rights and the employment relationship because that goes right to the heart of the Employment Relations Act which is that fundamental good-trust relationship between an employee and employer. My real fear with this legislation is that it fundamentally undermines the good faith that underpins that critical relationship between an employee and an employer. So I think that we have a fundamental responsibility in New Zealand as good lawmakers to understand that if we are taking this step and if we are undermining that fundamental right within the Employment Relations Act then surely we should take it upon ourselves to check back in in a period of three years and understand exactly what is the damage that has been done in terms of workers' rights and in terms of the rate of unemployment in New Zealand and in terms of the ability of people who are in precarious work situations to still pay for their rent and meet their bills each week. What are those implications when we have introduced every business in New Zealand having the ability to fire workers at will within a 90-day period? If we're going to make sweeping changes that fundamentally undermine the balance that exists in the Employment Relations Act which is already tilted in favour of the employer—if we're going to be doing that then we have a right and a responsibility to all those New Zealanders whose lives will be impacted to take a look at what has been done after three years and learn from the mistakes that we've made.