Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak again on this clause. What I wanted to clarify is respectfully I think the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has misunderstood the amendments that I've tabled in clause 4. The Minister stated that contractors are not covered by 90-day trials which of course I know. There is no need for a contractor to be covered by a 90-day trial because they have no employment rights because all of their rights are bound up in the interpretation of their contract.The point of my amendment was to state that if someone is to follow the policy of the clause—which was essentially if someone had been previously employed by someone else by a company then they're not able to be covered by a trial period. So my proposition with the amendment was to state that if they had been engaged in another capacity as a contractor then by that same employer even though that was a contractual relationship—as a contractor and not an employment relationship—surely the same logic applies: that they shouldn't be covered by a 90-day trial. And that is what I explained in my first contribution. The purpose as the Minister had stated it of the 90-day trial period was essentially to get to know find a good fit—I think she's used that term—get to know one another make sure that they work with the team that they can undertake the jobs well. And a lot of that if not all of that would be just as easily obtained as knowledge by the employer in a contractual relationship. I did state in my first contribution that of course that wouldn't necessarily be exactly the same but it would be sufficiently similar I believe that it could be considered to strengthen this particular piece of legislation.The second matter—which I don't think perhaps it was in the way that I explained it was not fully grasped by the Minister—was the amendment that I had raised in relation to people who may work for a company and then that company either dissolves or is insolvent and a new company jumps up in its place that is essentially run by the same people starts trading and then is essentially considered to be a new employer under the legislation. I don't think it's the intent of this legislation to cover people in those situations. Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act covers a number of these employees in these types of situations where there's often you find—in cleaning companies for example you might have people continuing to do the same work but their employer might change. There's provisions within the Principal Act that this bill amends to deal with them. I was talking about that type of situation where genuinely the person isn't really if you look at it actually in new employment. They're basically continuing their same job although the name of their employer on their employment agreement might be different.So those were the amendments and I just felt that the Minister hadn't grasped the intention of those. They are made in good faith and I do think they would strengthen this piece of legislation and they're in line with the principles of the legislation. So those were the clarifications that I wanted to make in relation to that.I did have another amendment in relation to clause 4 to change section 67A(2)(c) to replace not entitled" with "not required". Now you may say that that's not within the spirit of this Act which seeks to not allow personal grievances but I would say a legal interpretation of that change would be to allow personal grievances yes but on a slightly lesser basis than they are currently permitted to people who are not covered by trial periods. So that amendment to clause 4 I think would perhaps achieve the policy objective that the Minister intends to achieve with this piece of legislation by kind of not really encouraging a personal grievance in that particular situation but not going so far as to say that they were totally prohibited by it. And so that's why I think that additional amendment that I proposed to clause 4 is also helpful to perhaps meet the policy objectives but with not such a harsh piece of legislation to actually remove the rights of personal grievances within trial periods.I think it's really important—and I wonder if the Minister could reflect on this a wee bit. I don't feel that she fully addressed the point that I made around the ability to bring personal grievances and have that consistent with good faith and to bring a personal grievance where there's discrimination but to be dismissed. I don't feel that that has been answered by the Minister yet."