Boyack Rachel; van Velden BrookeRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Mr Chair I thank you for the opportunity because I want to come back to the previous contribution I made. I have a specific question for the Minister that wasn't addressed. So my specific question to the Minister about this clause asked what advice she had taken from officials and that is what I actually want to hear from the Minister. So I need to raise it again Mr Chair because based on my earlier contribution it wasn't answered. [Interruption] I'd love to hear from somebody on the other side seeing they are so interested—maybe they could take some more fulsome calls.The reason why I'm raising this again is that we have had circumstances under this law when it was in existence last time where employers were subject to personal grievances. My colleague Camila Belich has outlined in a bit more detail than I did previously some of the examples of that. So I want to come back to this clause because it's very specific. What it says is that in section 103 it would insert that the employee has been dismissed unfairly under a trial period." I want to come to that part around "unfairly" because that comes back to process. It is the process that is critical here.One of the things I am concerned about is that employers who might be listening to this debate will be becoming confused right now. There will be confusion out there amongst employers because the Minister has stated that employees can take a personal grievance but we are being specific here around a personal grievance on the basis of an unfair dismissal. I want to come back to the question I asked and didn't get a thorough answer to from the Minister which was about what advice officials have provided. Again I bring it back to the point that the House is in urgency and we haven't had the opportunity to test out these matters with officials. If I was sitting on a select committee now I would be asking for this to get a thorough response in a departmental report and we haven't had that. So I really want to hear from the Minister what advice officials have given her about the risk that employers will still be subject to a personal grievance based on both her comments in the committee stage tonight but also on what we know about case law. I made that point in my earlier contribution and I haven't had a response about the interaction between case law and what we put on the statute book. I note that my colleague Camilla Belich is a lawyer. I've had the opportunity to be an organiser; she's been a lawyer so she does have a lot more knowledge on the legal complexities here. But my experience of working in this field is that there have been examples of people being put on trial periods and they're found to not have followed a proper process. So the point I made in my earlier contribution—which again was not responded to by the Minister—is that actually putting that clause in would give clarity to employers about a personal grievance for an unfair dismissal.I say again that it's not coming back to the substance of the dismissal; it's coming back to the process that's been followed. I am very keen to hear if officials have provided that advice if that advice has been sought about what risks this presents to employers because if I was an employer I'd be quite nervous about going down a process of including a 90-day trial in an employment agreement. I'd be feeling nervous because in the Hansard tonight we're seeing some confusion in the responses.Also we know that there are good test cases out there and so I think it's actually in the Minister's interest to make sure that this is clarified for the committee tonight. Otherwise her intent is for employers to be able to use this clause—there may well be employers that wish to use this clause but elect not to because they are concerned that it would actually present them with a risk that they otherwise wouldn't have exposed themselves to.This is an important point because people like Camilla Belich Helen White and me have worked in this field for a number of years and have seen this happen in action in reality. It's not something we're raising out of randomness. It's a real issue a live issue that under that flaw that was brought in many years ago it was unexpected but there were a number of cases that were put to the court and were won based on poor process. So I'm really keen to hear more from the Minister.Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much Mr Chair. It's a delight to take a call at this point in the evening. I just simply refer the member to paragraphs 3 to 5 of the regulatory impact statement that has been prepared for this bill."