Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I don't wish to insult the Minister's intelligence by implying that she has not read the evidence available that she has not looked for evidence around the impact of this bill. I think the Minister knows what she's doing; she knows that she's making workers' lives worse and she doesn't care. Let's not pretend that this is a Minister who simply hasn't done the homework. She's done the homework and she's come as part of this Government with the intent of making workers' lives more difficult.So let's make it really really really clear what we are talking about when we're seeing an extension of 90-day trials; a scheme that has not shown to improve conditions for workers that has not shown to improve retention of people in their workplaces and that if anything it increases the precarity it increases the ability for employers to exploit workers it does not lead to the so-called high productivity that she talks about because the agenda that this Minister has is one where employers hold more control over workers where workers are not able to get ahead.When the Minister has spoken about the risk that employers take with their workers she forgets that it is not just employers who are taking a risk here; it is workers too. Workers take a massive risk entering a new job. They're risking their time they're risking their ability to stay well. So often people are entering into workplace cultures that may be completely unfamiliar to what they've been used to before. They're risking their income. They're risking their ability to pay rent because if they get fired as a result of the 90-day trials they may face a period of living in poverty with the income support that has been kept in poverty as a decision from successive Governments including from previous National Governments as well.So the Minister is conveniently omitting a key part of this which is the risk that workers take when they enter employment. She has at no point throughout the passage of this bill throughout this debate spoken about the need to improve the wellbeing of workers. She has focused on the control that employers should have according to her on those very people. I want to reflect a bit on my own experience in the hospitality scene prior to entering this place and the aspect of serving customers. Something that I think many people in this House clearly lack is coming from a place of serving and a culture of serving because it's—Mark Cameron: How do you know she hasn't?RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Well maybe she has but if she has she's clearly forgotten. But the point around here is that I worked in a workplace at a time where 90-day trials were a thing and I've seen firsthand how some of my former co-workers themselves were impacted by this. The fear of being unjustly dismissed effectively for just making the smallest of remarks that would have put off the manager manager's using excuses to then get rid of workers that they just simply didn't like. This whole talk about not a good match" is actually giving the ability to employers of getting rid of people who they just don't like.And actually if the other side of the House wants to talk about putting more people into good jobs and supporting people to go into good jobs all they're doing is actually creating a cycle and a trap of poverty by creating the conditions where people will be being cycled between poverty-level benefits and otherwise and I've seen that happen in my previous workplace. And to me the other element that the Minister has submitted through this is that maybe actually what some of these businesses need is better management. They need better coaching for those new workers to be supported into those new jobs and they need processes to on board people rather than simply giving themselves the ability to get rid of people. And if those businesses don't have a business model that can support on boarding those workers and don't have hiring practices where they are able to identify who is going to be a good match perhaps they need to go back to the drawing board about the business model that they have and the way that they're running businesses. Because if we want to create a condition where those businesses have a good working environment we should be putting in place regulations that ensure those businesses have good management good practices rather than simply treating those workers as disposable units.Clearly the members of the Government have chosen to not bring any substance to the debate by not taking substantive contributions in this bill making a disservice to the fact that they're putting this bill in urgency. All that they're doing is throwing the argument around that this is part of a coalition agreement but actually good policy-making good lawmaking a good service to this whole country requires a level of scrutiny and justification for laws that have such a material impact on people well beyond what has been put forward by the Minister and by the very dutiful backbenchers who stand up with their 10-second contributions get back down and then they go back to their homes go back to the cafes over the Christmas period will be served in the restaurants by the very same workers who they're now telling that they should be able to be fired within 90 days of starting a new employment.And yes maybe the Minister in her contributions claimed that no workers currently in employment may not be affected but she forgets that those workers may go into new jobs where they will now face that precarity where they'll now face that vulnerability and none of the research that we have shows that decreasing working conditions increases productivity. The so-called flexibility that she wants to afford is only flexibility for the employers. She has nothing to be afraid of by actually giving those workers greater protections from abusive employers. But this Government is hell-bent on destroying the rights of workers whether it is by extending the 90-day trials whether it is by dismantling fair pay agreements whether it is by removing other subsidies on public transport etc.But to bring it back to this bill I wanted to also—as the previous speaker Camilla Belich told us—talk about some of the stories that had previously been brought forward when it came to the issue of 90-day trials. A few years ago we heard from Andrew who actually at the time was a National Party supporter and an industrial electrician by trade with over 30 years of experience. He spoke about his experience in a new job and how he was let go under the 90-day trial how it came as a surprise to him because—and I quote—"At no time was I advised that my work wasn't up to scratch. My supervisor and I had an occasionally bumpy relationship but nothing that the company seemed concerned about. It was certainly never taken up with me. When I specifically asked for the reason I had been let go HR refused to tell me. Presumably that was so I had no way of taking the matter further." This speaks of poor management practices which this Government is entrenching which this Government does not seem to care about. They do not seem to care about people who will be now concerned whether they get let go during their first 90-day trials who will not have the ability to raise this matter in a way that honours the experience they bring that honours the contributions they brought to the workplace that honours the fact that they will be thrown on to a benefit which in and of itself will decrease the overall wages and incomes that people receive. So let's make it clear let's not pretend that again we don't know what this Government is doing. They're creating a low-wage economy. They're creating an economy of poor management practices. They're creating an economy where workers are set up to fail rather than set up to be supported and to thrive. And yeah as the Minister talked about some of the people who will be subjected to 90-day trials may be first-time workers. This may be the first job they enter. And again the evidence and the research tell us that when those workers are supported in their first time working if they receive good wages if they receive good coaching we're setting them up to succeed. If we put them in a precarious position where we're setting those young people up to fail what we are doing is diminishing the wellbeing the mana of those workers. And this is what the Government is intending to do by using the justification of maybe somebody who's new may not be a good match.We actually should be creating the support system so that people can thrive in their work and if they don't then we need to create the income support systems to support them then to find a better job. But this Government wants to have it both ways. They want the ability to fire people in those 90-day trials basically at will and at the same time they want to keep that income support below the poverty line. And if I see the face of disgust of that member to the opposite of me just being aghast of it it's because maybe for those members it's scary to imagine a world where employers don't have that full control over workers. It's the scary prospect of workers actually having power because it threatens the world view that these members were brought up with where they've been told that they can trample over workers that they can come into this place and remove the rights of the workers because that will create a world where they continue having control over the systems they created in the first place.I look forward to challenging the Minister on her lack of evidence on her lack of basis for bringing this bill into the House and on the cruelty in which she is bringing this bill forward."