Belich Camilla; van Velden BrookeCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. There are a couple of things I wanted to mention in my first contribution to this clause 5. This is really the operative clause in a way of the entire bill as the main change that means that the effect of this bill can be carried is the change in section 67B(1) to replace a small and medium sized employer" with "employer" in general and also the change in section 67B(5)(a) and (b) in the Employment Relations Act. Without those changes there would not be a bill to really discuss in this debate. So thank you Mr Chair for having a view to take some comments on that section which go to the purpose and nature of this piece of legislation.I did also want to touch on after I make my comments in relation to those sections an amendment brought by my colleague Jan Tinetti that not only looks to what occurs once a trial period is inactive within an employment agreement but adds in an additional clause—it says clause 6 but as we've discussed it would be under clause 5—to allow an employee to be entitled to benefit payments if in fact they qualify for that after a trial period is enacted.My first comments really are in terms of the—as I've said this is really quite an important operative section this clause 5 of the bill. I just feel I would like the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to respond to exactly what evidence she believes and apart from the conversations that she's had with people is there any evidence to suggest that this is something that will make a difference to New Zealand as a whole? You see that's her responsibility as workplace relations Minister. All of the evidence seems to suggest that it doesn't make a difference to include larger businesses within trial provisions. It seems to suggest that there isn't any impact at all on those larger businesses apart from the obviously terrible and devastating impact that it can have on individuals when they are covered by a trial period and they have no recourse to challenge a dismissal. I know that that's a big question but I really feel this is an operative part of the Act and I don't really feel that from the Minister we've got a significant or substantive response on that.I have heard that there was an election and they have a mandate for this. My comment has been that an electoral mandate does not justify bad lawmaking. The issues that we have with this section really are: why and what's the evidence? I know that in the coalition agreement it states that this is to be a Government that bases their decisions on evidence. What evidence is there? Further to that point why has she decided to implement this when it appears not to make a bit of difference in terms of the studies that have looked on the wider impacts? I mean I do appreciate and I don't at all discount the fact that it may be that the Minister has had individual conversations with individual business owners and they've suggested this. But of course we need to look at the overall impact of how a policy like this will affect New Zealand and whether it does indeed lead to people being hired more regularly. The evidence seems to suggest that no it doesn't.I did want to touch on the amendment before my time in relation to this particular call is over. It is a big problem for people if they are unable to access payments for benefit if they've been dismissed in a timely manner. Of course in this situation it could be without any fault of their own. It could be for any reason at all. I mentioned a few of those: hair colour weight—whatever. They just take a dislike to you. They don't like something to do with your name. It could be for any reason. So what protections are there in place for people now that we're expanding trial provisions to the majority of the population? An additional 78 percent of all employees will be covered by this. So what protections are there for those people who are at the sharp end of this amendment? Are they in fact entitled to benefit payments? I'd appreciate the Minister's clarification on that. Are they entitled straight away? Is this something that will be available to them? Is there any other additional support available to people subjected to this provision?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Mr Chair. I thought I would get a few of these queries and concerns under way within my allocated time. Speaking firstly to Rachel Boyack's two amendments the first of which was about allowing employees to be entitled to termination payments of three months—well this amendment would add a huge significant cost to businesses and does not align with the intent of the bill which is to reduce cost and risk and restore employer confidence. The second one was about allowing for any dismissal under a trial provision in an employment agreement to have the written agreement of both the employer and the employee. I just note that dismissal processes aren't undertaken with consent of both parties. If we took that to its natural conclusion it just means no one would ever be able to leave an employment agreement—that's quite a deviation from employment law.Speaking to the Hon Duncan Webb's amendment where he wanted to talk about the mediation services that would be available for resolution the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) already has a dispute resolution service available to employers and employees and we're not proposing to change the Act's existing provisions for mediation which is voluntary between both parties under the current law.Speaking to the Hon Phil Twyford's amendment the substance of that amendment I have discussed at length in clause 4 which I'd already discussed about Ricardo Menéndez March's. Ricardo Menéndez March had another amendment which was about people bringing personal grievance proceedings if they have the leave of the Employment Relations Authority. The issue that we take with this one is the whole point of this trial period is to increase employer confidence to hire a new employee and that's why—removing risk. This adds more risk into a law and we don't believe that it will actually help streamline the labour market but make it worse off. So we oppose that provision.Arena Williams had an amendment which talked a little bit about "exempt from legal proceedings against them from employer for wage recovery"—so trying to make it about wage recovery. But I just have to note that that's not part of the Employment Relations Act; that's part of the Wage Protection Act so that's outside the scope of this bill.Ricardo Menéndez March also had quite a few more Amendment Papers which we'll get through requiring MBIE to monitor and report on the use of trial provisions and then also another one requiring a report from the Minister three years following the commencement of this operation. I don't support either of these amendments. As I said I think back in the title clause I will be looking to further work in the labour market space but I don't believe these sorts of provisions need to be in this law. Then also speaking to Camilla Belich's last suggestion there about welfare benefit payments I just note that this is the Employment Relations Act. We're not really talking about benefit payments which is not under my purview in my portfolio—Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Just asking if it had an impact on that in terms of the rules around benefits and when people lose jobs. It's a relevant question.Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: And then we also wanted to talk a little bit about this issue here—Hon Carmel Sepuloni: It's something she should go and find out as Minister.Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: —thank you very much for your contribution—about whether or not a business can afford the cost of unnecessary regulation. It doesn't mean that they should afford to do it."