Belich Camilla; Menéndez March RicardoCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair and I thank the Minister for her comments around my last contribution and also her confirmation that indeed it will be the case that those covered under the accredited employer work visa will not have trial periods whereas the rest of New Zealand will.I wanted to ask a follow up question to the member around—even though I understand it's in a different Act and it is under the immigration instructions which is perhaps not her portfolio—if she has discussed this matter with the Minister of Immigration in relation to the intersection of the two different portfolios that are relevant today. And also to note that in the last bill the Minister oversaw the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill there was an amendment to the Employment Relations Act which is as she's correctly noted in this instance a totally different Act as well. So these matters do come up from time to time and I wanted to know following her earlier contributions in reply to my question if she had in fact engaged in any advice or turned her mind to that. I do note that it is included in the regulatory impact statement.So the other things that I wanted to comment on is also to support the amendments put forward by Duncan Webb and Arena Williams in relation to the titles. I don't think I mentioned the titles when I last made a contribution but it was Duncan Webb's amendment that I was referring to. So just for the benefit of the Chamber the amendment is to change the title from the current title the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill to This Act is to Legalise Unjustified Dismissal (Employment Relations Amendment Act) 2023" more effectively encompassing I think the purpose of the Act.Additionally I support the amendment of my colleague Arena Williams who referred to wanting to change it to the "Employment Relations (Trial Period Renewal) Bill". That is because this has come up a number of times and it is a change back from a previous policy which was adopted in I think 2017 to restrict the number of employers who are able to engage in trial periods to in fact include that to be a larger number. So I think that title in reference to clause 1 of the bill more effectively conveys the meaning of that.So I wondered primarily to note her comments on the title but wanted to know from the Minister about her discussions with the Minister of Immigration.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair and picking up on the Minister's previous comments regarding some of those questions regarding the interactions with other parts of the system for example the immigration system being outside of her portfolio. I just wanted to acknowledge that this will have consequences in other parts of the system and that I guess it's not unfair to ask the Minister to address what level of interaction if any she would have with her counterparts in the development of this bill.In relationship to the title I mean there's the words "trial periods" and I know that she stated that there hasn't been a select committee process due to this being in the coalition agreement but at any point did the Minister seek any feedback from worker representative groups around 90-day trials specifically? Particularly around the kind of trial periods element that we can find in the title and if so what was the feedback that she would have received as part of any consultation work? Or was it the case that she would have just spoken to employers in getting to this?The previous member Camilla Belich and the amendments that some of the Labour Party counterparts in terms of the reshaping of the language what I think they illuminate is the intent of the bill and I guess while the title may in and of itself not have a huge impact in the day-to-day lives of people it does signal how the Government is framing this piece of legislation. So that's why I'm interested in part of that framing—containing the title—what level of consultation she would have had with worker representative groups?"