Jackson Willie; van Velden BrookeHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. The personal grievance right is a basic human right. It's something that we've taken for granted for many many years. Sadly these rights as Ginny Andersen was saying are being stripped away.One of the anomalies when I was a union official for many years—one of the major problems we had—was not having the opportunity to enforce legislation particularly when it came to kaupapa like redundancy. We don't have that legal right to force redundancy payments through. But really we say—we've always said in the movements—that employers have a moral obligation to pay compensation to workers and employers have a moral obligation to allow people to roll out and utilise the personal grievance provisions. It is a basic basic right.I said to the Minister earlier on that when I was employment Minister we had a number of strategies that addressed issues like this—that she chose to ignore sadly. I talked to her about the Māori employment strategy that was embarked on and rolled out. My good friend Janice Panoho was the chair of that. If the Minister bothered to look at that she would see how important the personal grievance—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is this about unfair dismissal?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah I'm coming back to the bill. I'm just giving some precedent Madam Chair in terms of how important the personal grievance provisions are. It is absolutely imperative that workers get an opportunity Madam Chair to access that provision. Anything can happen. What we're saying here—what the Minister is essentially saying here—is that a worker does not have the right has no right to take an employer to court and an employer can do anything to that worker. That's what the Minister and the National Party are saying. Workers have rights whether they're on trials or not. We've said this for many years: workers have a right.We've heard tonight from some of our speakers from some of our women—we heard this from Tamatha Paul and other speakers—what happens when some of these young women are sexually harassed within the workplace. They have no access to support. They're not able to respond at all. What is this Government saying? Get lost. You can't use the provisions that should be there for everyone." That's why this is such an important provision that Ginny Andersen has put up. All workers should have opportunities to justice. They should not be prejudiced against just because they're on a trial. Everybody should have rights and that's what this side of the House has been trying to say for the last few hours.I'm really pleased—it doesn't matter what the time is Madam Chair—that we have to address a basic fundamental human right. Personal grievances are important and if a worker doesn't have that a worker doesn't have anything. So I'm asking the Minister tonight what she is going to do. Will she address some of the strategies that have been rolled out by the previous Government where we had a women's strategy that has been rolled out a strategy for Māori a strategy for Pacific Islanders a strategy for disabled people? It's all there.Why have we got these strategies? Because there have been barriers put up against all these different groups of people and all these people want are basic human rights. They want a proper wage. They want access to the personal grievance area. They want support. They want their disparities recognised. I want to know from this Minister: will she support this type of provision? And given the background that we've heard from her party where they are so concerned about human rights surely this personal grievance provision would be attractive to her? So I ask her to address that.Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I'd just like to quickly address both members who made a contribution—that this is actually quite a narrow bill. It's taking a law that existed under the previous Labour-led Government for 90-day trials for small and medium sized businesses and extends it to all employers. From the contributions of both members anybody listening may not be aware that we actually do still currently have 90-day trials in law and we're simply extending them. It is not as controversial as some of the scaremongering that I've heard in these contributions. However talking to this specific amendment this would undermine the entire purpose of the bill and so therefore we do not support it."