van Velden BrookeRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Topical. I'd like to speak to my amendments that relate to clause 5. One of the things that we know is going to be an issue going forward and it's been an issue is the lack of reasons; the fact that employers don't have to give a reason when they dismiss workers under the trial. One of my amendments which after clause 5—sorry we actually repeal section 67B(5)(b). It would require employers to give a reason when people are dismissed as part of that 90-day trial. I think why this is quite important is because the Minister has previously spoken to the fact that she wants the 90-day trials to give that greater flexibility and to address issues when what she describes as kind of not a good match between employers and those workers right? But for that workers' professional development and for that worker to find sustainable long-term employment it's then really hard to identify what is it then that that worker needs to change to find suitable employment and a better matching with future employers. So my amendment would then be able to at least add that safety net and that ability for that worker to have that professional development embedded in because if that employer thinks that there is not a good match between themselves and the worker that worker should at least be given that reason for why they were basically terminated under the 90-days trial. Without it sure there may be that greater flexibility for that employer but the issue that she has described throughout the debate of wanting to address in terms of the poor matching isn't therefore being addressed in any way in this bill. So I think my amendment could actually support the Minister making employers give those reasons. The other amendment I had in relation to this clause was to do with giving back the ability for workers to take some of these issues to the Employment Relations Authority and this would basically be a check against the use of trial provisions by unscrupulous employers to dismiss employees unreasonably. It still remains that it is for the Employment Relations Authority to assess whether this application would be granted and so there's still a level of discretion. But I hope the Minister can at least realise that there will be some employers who will be unscrupulous in their use. Even if we were to take the Minister's words in good faith around what she intends to do with this bill which I personally disagree with then we ought to believe that there will still be some employers who will be unscrupulous. I mean members from the Government side have spoken about unscrupulous employer initiatives like migrant exploitation and therefore there surely will be some that will be part of the 90-day trials. So I would love to know whether she thinks there should be that opportunity to grant the Employment Relations Authority to assess whether some employers have been unscrupulous in their use of the 90-day trials provisions. The other question I wanted to have was in relation to one of my other amendments which also would have added some extra safeguards and also would have addressed the points that I've been raising throughout the debate around this not just being about a good match between the workers and the employers but also about having better management. One of the things that my amendment aims to create is alternatives to just dismissing those workers and for employers to be required to explore alternatives other than just dismissing those workers. I think that would in my view—again if one was to take the Minister's words in good faith—actually help address those issues around good matching between employers and workers. So I'd be keen to get an understanding just to surmise whether she thinks there should be other options that employers should consider as part of this before dismissing people and whether employers should be required to give a reason to workers and if not why not? Because of that power imbalance that exists I think it would be fair to have those reasons being given out.I also wanted to address and ask—which I would have been able to do in the select committee stage—whether a trial impact assessment was done because this bill has the potential of having—Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to quickly respond to the member Ricardo Menéndez March and I suspect this may come up quite a lot in the debate so I wanted to start off in the way I intend to continue. I have already addressed the issue of whether or not employers should be forced to give reasons for dismissal in clause 4.