Andersen Ginny; van Velden Brooke; O'Connor GregHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. Speaking to clause 5 which amends 67B—and I appreciate there was a little bit of uncertainty in relation to the overlap between clauses 4 and 5. So just to be clear in subclause (1) of clause 5 it says In section 67B(1) replace 'a small-to-medium-sized employer' with 'an employer'." and also "In section 67B(5)(a) and (b) replace 'small-to-medium-sized employer' with 'employer'." So effectively what this provision does is make that transition to just those small businesses—which we know do take up a large proportion of the businesses in New Zealand—with all employers. So I would just like to ask a question in relation to some of the material traversed in the regulatory impact statement. I would like to note also that given the short period of time that officials had to prepare this regulatory impact statement and given the fact that there's quite a few bills going through this House lately without any regulatory impact statement they've done a pretty good job in highlighting what are potentially some of the deficiencies in passing legislation so abruptly without a full submission period at select committee. It's really important to note that in the regulatory impact statement which I think directly relates to clause 5 of the bill it says "We consider that smaller employers are more likely to benefit from trial periods because they are less able to absorb the costs of a poor match or dismissal. In comparison … employers can be more equipped to manage any dismissal processes and absorb the costs."—so obviously by having an HR person or having a department on board. The regulatory impact statement notes that "We therefore consider that there are diminishing benefits from increasing the availability of trial periods to larger employers".So given the fact that the Minister's own regulatory impact statement clearly states that there are diminishing benefits in increasing the applicability of the 90-day trial from small to medium enterprises to all businesses I would be really interested to understand the rationale for this piece of legislation.Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Mr Chair and I will respond directly to the member so that we can get this one out of the way. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment did have a preferred option in the regulatory impact statement to maintain the status quo but I also want to note that the analysis said it was also a finely balanced weigh up between the status quo and the Government's preferred option to extend the 90-day trial periods to all employers. One of the reasons that they gave which the member has spoken to is that larger employers are better placed to absorb the costs of dismissal. But this Government does not think this is a good way of approaching regulation. If there is a way for businesses to you know afford the cost of unnecessary regulation that doesn't mean that they should afford the cost of unnecessary regulation. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The honourable sorry the honourable—I know him well. It's just the name's not really—Duncan Webb."