Edmonds Barbara; van Velden BrookeHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm really chuffed that you chose me to take a call on this bill the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. I have a couple of amendments to clause 4 and I just want to clarify that they are to clause 4 and they are on the Table. I'm quite a pragmatic person so for me it's about providing an alternative solution for the Minister and I want to understand the Minister's views in relation to my amendments.My first amendment would replace all references to a maximum trial period of 90 days" with references to a "maximum trial period of 45 days." So that is a shortening of the 90-day trial—it would be a 45-day trial. So if you go to the regulatory impact statement and you work through the problem definition: employers not able to use the 90-day trial period—so maybe a 45-day trial period—because they weren't hiring new employees due to the risk that new employees may not be a good match and could result in an unproductive employment relationship. OK—tick. So let's have a look at the options. So if you go to the regulatory impact statement and I'm going to use the same criteria that officials used in their regulatory impact statement the options that were provided by officials and I'm not talking to their options; I'm talking to my 45-day trial and the options have been assessed against the following criteria. Does the policy encourage employers to take on more employees particularly disadvantaged job seekers? I believe a 45-day period does provide that because it still allows employers to take on more employees but also the ability for it to be reduced to 45 days means that there's still a bit of balance on both sides not just for the employer but also the employee. A shorter period means it's a shorter cloud a shorter grey area for employees around the unjustified dismissal element. The second criteria that officials used to address the policy problem is: does the policy reduce the process costs and risks of a personal grievance for employers? Well yes because I'm not saying it's 90 days. I'm saying it's still 45 days; it just half the time. It is ultimately a little bit more balanced on the employee's side but it is still 45 days.The next question is: does the policy increase security for employees when beginning a new employment relationship? In some ways it could seem contradictory that I'd be saying that actually for employees it's 45 days so therefore there is almost less security. But actually it's just greater certainty for them. It's 45 days. I know people who have got married after knowing each other for 45 days.Hon Members: What!Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Not me. I'm saying that 45 days is still a period of time whereby the employee and the employer get to know each other the employer gets to understand if the person is the type of person that matches the job expectations in the description. So I believe that in some respects that third criteria that officials have used to basically analyse their different options does weigh towards the employee a little bit more than the employer. The next criteria that officials use is: does the policy provide certainty for employers and employees regarding their employment rights and obligations? Yes it does. It just makes it really clear it's 45 days. So it's similar to everything else that's been covered in the regulatory impact statement for the 90-day period but it's shorter at 45. And is the option simple to implement? I believe it is. We currently have a framework and the Minister is obviously looking to implement parts of that framework. I think that having a shorter period of 45 days is a way to balance it up a bit more. Currently as the Minister just responded to a number of questions she said it's about reducing compliance costs and—a number of things actually; I only heard the first one about compliance costs.I believe that this is a bit more balanced in that it's 45 days. For the employee it means there is a shorter period of harm for them because they understand really clearly. The employer knows whether it's working or not for them in that first month and a half. I'd really like to know the Minister's views on whether a 45-day period could actually work. I also want to speak to my second amendment which is on the Table. It's not 45 days; it's even shorter. My second amendment to clause 4 replaces the reference to the word "days" in section 67A with "hours". So it's a similar argument except that instead of 90 days how about 90 hours?Hon BROOKE van VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair. I thought I'd take the opportunity to respond to all three of the member's amendments and say that we will not be supporting any of them. The time period is at 90 days; it makes it pretty straightforward. It will be 90 days for small and medium 90 days for larger so therefore 90 days for all employees. But also reducing that amount of time by the extent that she is desiring—within a few days—doesn't actually give the opportunity for an employer and an employee to form a relationship and to see whether or not they are a good fit for each other."