Roberts Angela; Rurawhe AdrianANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I'm really humbled—really humbled—to stand and take a call on this really important piece of legislation that supports workers. Now workers are also employers and I'm really proud to support this piece of legislation that actually addresses some of the concerns that have been raised by the other side of the House. It is absolutely wonderful to hear so much from the other side of the House about their concerns that this bill might lead to discrimination against employees. They're concerned that workers will be discriminated against: women people who have dependants—not just children but parents aunties sisters brothers—and caregivers. So it's heartening to hear that the other side of the House is worried about this potential discrimination. But I call on them to have a think about having an element of trust in employers that they are actually capable of making sensible decisions about how they look after and invest in their staff and about how they can run their businesses effectively and productively.It's really interesting that they talk about discrimination because what this does is it frees so many of our workers up from discrimination because at the moment the law as it stands with only having five days discriminates. The cost is borne mainly by women. When you only have access to five days and you are the person more likely to be doing the caring for sick children or dependants it is because you are a woman OK? So the discrimination with that five days that pressure that adds when you have to decide whether or not to take unpaid leave to quit your job send your kids to school sick because you will not be able to pay the rent—that is a cost borne by women. It is a cost borne by those who dominate public-facing service industries: those involved in health education and care; home support workers—80 to 90 percent of them women. Those who are in those public-facing industries are more likely to have close contact more likely to pick up infections and more likely to pass on illness not just to their co-workers but to the vulnerable people that they care for in their classrooms in their hospital wards in their doctors' surgeries and in vulnerable people's homes. This cost currently with only five days is borne by our children. They are sent to school unwell because their parents cannot afford to take unpaid leave or to quit their jobs. Kids get dosed up with the old Pamol—You'll be right I'll pick you up at 3 o'clock."—and everyone crosses their fingers and hopes for the best. Because of the cost that is being borne by these families it is a financial cost it is stress and it is something that is borne by a part of our society.So those children go to school and they pass the bugs on to their classmates to their teachers and of course the teachers—you know it is exacerbated by them not staying home and getting well quicker and avoiding passing those germs on. I know of young people teenagers who have had to take time off school at the cost of their education because they've had to stay home and look after siblings or their grandparents because mum or dad has had to go to work because they have no sick leave. It is currently our most vulnerable members of society who are bearing the true cost of the public health interest of people staying at home as we shift from the tough-it-out way that we've done things to being supported to make decisions that keep us all safer—their families and their fellow workers. The Minister has talked about having a fair safe and productive workplace and I would add trust and good faith as something that the Opposition should be comfortable with. I need to thank the Minister for his leadership in helping us to work towards becoming a place globally that is seen as providing world-class pay and conditions. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Ian McKelvie—five minutes."