Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): Thank you. I rise to take a contribution on Part 2 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill but before I do so I just want to reflect on the contribution of the previous two members who have spoken with what could be described as lived experience. I want to address Chlöe Swarbrick directly who has scoffed throughout the contribution of these members and I would say that that kind of scoffing is indicative of the attitude of some of the members present when it comes to what goes on in the workplaces of New Zealand and the attitudes of employers and their intentions towards their employees. Chlöe is welcome to take a call to respond to that if she believes that's unfair. Actually what both Jo Hayes and Matt King have spoken about is the good intention of employers who want to do the best by their employees and what this part doesn't allow for is that good intention.I want to address a particular group of employers in New Zealand and that is early childhood providers because they are particularly impacted by three aspects of Part 2. They are impacted by the 90-day trial provisions they are impacted by the rest and meal break provisions and they are impacted by reinstatement being a primary remedy.Hon Member: What are they telling you?NICOLA WILLIS: What they tell me is that they stand to compromise on the service they deliver for children because of the aspects of this bill. They talk to me about what the 90-day trial provisions mean in practice when you are looking after young children. You can have someone come in with a great qualification who seems OK and then you see them at work with the kids you see them at work with your team you see them interact with parents and you say This is not a good fit for this childcare centre and we do not want to compromise the care or education of children present. We will let them go." They also see people who come in who don't have qualifications who say "I love children. I've always wanted to work with them." And they say "Oh I'm not sure." They give them a go. Those people end up being some of the best educators in our early childhood services.Let's talk about the rest and meal breaks. What they tell me about rest and meal breaks is that this is a workforce that is predominantly female. Often what they want to do is attract women who've got children at school or children in early childhood themselves and what those workers sometimes say is "I don't want my lunch break; I want to leave early so I can pick the kids up from school." But what this bill does in Part 2 is it says if the union comes in and says "No these are going to be the prescribed rest and meal breaks." then those workers will not be able to have that flexibility into the future. These are the genuine fears of early childhood services.I went to Christchurch. I met with Annabel's Educare in Somerfield. I met with Courtyard Montessori Fundamentals early childhood centre Poppies Preschool and Portobelo Preschool. The people in these preschools were genuinely concerned about the impact this bill would have and in particular this provision which we want to address in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 144 in my name and that is about reinstatement as a primary remedy.So this is the scenario: an early childhood service has concerns about the way that one of their employees is working with children and families. They take a dismissal against that employee they get some of the process wrong and you know what? That sometimes happens. Not all the i's are dotted; not all the t's are crossed. I don't make an excuse for that. The i's should be dotted; the t's should be crossed. But then what happens is the court says "Actually because you didn't get the process right you have to reinstate this employee." In the meantime the risk to the children the risk to the other workers the risk to the parents is that that person comes back into that service and brings in a negative attitude is unhappy makes it harder for other people to do their job or harder for other people to provide good care and education to their children.So what SOP 144 does is provide a simple remedy. It says that instead of making that the primary remedy what you can do is that your reservations about a returning employee can be reflected you can consider their effect on others in the workplace and you can consider whether it is in fact appropriate for the primary remedy to be this. This is about safety. It's about employers making good decisions about the services they are providing and about employers making judgments about the people they employ and the impact they have in their workplaces.So when it comes to early childhood educators—some of the businesses in our community who most understand the realities of what it is to have good people working with some of our most vulnerable citizens—they are uncompromising in their view that this bill is a step backwards and in particular—[Time expired]"