Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a contribution on the amendment in the name of a colleague from the Green Party Ricardo Menéndez March introducing a new clause 6. I guess I just wanted to put to the Minister the importance of including some provisions within the bill that would provide the Government and the Minister and the ministry that monitors this legislation with the evidence base that is needed in order to properly monitor the impact of this bill.Throughout the debate tonight we have heard about some of those impacts that colleagues have raised one being the mental health impacts. We've heard some quite distressing stories about the mental health impacts of those who have been subject to a dismissal under the 90-day trial including a very serious result which my colleague Jan Tinetti shared with the House this evening.There have also been questions raised around the cost to the taxpayer. For those who exit an employment relationship who have been dismissed under a 90-day trial there's a likelihood—quite a high likelihood I would say—that they then become subject to receiving a benefit and that is a cost to the taxpayer. So it will be useful to be able to do some evidence gathering and we're just noting the clause in particular is looking at any effects on outcomes for workers in employment. That would be the type of impact of someone who had been in employment who was leaving their employment but also those who are within the employment whether they are more likely for example to try to negotiate a higher wage rate whether they may be more likely to join a union whether they may be more likely—colleagues in previous contributions have talked about workers being willing to leave a job that might be safe; you know they've gone past that 90-day trial but they might be seeking to for example apply for a role where they would be having a higher rate of pay and they may be less willing to do so if that presents a risk that they would then be subject to a 90-day trial.These are the kinds of matters that it would be very useful I believe for the Minister for the Government for the House to have some evidence of. So just reading out the amendment which is that after three years following the commencement of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Act require a report to be prepared on the operation and effects of section 67A in particular any effects on outcomes for workers in employment."I just really take note on that point around outcomes for workers because throughout this debate the other side often raise the issues that employers may raise but this specific new clause would be specific around potential outcomes for workers in their employment. I'm very interested in the impacts particularly for women workers who—as my colleague Helen White pointed out earlier—are often less risk averse around actually looking for another job. There were some amendments I put up tonight that would have limited the scope of this bill to those earning over a certain amount and again that's often because—[Interruption] Yeah we're getting to that clause. We're looking at the outcomes on workers and it's very clear we're talking about the outcomes on workers. The point I'm making is that there could be an outcome and one of the things around research is that you put out a hypothesis and then you test it. One of the hypotheses I'd like to put out is that those on lower wages may well be in a position where they're less likely to negotiate for a pay rise and they may be less likely to apply for a different job with a different employer. So I would say to the members opposite who seem to be interjecting a lot tonight—I mean if they're so interested in this clause then maybe they should take a fulsome five-minute call. I'd encourage them to do that. They've been well I wouldn't say quiet tonight; they've actually certainly had quite a bit to say and I'd really encourage them if they've got—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): To the point.RACHEL BOYACK: —something to say stand up and say it. So just responding to the interjections Madam Chair. So I think this is an excellent amendment in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March. It would insert a new clause 6. It would allow us to have as soon as is practicable after three years a review. One of the things the Minister will be required to do would be to not just hear from employers but to hear from unions and others that might be interested. You could have employment consultants for example. People who work with people with mental health could be consulted. So it's an excellent amendment and I commend it to the House.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to take a call from Camilla Belich but I want this to be very strictly to the point of the clause please. Thank you."