Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I was glad that we moved on to Part 2 of this bill because the Opposition speeches so clearly show that they have no understanding of industrial relations nor any understanding of employment law. But I have to say we're on Part 2 and it's still the same case which in a way is quite concerning because they have been making quite a big thing about going through the country and clarifying this bill when in effect what they've done—and we know this for a fact—is they have even more confused businesses and other people in the country on what this bill actually does. I too have gone around the country—not that I've made such a big deal about it. I've visited several of my colleagues in their electorates spoken to the chamber of commerce—and I see the member for Coromandel laughing. Do you know what one particular employee representative said to me: Oh now that you put it this way that totally makes sense. But the National Party representative never told me that."—that was about the probationary period it was about access it was about 30 days and it was about 90 days. So the very concerning thing is that that part of the Opposition obviously does not understand what this bill does. I also have to say that I am really mystified about why they are so scared of the unions. Why are they afraid of fairness and balance in the workplace because that's exactly what—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well I'd just ask the member—it's very—MARJA LUBECK: —the unions do. The unions hold the line for their members and—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Order! I just ask the member to address Part 2. MARJA LUBECK: Sure sure. So I'm talking about the parts where mention was made about the rest and meal breaks and the astonishing part from the member that spoke just before me is that it's so disrespectful to talk about his job—his cushy job in an office in a chair—not thinking about for example the meatworkers who are working in either boiling heat or freezing cold conditions in gumboots and on concrete for hours on end doing repetitive strainful work. They need a break and because the National Party legislated that out of the law their employer takes advantage and makes them work continuously—non-stop—under these circumstances. We are bringing this back. Who would argue that rest and meal breaks are just the common decent thing to do—people have a meal something to drink and maybe a few minutes' rest. But hey the National Party obviously does not like workers—like they don't like unions—and they would rather have people working non-stop without any break at all. Nobody mentioned the fact that when the 90-day trials were first brought in the National Party pushed that through and guess what? There wasn't even a select committee process—did you hear all that? No select committee process no public submissions—the National Party drove through 90-day trials without evidence against evidence from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment that it would not create extra jobs and totally without any opportunity for the public to bring submissions through. Obviously at that time the National Party was looking after its mates who own businesses and who wanted to employ workers but not quite adhere to the law that was in place. So what this bill is doing is it is righting a lot of the wrongs. Now we have heard a lot of repetitive arguments from the other side about 90-day trials—we heard so much of it. Reinstatement—Minister Iain Lees-Galloway has talked very eloquently and extensively to try and clarify. But the next speaker pops up and it's like they haven't heard anything at all—they just repeat the same thing over and over thinking it might stick. Now I'd just like to mention the removal of reinstatement because that one is very close to my heart. It is actually taking away people's human rights. It is one remedy that will restore the worker to the way they were before they had the unfair dismissal. And let's be clear about this: this is not about anybody being sacked for any reason; this is about somebody who has been found to be unjustifiably dismissed. It might mean that they have gone through the Employment Relations Authority the Employment Court the Court of Appeal or even higher up and still they have been found to be unjustifiably dismissed. It could take three to four years and after that time you say that they should still just get a little bit of money and just you know move on—no. This is absolutely unfair. If there's anything that they are entitled to it's to have their job back because they never did anything wrong that warranted them losing their job. As a primary remedy it is just a matter of natural justice and it is actually completely consistent with International Labour Organization conventions. The Minister has already pointed out that there's still quite a high threshold for reinstatement. For example in 2009 out of hundreds of cases that were brought there were only nine people reinstated so there goes your scaremongering. Ultimately we're talking about someone who has lost their job when they never should have lost it. They should get their job back if they want to. So what this bill very clearly addresses is fairness it's respect and it's dignity. I hope the other side will start reading the bill and actually understand what it's about and maybe learn a little bit about employment law. But I do thank Minister Iain Lees-Galloway for taking this fantastic bill through the House. Thank you."