Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on my other amendment. I note that the Minister made some comments in response to this amendment but I do note that I hadn't actually had the opportunity to put my case to the committee and to the Minister for this particular amendment so I'm going to take that opportunity now. This specific amendment would insert after section 67B(2): (3) For employers who employ 20 or more employees any dismissal under a trial provision in an employment agreement must have the written agreement of both the employer and the employee and the employee's representative where they have one." Now I want to make some particular points about what this clause would address because throughout this debate there have been references made by my colleagues about two matters which I think are important at the heart of this debate and are relevant back to this clause that I would like to introduce. That is around the object of good faith but furthermore the objects of this Act about the power imbalance in the relationship. I want just to mention this because I heard an interjection from a member opposite earlier tonight and I'm not sure which member so my apologies to the member. I heard an interjection stating that it was a perceived power imbalance but actually that's not what the Employment Relations Act states. The Employment Relations Act is very clear that there is an inherent inequality of power in the employment relationship. The reason I note this is that it's relevant back to my clause because what the bill that the Minister has introduced tonight does is that it takes away and undermines the object of the Act. So what my clause would do would actually add back in a mechanism to address that power imbalance that has been taken away through the bill that's been introduced tonight. The reason I bring up the fact that this is what's stated in the Employment Relations Act is that this particular clause and object was included in the original version of the Act when it was introduced by the fifth Labour Government when Margaret Wilson was the Minister of Labour and this particular clause survived the previous National Government that came in after that prior to the sixth Labour Government. It is not a clause that has ever been removed from the Act. Every Government of every colour since the introduction of the Employment Relations Act 2000 has accepted that there is an inherent inequality of power in the employment relationship; not as a member opposite interjected a perceived inequality of power. The Act is very clear and as parliamentarians as lawmakers it's important to us that any amendments we make to that Act don't actually undermine the objects of the Act. So my point to the committee tonight and to the Minister—and so my question again for the Minister—is that I'd like her to reconsider this. There is a power imbalance being reintroduced through introducing 90-day trials to employees who work for employers where they have 20 or more employees. It is the view of this side of the House that upholding and maintaining good faith and upholding and maintaining mechanisms that address that power imbalance are important for all of us as parliamentarians to uphold. Otherwise I would suggest that actually the other side of the House should change the objects of the Act. If that is how they really feel show New Zealanders what they really feel: show New Zealanders that actually they believe that employers should be allowed to have significantly more power in an employment relationship. If that is how they feel they should say it—change the Act. Don't just tinker with it; come on out there and tell us what you really think.So the reason why I've introduced this amendment is because I believe that having a written agreement between the employer and the employee and the employee's representative where they have one would help to ensure that there was some understanding a process to acknowledge why that person was dismissed and reasons given for that person to have been dismissed so that there was actually a proper acknowledgment and a proper agreement so that that person—as many of us have noted tonight—will not be left sitting in limbo wondering "Well why was I dismissed?" This clause would assist the parties to that employment relationship to have a proper understanding and for there to be an agreement so it would actually address that power imbalance and ensure there was a fairer process involved if a dismissal were to occur under this new bill."