Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Excellent. It's a pleasure to take another call this evening on what is Part 2 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and I want to speak to a new Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has not been discussed tonight. It is SOP 146 and it's around getting rid of clause 39A of this bill. So what does clause 39A talk about? It talks about amending the principal Act to allow the Governor-General to add delete or amend categories of employees." in schedule 1A and I just want to walk though exactly what we mean by schedule 1A just to understand what exactly the Governor-General is able to add amend or delete.So going to schedule 1A it's very clear that it defines employees who are in the service industries—so that is the cleaning or food or caretaking industries—and that applies to education healthcare age-related residential sectors the public or local government sectors and any airport or facility with aviation ability. I bring this SOP forward today because essentially what this bill as it's been written allows is it allows the Governor-General to make additions or subtractions to schedule 1A and I think that that is actually against the fundamental principles. Things like schedule 1A and changing schedule 1A should actually be brought to this House—Parliament—and it should be Parliament's decision to amend change or delete schedule 1A. So I would like to hear from the Minister about exactly what the rationale is around giving the Governor-General that authority because I believe that that is undemocratic and that we should bring this to Parliament.I do want to speak also to SOP 144 in my colleague Nicola Willis' name because again going back to the primary remedy being reinstatement what we need to do is to actually do it on a case by case basis. That is why this is around deleting that clause so that if an employer and an employee have a disagreement and they fall out—like the example that I demonstrated in the committee earlier tonight in Birkenhead where essentially a restaurant manager wants to get rid of somebody. The relationship has broken down. So under this law if the employer or the employee go to the authorities and they go through the process and the authority rules in favour of the employee then the damage for that will be essentially reinstatement. We think that of course if the relationship has broken down that is just unworkable. So we'd like to again seek advice from the Minister around why we need this primary remedy of reinstatement and why we do not just have an agreement in the law that says it will be done on a case by case basis depending on the circumstances of the case in question.That is completely consistent with the submissions that were raised in the Education and Workforce Committee. The Employers and Manufacturers Association also raised this as well as the Hospitality Association of New Zealand. It seems like it is quite common that employers and employees have disagreements and they fall out and it is far better to essentially have a reward or a payout let the employee go free and let the employer get on and get their business done.So I would like to seek some further clarification from the Minister on Nicola Willis' SOP but also going back to my SOP around why the Governor-General has authority over access to changes in the employees' schedule in schedule 1A versus bringing this back to Parliament. Thank you."