Menéndez March Ricardo; Williams ArenaRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate the Minister's previous comment that she feels satisfied with having spoken to the idea of basically that there's no need to give reasons. But she didn't really address my other two amendments so I just wanted to remind her that there are these other two amendments: one on the Employment Relations Authority and the other one around making sure that employers who are too hasty with dismissal under trial periods have considered all options before ending someone's employment. The other thing before I was interrupted in my call that I wanted to check was around the child impact assessment and whether that had been done. As I have mentioned in previous clauses I kind of started with saying that I would have had the opportunity to have had this raised at the select committee stage and also with that there is the impact that adding it to larger businesses or otherwise may have on child poverty reduction targets and I ask whether she had considered whether this has an impact on child poverty altogether. I think that the clause that we're in best reflects that because of the language around where they're expended to. And the reason why I'm asking about the relationship to child poverty reduction targets and child impact assessment is as has been canvassed because of the benefit levels but also the period in which then someone may not have an income if they transition to that benefit. There are those kinds of just real household material issues that I think should be addressed in this debate and no doubt if we'd had a select committee stage those communities and people who advocate for them would have had the opportunity to raise the impact that they believe this bill would have had. So I'm looking forward to the Minister addressing my other two amendments and speaking to what she considers to be the impact on working families with children. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I wish to speak to my amendment to clause 5 which would be to insert after the amendment to section 67B(1) a new subclause (2) which says that Employees who have a legitimate trial provision in their employment agreement are exempt from legal proceedings against them from their employer for wage recovery." I think this is a useful amendment for the committee to consider. There's an issue here. Essentially if employers were to use their new powers under the amended Act as the Minister is proposing to dismiss workers within the 90-day period then there would also be this further power for employers which creates a pretty terrible situation for workers—especially vulnerable workers—where they then might enter into proceedings to recover overpaid wages. That is something that employees may face when they're faced with dismissals. It is a way for employers to recover costs in situations where there has been some sort of mistake or an overpayment. But it's also just a really bad situation for a young employee to find themselves in where if you're paying your bills based on what you're getting in your income you're probably not checking exactly on your payslips and you're probably living on exactly what your payslip is and then to be faced with proceedings from your former employer who is trying to recover some of those wages it just seems to be an extra level of unfair in this situation. So let me take the committee through those wage recovery provisions. They're found in the Wages Protection Act of 1983. Usually it would require an employer to seek the written consent of the employee whom they are trying to recover wages from but in certain circumstances the employer can either begin proceedings under the Employment Relations Act or obtain a court order to look for a remedy and to recover wages. Sometimes in situations where there is a power imbalance between employers and employees those proceedings are also entered into by employers to make a point. The point being made there is that the employer has the power to pursue the employee—Carl Bates: And the point you're making? ARENA WILLIAMS: Was that a point of order? Carl Bates: And the point you're making? ARENA WILLIAMS: Did I hear a point of order Mr Chair? CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I didn't hear a point of order. Carry on. ARENA WILLIAMS: OK thank you. The purpose of these wage recovery provisions that we need to put into this bill would not allow employers any avenue for pursuing employees who are dismissed under the 90-day provisions that the Minister is seeking to put in because that adds essentially this extra level of unfairness whereby an employer who has these extra powers—because it's not the right fit as the Minister has told us because of the need for more flexibility within the employment market—could then sort of add the costs back on to the employee who has been let go. This is a useful amendment for the committee to consider and I hope that we can consider putting it in. There are also two other amendments in my name that I hope the Minister will consider. They are about allowing the House to be clear about the number of employees to whom this new provision would apply. Thanks Mr Chair."