Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. So there are just a few points I want to clarify about this piece of legislation the Employment Relations Amendment Bill for anyone who's listening. Some of the points the Minister Iain Lees-Galloway has previously covered but the Opposition doesn't seem to have heard them so I will actually just do my best to clarify them and hope that it kind of cuts through.One of the first points I did want to point out though is that I've also been an employer and I've employed I think probably maybe 30 or more young people in their first job ever. I managed to do that before there were 90-day trials.Hon Members: What!JAN LOGIE: I know. You would not think that it was possible that anyone could give a young person a chance in a job without a 90-day trial but lived experience coincides with the research as well. [Interruption] I don't know but you know I just wanted to point that out and I would also point out that unfortunately one of those young people I had to fire for dealing drugs on the premises. I managed to do that without a 90-day trial—extraordinary! So I do just want to point out to New Zealanders who think that this legislation means that no person who's not had a job before is ever going to get a job—it's not true—or that it's not going to be possible to fire anyone—not true. It's absolutely possible to dismiss people. You just have to give a reason and follow the process. I also point out that there is a probationary period built into this so it's not even just that you can fire somebody and follow a due process but there's actually a probationary period built into here.I do just want to point out that some of the discussion we've heard tonight is that Actually if somebody is not quite a good fit in those 90 days then the good thing to do is to get rid of them." No concept about actually "Maybe you want to look at how you might make the workplace work better for that person." or "Has their training been up to the standard that you expect?"—that maybe you want to put some investment into their development and that actually if you did those things you might get a really good result for your business in the long term? No it's automatically going to the idea that "Actually we don't want to invest in these people. We want to get rid of them. That's the best solution." and I challenge that. That is not my experience as a staff member and that's not been my experience as an employer.So I think it's important in this discussion that we challenge that kind of thinking because in New Zealand we know that actually we've got some issues with management in this country where we need to do more work around developing good management so that we increase our productivity. One of the things about good management is a concept of your staff as an asset and the idea of actually supporting them and developing them to improve their productivity and their sense of value in the workplace. So I really challenge the Opposition on the rhetoric that we've been hearing from them tonight in terms of accuracy but also an underlying view that I think undermines good productivity and good business in this country.The other point I wanted to pick up on as well is the idea that we've been hearing about migrants women who have had children youth and young Māori people—and I'm just waiting to hear "Gays are not going to get jobs without 90-day trials." We've been hearing this and I just want to acknowledge that that is speaking to and entrenching views of discrimination. People are naming those groups because these are groups who are discriminated against and if you're pointing them out as a justification for the 90-day rule then you are actually reinforcing that basic discrimination because you're saying that actually they don't deserve a job as a right compared to an older man—compared to a white male who has not been on anybody's list of discussion in this committee. So I think there needs to be some very careful thinking from the members of the Opposition about the kinds of underlying values in their contributions to this debate."