Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I have not had an opportunity yet to speak to this part of the bill clause 4 but I do have a couple of amendments that I wanted to make. The first two are I think really sensible pragmatic amendments which are very much in the spirit of this bill.The first that I wanted to mention was essentially adding in to section 67A which is in clause 4—the area that we're currently debating in the bill—to make sure that when people are able to be covered by a trial period when people are either engaged as an employee or if they in fact in the past have been engaged as a contractor they wouldn't be able to be covered by a new trial period.There's a clear policy direction within this piece of legislation and other pieces of legislation which have dealt with trial periods which is very fundamental to the design of them which essentially means that if you are already engaged as employee you can't then have a valid trial period put into your contract of employment. That's clearly in this bill as well. So it's people who are currently employed with an employer who wouldn't have a trial period. That's because—I mean why would they? The justification for trial periods even though I may not be one of the people that accept them is clearly to allow an employer and employee to get to know one another. So that could also occur in other types of relationship akin to employment so worker relationships.I know that this is an area that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is interested in having read the coalition agreements and the ACT Party policies prior to the election. I know she's interested in looking at contractor law. I'm not interested in discussing that particular aspect today but I think to have a piece of legislation be enduring and also meet the policy objectives that she is trying to meet why should contractors who have already had the opportunity to engage with an employer although not in an employment situation be subject to trial periods? I don't think the justification applies. They already know that contractor because they've engaged with them. They know if they're reliable. They know if they're trustworthy. They know if they do a good job. They know if they're a good fit. They've engaged with them. Yes it could be in a slightly different way to an employee but that's also true of existing employees who may be looking to move up within the organisation which possibly could be more likely to be the case when you have trial periods because you wouldn't be able to be subject to a trial period if you got a new job with your existing employer.So that is my amendment that I have tabled which I think is within the spirit of the bill that's being put forward and would improve it. I encourage the Minister to consider it and I would like to hear her response as to whether she will be supporting that particular amendment.The second amendment that I wanted to particularly mention was really about the situation that sometimes vulnerable employees find themselves in which is when they essentially have a different employer but essentially they don't really have a different employer. You know the legal entity may change they might have a different name on their employment contract they might have a new contract but basically the same people are doing the same work for pretty much the same people and usually in the same locations. So I've actually added that into my amendment.Arena Williams: It's a good amendment.CAMILLA BELICH: Thank you. Trial periods wouldn't be applicable to an employer using a different name or legal entity but conducting the same or substantially the same work in the same location.So there is quite a substantive part of the Employment Relations Act which deals with vulnerable workers and that type of situation. I think it should be really clear within this bill that we're not seeking to put trial periods in for those particular people. I think that is in line with the policy intent because I think all of those other reasons are justifications for this policy: getting to know one another finding a good fit. All of the things the Minister has proposed in her speeches in the different readings of this bill would not apply in that situation where there was a change.So I think those are two very good amendments. I do have a third one which I would like to speak to but I would like to give the Minister the opportunity to respond.