Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I am frankly appalled at how quickly we are rushing through this bill when it affects so many of our Kiwi businesses out there. We have just finished the debate on Part 1 today. We've been discussing the privacy of information the compulsion to conclude multi-employer collective agreements the access that union workers have to a workplace that union workers have paid time off and the grounds for discrimination under Part 1. We had so much more to contribute in that debate and it's just—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And that debate has concluded. That debate has concluded.DAN BIDOIS: Well can I please talk to Part 2 of the bill—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well if you don't this will be over as well.DAN BIDOIS: OK Mr Chair I will continue on to Part 2 of the debate which is around the 90-day trial period. As my colleague the Hon Nikki Kaye mentioned this is something that employers across the country have talked to us about: the ability to get people into work and give them a shot. We note that the Government has made a change in that they've allowed for businesses with fewer than 20 employees to still continue to use this bill. The issue that I have that I'd like to ask the Minister is: where does the arbitrary number of 20 come from and what happens when there's 19 employees or 21—you know can they use the bill? Why is it that we've got essentially an arbitrary figure of 20?Now if you look at the data on the number of businesses in New Zealand and the distribution of employees you'll realise that 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand have fewer than 20 staff. So my question to the Minister—and it's an earnest question—is: why are the 3 percent of businesses different? Why is it that you must in fact have this arbitrary figure of 20? I would like the Minister to answer the question as to why we've kept this arbitrary figure.We have Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 115 on the Table under the name of the Hon Scott Simpson which in fact deals with this very issue of the 90-day clause and I would urge the Minister and the Government to consider this because the feedback that we have had from employers right across the country is loud and clear. In fact if you go to the submissions—and I wasn't on the Education and Workforce Committee—Retail New Zealand made a submission on the 90-day trials and they said themselves that it's going to negatively impact those workers most in need of employment opportunities—the most in need of employment opportunities. So I would urge the Minister to address that point of why we have this arbitrary figure of 20 because clearly those 3 percent of enterprises do employ—including I should say my old employer of Foodstuffs—a fantastic array of young workers and I think the public of New Zealand and the business community of New Zealand certainly need to know about that.Now there are other fantastic SOPs that we've talked about including the one from Nicola Willis who's got SOP 144 and that deletes the clause where the primary remedy is reinstatement and this is something that I have had a lot of feedback on in my community. In many cases reinstatement is not the best remedy for the worker or their employer in fact. This was certainly backed up in the submissions and in the Employers and Manufacturing Association's submission that was made they talked about the restaurants where the tension—the relationship between employer and employee has broken down and it just doesn't make sense in order for—Hon Andrew Little: What if the employer's got it wrong?DAN BIDOIS: —reinstatement to be given as the primary remedy. I've got a case—Andrew Little if you listen I'll tell you the case in my own electorate of a small restaurant in Birkenhead where the owner of this restaurant has come to me and has said Look I've got to get rid of this worker. It's not working out and I'm worried that they're going to take a personal grievance." I've said to him "Look OK you do what you do." and he's said to me "Look it's"—[Time expired]"