White Helen; Boyack RachelHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister a question which relates in part to the issue of the carve-out of people who are on work visas because I wondered how much she knew about the logic behind that carve-out. My own understanding is that the carve-out will have been because people acknowledged a lot of investment has come and a lot of risk has come into somebody coming into the country and there are other ways of handling that situation which don't involve a right to terminate suddenly in that early period. I wondered if the Minister had an opportunity to look at that model and see what was considered because it seems to me there's an immediate connection with some of the other groups of workers who also could claim a similar risk that they're taking and cost that they're paying if this law goes through. I wondered whether it might open the door to a carve-out for some of those other people in different classes. I wondered whether for example workers who are moving from one job to another who are actually leaving a job and leaving a good wage might be people that could be carved out very much on the same logic that they are carved out because they are migrants coming to the country on work visas. I also wondered whether we might apply that to some of the other groups that would be particularly at risk as a consequence. So I would like to know whether the Minister looked at that part of another law when she considered this and whether she'd consider those kinds of carve-outs. I also just wanted to talk about the issue of the amendment that has been put up by my friend Duncan Webb. That does seem to be a clearer articulation of what this is and I wondered again to link it to my last point whether the Minister had considered whether it was all right to do something unjust to someone in the first 90 days; to terminate them unjustly? Is it all right to terminate them unjustly in that period and not all right when that period has expired? So I'd love an answer to that question: is it OK why is it OK? I'd like to know whether that's the way that she sees things or is she suggesting that if there is injustice there should be some recourse? Because I heard some comments made from the Minister in one of her speeches which suggested that she really saw the pathway for example to discrimination and unjustified action as still being available etc. So is she saying that No this is wrong. Duncan Webb's wrong because there will still be pathways to justice here if maybe the bar is higher." Is that what she's saying? Or is she saying it's OK to be unjust in this period; workers in this situation just have to accept that they will pay a price here because it's better in the long term for our people across the country to allow injustice of any form or favour? I'd like an answer to that question. Thank you. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this bill. This is the first contribution that I intend to make throughout this debate and later on in the debate I will bring some amendments that I intend to speak to but for this first contribution I specifically want to ask the Minister about the engagement that she has had particularly with workers who have been affected in the past through 90-day trial periods to specifically check and see what has been the impact on their lives.This is something I can talk to from personal experience. A member of my family was dismissed under a 90-day trial and I wanted to bring that to the House tonight because I think it's really easy for those who are promoting these types of trial periods to talk around the rights of employers and one of the things around the Employment Relations Act is it does actually specify the rights for employers; it specifies the rights for employers and employees. So I don't think anyone in on this side of the House is suggesting that there shouldn't be a process for dismissal of someone who is not performing their job but the particular experience that my family member had was working in a job that they had worked in previously. They had worked in the industry previously in a number of roles in the hospitality industry and so it wasn't a job that they didn't know how to do or didn't have experience in. I particularly wanted to ask the Minister what consultation engagement she's had with these groups of workers to really understand the impact on them because my family member was dismissed and the way in which he was dismissed caused him significant mental health issues for a number of months following. The way in which he was dismissed was that he was brought into a busy cafe in front of many customers and sat down across the table and told "Collect your knives; leave." When someone is in their 20s and that's their experience in employment it's devastating. He wasn't told why; he had been in the role—I think it was day 88 or 89; he'd been in the role for nearly 90 days hadn't any matters raised with him or any concerns. He'd worked in previous hospitality jobs in the exact same role never been dismissed never been given a warning never been late for work never underperformed but something had obviously disconnected in the employment relationship which we know happens. I've worked on behalf of employers by the way. I've given employment advice to employers including performance advice including issuing people with warnings including dismissing people and including putting people through redundancy. So I have actually as well as having been a union organiser worked on the other side so I just want to put that on the table. My specific question to the Minister is around has she actually sat down and talked to those workers like my family member—the mental health impact for months; he never knew what he did wrong. We all want to see young people succeed in their employment but one of the things about the Employment Relations Act is it talks about good faith. That behaviour is not good faith from an employer and so I really do want to get to the bottom of what the Minister really sees is the impact on particularly our young people in the beginning of their careers to ensure that they are actually heard and consulted through this process. I ask this question because we're not putting this through a select committee so we're not having the opportunity. I just wanted to make that point which is one of the reasons why the scrutiny from our side is so important and why I do seek to make a number of calls to ask a number of questions of the Minister. We're not allowing people like my family member to actually make a submission like the one I've just made and there are many more examples like that—make a submission of that nature to a select committee. My specific question to the Minister is: through this process before actually coming to the House and bringing this legislation has she sat down with actual workers who have been on the receiving end of a dismissal under a 90-day trial and said "What was your experience? How did this work for you?" in order to actually help inform a piece of law that's going to work for employers and employees because as I've often said in this House we have obligations to both parties. As parliamentarians we're here for all and so we actually need to consider the needs of everyone when we're having this debate. So that's my specific question to the Minister: has she actually sat down with young employees who have been subject to a dismissal under a 90-day trial and actually heard their stories and does she have a response for them? Thank you."