Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much Madam Chair. You were speaking so softly I could hardly hear amongst the enthusiastic calling of my colleagues. I do want to have an opportunity in this Part 2 debate to raise a question relating to new section 125 in clause 39 and this is to do with the provision that requires that reinstatement be the primary remedy for personal grievance. This is a matter that has caused employers some concern. Just to put some context around it this situation often occurs or sadly sometimes occurs—often" is probably an exaggeration—where for one reason or another the employment relationship between employer and employee does break down and that can be deeply problematic. It can be a matter that causes both the employer and the employee and associated workmates and colleagues a considerable degree of angst. There are obvious matters that lead to a lack of confidence and respect and trust that occurs in such a situation. Sometimes these situations have occurred as a result of performance review and none of it is pleasant for anyone involved. So what tends to happen is a personal grievance occurs. That can be a long drawn-out process that can sometimes take months and taking many months often involves expensive lawyers litigation and an emotionally trying time for everybody involved not the least of which are the people who are personally involved because they are diverted from the business the work that they are employed to do or are undertaking as a business owner or operator. What this section seeks to do is at the end of a broken employee-employer relationship where it's proven by a court or authority that it was a justified personal grievance or an unfair dismissal then the primary remedy for that will be reinstatement. Now the difficulty with that is that it creates all sorts of challenges for a situation that is broken—a relationship that is broken—if an employee is to come back into that workplace. It's not unlike for instance—a bit of analogy—some of us who have known people who have been involved or who have had the misfortune to be involved in a Family Court situation where there's been a breakdown in a matrimony or a relationship problem. What would then be likely to occur in the industrial relations equivalent of that would be like the Family Court judge saying "Well Mr and Mrs Bloggs it's the decision of this court that you get back together again." and that's simply not a tenable sort of process or situation to have occur. Similarly in the workplace there are equally problematic issues around that. Now in new section 125 it does say where it's "practicable and reasonable" and again we come back to definitional issues that exist in other parts of this bill around what is reasonable and what's practicable. Those are matters that are not defined they're not set out they're not quantified and again some poor employer is going to find themselves acting in the capacity of a judicial guinea pig—probably at considerable expense time effort and energy—to assist in defining the common law the case law around what is actually practicable and reasonable irrespective of whether it provides for any other remedy as specified in section 123 of the primary Act. So I do have some questions around that. I think that there is potentially a perverse outcome and Minister Iain Lees-Galloway might like to spend a little bit of time addressing that. I guess the countervailing argument would be that if reinstatement is the likely outcome of a broken employee-employer relationship then there may be some employees who would say "Well look no I don't want to have that opportunity. I don't want to take the risk of being reinstated. The relationship has broken down irrevocably and that would be a very bad thing." So I'm hoping that at some stage this evening the Minister will take a call and talk us through the rationale for making reinstatement the primary remedy for unfair dismissal. If that's the result of a personal grievance then I think that we could have an explanation as to why."