White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to propose a clause that I put in in handwriting and it will be on the Table. It's a clause that I think goes to the debate we've heard tonight in particular the comments of the Minister so I am listening. What I understand the Minister is suggesting is that this is good for New Zealand because it's good for employees who need to be given a chance and those employees are the ones who are the most precarious the ones who are seen as risky by employers.Now my concern is about the chilling effect that this kind of trial period has on a whole lot of employees who don't really fit into that category at all. They tend to be workers who are already in employment and what this does is it puts them into a position where they can't move across into another employer without significant risk. Now the statistics—and yes it is based on the research that I have seen from America with regards to a concept called portability of employment—are that it is an issue particularly for women and women actually seem to significantly be more conservative and less risk-averse when it comes to moving from one job to the other sometimes because they're not the primary income earner and their job needs to fit in with their family etc. So they are less risk-averse and they don't move easily and if in fact there's an impediment to the moving which is the risk that they may suddenly lose that job then they're not likely to leave. I am concerned that they aren't taking the advances that they can get in a new job because of things like trial periods so I wanted to know whether you'd looked at that issue of the chilling effect and whether you'd consider my amendment which targets your proposed change to the law but it actually does it so that it cuts out and carves out this provision in so far as it affects people who are already in gainful employment and I've spelt out the reasons for that. One is the fact that it's contrary to the stated object that you've got—that it would actually really work best in your view on those employees who needed a chance to get into the workforce. Another is that there is a huge financial loss in that situation to an employee which is an injustice itself and so there is that. The third of course—in fact I've spoken about this in speaking to an earlier clause—is I'm very concerned about the cost this visits on taxpayers because when people lose their jobs they don't fall in to a void. The taxpayer has to pay them a benefit. So it's not even good for the taxpayer to do this.So really I am concerned and I'd like to hear why is this OK. Why is it OK that the taxpayer ends up picking up the tab every time a big business—we're not talking little businesses—decides that it wants to jettison an employee in 90 days without any reason given? Why is that OK? Why are we just picking up the tab for what employers do in that situation given that I understand the new Government is committed to people being responsible for their own situation? I would have expected a Government that was made up of the ACT Party to be one that was supposed to be sitting on Employers pay their own way here" not "The taxpayer ends up paying for all those employees." So I'd really like to know the answer to that question because there's very good research and I'd like to know what the Minister's done about finding out about that research into the chilling effect.Now my second amendment on the Table is one that's about the pattern of behaviour. I am concerned about employers overusing this clause. So again you've talked about Minister these employees being just the precarious—the ones that you wouldn't give a go otherwise. Well one of the problems is the habitual use of the clause: the four people in one month all being terminated each one being substituted with the next one who's willing to hope and then be dismissed.So my suggestion in my second amendment is that you make a provision here that only one employee out of every 50 in a 12-month period is able to be terminated under this clause. I'd like to know why not because what has the Minister done in terms of looking at the pattern of abuse?"