Andersen Ginny; Pugh MaureenHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd like to take the opportunity to speak to the amendment put forward in my name to clause 4. In clause 4 in new section 67A(2)(c) I propose to insert a (d) which would state that an employer seeking to rely on a trial period must keep detailed records of the dismissal process for an employee under the section and that these records must record the correct reason for the dismissal and must be provided to the employee upon request.I'd like to actually back up why I'm proposing this change because the regulatory impact statement—and I'm really pleased that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has agreed to have a regulatory impact statement on this bill—highlights some very good reasons why this amendment should be adopted. I'd be interested in the Minister's feedback because in the regulatory impact statement it does state that There is limited research on the prevalence and extent of impacts of trial periods in New Zealand." So we don't know what the impact is fully on this. We have a lot of anecdotal evidence—many of those incidents have been recalled in this House tonight—but we do not have a good base of evidence in New Zealand around the impacts of this on both employee and employer. And if we have an Employment Relations Act which this bill is amending then we need to be understanding how the impact on that employment relationship between an employee and an employer plays out.By inserting a subsection (d) in section 67A(2) and requiring that we keep detailed records of the dismissal that will enable us going forward to have that evidence base of understanding where in fact a 90-day dismissal period is being utilised. Is it in fact going to provide greater flexibility in the labour market and be endearing employers to take more people on? It's a great thing in general. Or is it in some instances being utilised at the detriment of the working rights of New Zealanders who have no comeback when they're told to leave and not come back the next day? I think we know that we should have that information available to us and furthermore I'd like to quote the regulatory impact statement that the evaluation that was undertaken back in 2016 did not find any specific evidence of an economy-wide effect. We need to know that. This is going to have a huge impact. We know that there's a large number of people who will now be potentially impacted upon by this legislative change. Do we not owe it to ourselves as lawmakers and good policy makers to be able to enshrine within this legislation a way of understanding the impact of what this would do?And so my amendment is only right and fair; to say that we should be keeping good records and understanding if someone is dismissed under this new provision then we should know why they are dismissed. And also there is a fair right for workers to know why they were dismissed. Whether it be their hair colour their weight or whatever their employer has used as a reason they should have that written down and have information made available to us.The regulatory impact statement also states that there are a number of old surveys that do provide some insights in terms of prevalence through information on the impact on employees. But the impact on employees—that information is limited. The current regulatory impact statement that accompanies this piece of legislation is clear in the fact that the impact on employees—we just simply do not know that. So if that is the case right now I think it is really important for the Minister to enlighten us to understand what would be the impact and why we should not have a provision in this legislation for records to be kept and for the correct reason for dismissal and for that to be provided to the employee upon request. That is my request to the Minister and I'll be really keen and interested to hear her response.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call I'll just remind the member who resumed her seat: you were speaking to your amendment that is relevant to clause 5 but I did allow that contribution to continue. So we just need to keep a close watch on some of those amendments to make sure that they are relevant to the clause we are speaking to."