Andersen Ginny; van Velden BrookeHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'd like to take the opportunity to speak to one of my many amendments that we have here tonight. In clause 2 as already referred to by Camilla Belich there is a proposal that I've put forward in my name to replace the words on the day after" to "90 days after". It only seems fair that if New Zealanders don't even get to say that their fundamental working rights are being legislated away then surely New Zealanders in our democratic society can have a 90-day period to evaluate this very legislation. If they can be fired in 90 days without the right of any redress or having a personal grievance then surely it's a good democratic society that enables the people of New Zealand to vote this bill down or have a course of looking at how it's working. I think 90 days is a fitting time to be able to change that.It's really important that we highlight the fact of that commencement because in that is the fact that there has been no opportunity for New Zealanders to give their views or their feedback on this legislative change which has massive impacts upon their daily lives and their working life. To be able to have that "90 days after" put into clause 2 into the commencement—that would enable an additional ability for people to be able to say what the impacts are on their lives.There have been many instances as a local MP when I have had constituents come to me and say that they have had the sharp end of a 90-day trial period which has resulted in them losing their job. One that sticks in mind most as we talk on this clause is the instance where the former employee said that the employer had four—four—different employees over the period of the past 12 months and each of them when they had come to their 90 days had had their contract terminated on that basis. What those employees were doing in the 90 days is they were taking up whichever hours were on offer; they were doing extra shifts; they were working hard out to be able to meet the expectations of their employer in the hope that they would have a permanent position after that 90 days and four one after the other had their contract terminated with no reason. It was a fire-at-will situation for all four of those individuals.The absolute uncertainty of those employees and the flexibility and the benefits of the employer are way out of balance. It is only right that if New Zealanders are able to be fired after 90 days then surely we need to take a good look at this bill after the same period—90 days—to see how it is working for our people and how our workers' rights are being protected.Hon BROOKE van VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to respond to that member's contribution. Bearing in mind her rhetoric she may not be aware that under her previous Government there were 90-day trials just for small businesses—for businesses with 20 employees or less. If it's good for businesses and employees and employers in a situation with 20 or less than 20 employees then it's good for a large company too.There is a question here from Ricardo Menéndez March about data collection on 90-day trials. I'll be looking to work with officials in the coming years on researching and evaluating the labour market as part of my wider work stream. Talking also to his query about why it's going through quicker than he may wish it goes through part of that is because the Government has actually inherited quite a bleak economic outlook and we are wanting to reinstate business confidence as soon as possible."