Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thanks. Thank you Mr Chair—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Don't be insulted Mr Webb. I've forgotten names that are much better known.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No no. Look it's a bit of levity in a very serious matter because this bill—I mean I guess I have two possibly three questions to speak to and the amendment in my name. It strikes me that there's a continuum of egregiousness when an employer chooses to dismiss someone in the 90-day period. At one end you know there's the obvious: they can't do the job—nothing wrong with that at all—and then further down the continuum We really rub each other up the wrong way. It's not going to be a great relationship." and I can see something in that. But if we go right down the other end "I don't like Muslims" is absolutely egregious and clearly a breach and a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Act. Or "he's a bloody union member"—again clearly a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the right of freedom of association.Now whilst I can understand if not agree with the views at one end of the spectrum the idea that there are no repercussions whatsoever under this proposed clause 6 amendment seems truly extraordinary to me. It may well be that the Human Rights Review Tribunal would have something to say about it but really that is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut which brings me to my proposed amendment which is to insert into the proposed amendment section an additional subclause (6) that any disagreement between an employer and an employee about the use of a trial provision in an employment agreement must be referred to a mediation services resolution.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Dr Webb are you talking about clause 6 or clause 5?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: New clause 6 sorry sir—inserting a new clause 6. So this is the I understand new clause 6. This is the appropriate point I'm pretty sure at which to—no that's right. There is no clause 6. But there will be.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Some of the amendments we're discussing on this particular part are pertaining to new clause 6 as well but they also pertain to clause 5. So I just need to be just a little bit specific because we will be debating a clause 6 shortly. Camilla Belich: Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): If you can help with the explanation here I'm quite happy to hear that Miss Belich.Camilla Belich: Yes I believe so Mr Chair. Prior to your arrival in the Chair a discussion was held about this particular issue in relation to how we would deal with new clause 6 issues or perhaps amendments which purported to be new clause 6 but actually in the view of the staff at the House Office related more to clause 5. We're informed that almost all of the Labour amendments were relevant to clause 5 bar one in the name of Ginny Andersen and a number of the Green amendments were relevant to clause 6. So my understanding from our discussions earlier was that the amendment in the name of the Hon Duncan Webb is very much within clause 5 which we are currently debating. All of the other Labour amendments would be in clause 5 apart from one in the name of the Hon Ginny Andersen. Additionally there are some very good amendments from Ricardo Menéndez March that would come under new clause 6 which I understand will be voted on separately.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Yeah actually that's been very useful and the Clerk tells me that is actually—I'm now caught up so thank you very much for that and thank you to the committee for their patience. I'm aware that with the change in Speaker there's always going to sometimes be an issue but I believe I'm caught up. So if we can start Dr Duncan Webb's time again.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I'm sure I won't need another five minutes to really conclude my point and I thank my most excellent whip for that clarification as well. But the real point is this: that it's clear that there can be a use of a 90-day clause which is a breach of rights and would lead to remedies in other fora such as the Human Rights Review Tribunal. But the point is really that that is really disproportionate costly time-consuming and would be extremely unwieldy so a much better approach is for those kinds of issues to be worked out in I guess the mediation service where the parties can essentially sort out their differences and in many cases go their separate ways.So I guess I have two questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The first question is does she accept that there are some uses of 90-day trial periods such as those where there's a breach of human rights? My examples I gave you'll recall were firing someone because they're a Muslim or a union member. The second questions is if that is the case does she agree that those kind of extraordinary tribunals are the appropriate place to resolve those issues or would it be more appropriate to be undertaken in the very much more affordable and approachable mediation service?"