Moroney SueSUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak on Part 1 of the Regulatory Systems (Workplace Relations) Amendment Bill. Of course people who have been following the debate will know that this is the third of a series of bills where we are looking at quite specific technical changes to the regulatory systems. We have already looked at the two areas of housing and commercial law and now we turn to workplace relations.I want to just concur with my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway and add a little bit more detail to the new clause 3A that has been recommended in Part 1 of this bill which of course is with reference to what was known as the 90-Day Fire-at-Will Bill". It is called "trial period" in regard to the bill that we are debating and those are the words that are used now. People listening to this debate will understand the importance of getting the technicalities of this right because we are talking about a group of workers who have fewer rights than other workers because they are in the first 90 days of their employment. So it is incredibly important that we get the technicalities right because this group of workers is the most vulnerable of all and so getting that right is important.I want to congratulate the officials on the excellent work that they have done on this and in particular I want to draw attention to one of the issues that inadvertently did not get picked up in the original employment standards legislation bill when it was passed through and it is incredibly important because it is about health and safety at work. It is one of the provisions in section 103: subsection (1)(j)(i) that had been inadvertently dropped. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway is correct in that I do not think it was purposeful; it was simply in doing cross-referencing from one section to another paragraph (j) (i) was not necessarily covered and this amendment will fix that. It will address it so that we know that where an employee has been treated adversely for refusing to perform certain work—and in almost every situation that is a reference to people's right to withdraw their labour in instances where the work is so dangerous that it would actually cause them serious harm to undertake that work. That is why an employee must have the right to refuse to perform certain work.The area that Iain Lees-Galloway did talk quite substantially about is the area where the employer has failed to pay them the compensation to which they are entitled when a shift has been cancelled. That was as a result of some great work that was done—actually I have got to say—by the Opposition parties to make sure that we got rid of zero-hour contracts. But the third part that it actually makes sure that employees can take a personal grievance over is where their employer has treated them adversely for a prohibited health and safety reason or has contravened section 92 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.These are all incredibly important things to get right to ensure that these most vulnerable workers do have the right to take a personal grievance. The law as it stands today I think we could argue does already include those three areas. However it is unclear in the drafting of the legislation as it stands about whether they would have the right to take a personal grievance on those grounds specified alone or whether they would have to prove that whatever had happened to them in those three areas was an unjustified disadvantage. That is an additional hurdle that these vulnerable workers would have to pass if we did not pass these clauses through in the Committee stage here this evening.So I am pleased to stand in support of doing exactly that because as I said these are some of the most vulnerable workers. As a parent of teenagers I can say how frightening it is for people in their first 90 days of work when they are just learning and trying to get on that ladder and get their things on their CV to be exposed to that 90-day trial period. It is a very difficult thing already. Let us make it safer and ensure that people do not have their health and safety rights diminished as well."