Belich Camilla; Tuiono TeanauCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair and thanks to my colleague Arena Williams for the point of order. I do have some other thoughts on this particular provision which I'm happy to elucidate for you Mr Chair and for the members still present in the Chamber. I think it's actually interesting and I think it's timely that we have a provision that focuses on section 103 because although this section is not mentioned specifically in the bill which is before the committee at the moment the sections which the bill amends do mention section 103. It is fundamentally important to a lot of the points that the Minister has made around access to justice. I do commend the Minister for not getting rid of the access to personal grievance provisions that exist under this Act. There's actually a significant number of them which are still included within this particular Act.This particular section (l) which is what the Hon Ginny Andersen's amendment to the bill proposes to put in place has a few different parts to it. In law we would look at the different tests in the particular provision to make sure that we can prove them. So we would have to have an employee that has been dismissed for this to apply. So obviously anyone who had been dismissed from employment would be covered by that. That's the first leg of the test.The second part of the test that would apply would be unfairly". So there would have to be some kind of test. The Employment Relations Authority or Employment Court or the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court which are all of the courts that could potentially look at this particular provision—and that I think underpins the seriousness of what we're discussing today—could potentially look at that and they would have to say whether something had been done fairly or not. If that person was found to have been dismissed but that it was a fair dismissal then that person would not be able to meet the second leg of the test. So I think that is very important.The third leg of the test would be under a trial period. If the person was found to have been dismissed and it wasn't a valid trial period—I mean this is something that's important to consider: often trial periods are found to be invalid. So it could be quite a likely situation that someone could think that they were dismissed under a trial period and not actually be dismissed under a trial period because the employer did something wrong. I've advised a lot of people on these cases. Every single case that I've seen on trial periods the employer has not done it correctly. They've given someone a contract where they've already started a shift—that is not a valid trial period. They've for example given it to someone who's already worked for them before—that is not a valid trial period. So it could be that trial period which would be the third leg of the test under this particular amendment that we're discussing would not be fulfilled.So I think it's important to go through that to truly fully understand the provision that's before us. The Minister does have the opportunity to change her mind and support this amendment—Hon Member: That's right. Bishop did earlier.CAMILLA BELICH: —to allow access to justice. Yeah exactly. It's not unprecedented for Ministers in the chair to reflect on the legislation before them and say "Actually this is a reasonable amendment which actually might add to the bill that's before the committee."—which is made by Parliament. We have to think about that as well. The reason that we're putting forward these amendments and the reason Ginny Andersen has put forward this amendment is because this is a parliamentary bill and what Parliament intends is important. Obviously the Minister has a huge role in determining the direction that Parliament goes but I think it's important that we reflect on that.So I thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to fully go through that section. I actually think it was helpful for me in terms of understanding the applicability of this particular section and I hope it assists the Minister in her consideration of the amendment.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members we are coming to the end of this discussion. People are starting to repeat. So the next call that is taken—it needs to be focused on this clause."