Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to clause 5. Clause 5, “Section 67B amended (Effect of trial provision under section 67A)”. The question is that clause 5 stand part.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I waited until after the vote because I thought that was the appropriate course of action. However, last evening, earlier in urgency, I raised a point of order when a closure was accepted, pointing out that there were a number of spokespeople and a number of outstanding questions. At the end of that point of order, you replied that that was a fair point, and now, we find ourselves—when a point of order was raised by Rachel Boyack, your response was that all those with amendments had spoken to those amendments. Now, if the response was that there was repetition or that there were issues around relevancy, we absolutely accept that, as that is your call as Chair. But the reason that everyone had spoken to their amendments is a new one to me, and so I was hoping you could point us to the relevant Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling around those with amendments, please.

I thank the member for his point of order there. If he could see my run sheet, he will see that I have noted the relevance and the repetition. I was helping the member by explaining that I had made sure that everyone had spoken to their amendments, but there was starting to be repetition. So I feel valid in the call that I made. Thank you.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is it a new point of order?

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: It is. It’s a question.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

I want to know if this is a new Speaker’s ruling, and whether we can expect that whether those that have spoken to their amendments is going to be a reason for closure moving forward.

That’s not a point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty. We’re going to move on to clause—

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a new point of order?

It is. I think you’ll find, Madam Chair, that asking if a ruling from a presiding officer is a new Speaker’s ruling is entirely appropriate and has been done numerous times.

Just to close off this debate, it is the Chair’s discretion to take a closure motion. I have done that. We are moving on to clause 5. The question is that clause 5 stand part.

New point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): It is a new point of order?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: It is a new point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have been asking this because I feel like it’s still unclear to me on which clause we can genuinely, meaningfully impact all the things in valid questions that we would have had in the select committee stage. We know that there’s no select committee stage, but there’s a lot of things that we normally—and answers would have happened, Minister, that may sit outside of those clauses that are valid otherwise. So I was just checking: would that be in the following clause, because the opportunities to unpack those things are running out, and I’m really concerned about—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That’s not a point of order.

Madam Chair, I do have a further point of order to raise because I do want it to be noted that despite the claim that all speakers with amendments were able to speak to their amendments on clause 4, I was not able to speak to the two amendments that I put forward on clause 4. I did speak earlier, not on amendments, but on other matters on previous clauses. But I was not granted a call on clause 4 where I did have two amendments, so I do want to put that on record.

The question is that clause 5 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Topical. I’d like to speak to my amendments that relate to clause 5. One of the things that we know is going to be an issue going forward, and it’s been an issue, is the lack of reasons; the fact that employers don’t have to give a reason when they dismiss workers under the trial. One of my amendments which, after clause 5—sorry, we actually repeal section 67B(5)(b). It would require employers to give a reason when people are dismissed as part of that 90-day trial.

I think why this is quite important is because the Minister has previously spoken to the fact that she wants the 90-day trials to give that greater flexibility and to address issues when what she describes as kind of not a good match between employers and those workers, right? But for that workers’ professional development and for that worker to find sustainable long-term employment, it’s then really hard to identify what is it, then, that that worker needs to change to find suitable employment and a better matching with future employers. So my amendment would then be able to at least add that safety net and that ability for that worker to have that professional development embedded in, because if that employer thinks that there is not a good match between themselves and the worker, that worker should at least be given that reason for why they were basically terminated under the 90-days trial. Without it, sure, there may be that greater flexibility for that employer, but the issue that she has described throughout the debate, of wanting to address in terms of the poor matching, isn’t therefore being addressed in any way in this bill. So I think my amendment could actually support the Minister, making employers give those reasons.

The other amendment I had in relation to this clause was to do with giving back the ability for workers to take some of these issues to the Employment Relations Authority, and this would basically be a check against the use of trial provisions by unscrupulous employers to dismiss employees unreasonably. It still remains that it is for the Employment Relations Authority to assess whether this application would be granted, and so there’s still a level of discretion. But I hope the Minister can at least realise that there will be some employers who will be unscrupulous in their use. Even if we were to take the Minister’s words in good faith around what she intends to do with this bill, which I personally disagree with, then we ought to believe that there will still be some employers who will be unscrupulous. I mean, members from the Government side have spoken about unscrupulous employer initiatives like migrant exploitation, and therefore there surely will be some that will be part of the 90-day trials. So I would love to know whether she thinks there should be that opportunity to grant the Employment Relations Authority to assess whether some employers have been unscrupulous in their use of the 90-day trials provisions.

The other question I wanted to have was in relation to one of my other amendments which also would have added some extra safeguards and also would have addressed the points that I’ve been raising throughout the debate around this not just being about a good match between the workers and the employers but also about having better management. One of the things that my amendment aims to create is alternatives to just dismissing those workers, and for employers to be required to explore alternatives other than just dismissing those workers. I think that would, in my view—again, if one was to take the Minister’s words in good faith—actually help address those issues around good matching between employers and workers. So I’d be keen to get an understanding, just to surmise, whether she thinks there should be other options that employers should consider as part of this before dismissing people and whether employers should be required to give a reason to workers, and, if not, why not? Because of that power imbalance that exists, I think it would be fair to have those reasons being given out.

I also wanted to address and ask—which I would have been able to do in the select committee stage—whether a trial impact assessment was done, because this bill has the potential of having—

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to quickly respond to the member Ricardo Menéndez March, and I suspect this may come up quite a lot in the debate, so I wanted to start off in the way I intend to continue. I have already addressed the issue of whether or not employers should be forced to give reasons for dismissal in clause 4.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Speaking to clause 5, which amends 67B—and I appreciate there was a little bit of uncertainty in relation to the overlap between clauses 4 and 5. So just to be clear, in subclause (1) of clause 5 it says “In section 67B(1), replace ‘a small-to-medium-sized employer’ with ‘an employer’.”, and also, “In section 67B(5)(a) and (b), replace ‘small-to-medium-sized employer’ with ‘employer’.” So, effectively, what this provision does is make that transition to just those small businesses—which we know do take up a large proportion of the businesses in New Zealand—with all employers.

So I would just like to ask a question in relation to some of the material traversed in the regulatory impact statement. I would like to note also that given the short period of time that officials had to prepare this regulatory impact statement, and given the fact that there’s quite a few bills going through this House lately without any regulatory impact statement, they’ve done a pretty good job in highlighting what are potentially some of the deficiencies in passing legislation so abruptly without a full submission period at select committee. It’s really important to note that in the regulatory impact statement, which I think directly relates to clause 5 of the bill, it says, “We consider that smaller employers are more likely to benefit from trial periods because they are less able to absorb the costs of a poor match or dismissal. In comparison, … employers can be more equipped to manage any dismissal processes and absorb the costs.”—so, obviously, by having an HR person or having a department on board. The regulatory impact statement notes that “We therefore consider that there are diminishing benefits from increasing the availability of trial periods to larger employers”.

So given the fact that the Minister’s own regulatory impact statement clearly states that there are diminishing benefits in increasing the applicability of the 90-day trial from small to medium enterprises to all businesses, I would be really interested to understand the rationale for this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I will respond directly to the member so that we can get this one out of the way. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment did have a preferred option in the regulatory impact statement to maintain the status quo, but I also want to note that the analysis said it was also a finely balanced weigh up between the status quo and the Government’s preferred option to extend the 90-day trial periods to all employers.

One of the reasons that they gave, which the member has spoken to, is that larger employers are better placed to absorb the costs of dismissal. But this Government does not think this is a good way of approaching regulation. If there is a way for businesses to, you know, afford the cost of unnecessary regulation, that doesn’t mean that they should afford the cost of unnecessary regulation.

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Mr Chair.

The honourable, sorry, the honourable—I know him well. It’s just the name’s not really—Duncan Webb.

Thanks. Thank you, Mr Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Don’t be insulted, Mr Webb. I’ve forgotten names that are much better known.

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?

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.

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?

Thank you, Mr Chairman. God, it’s depressing that the parties of the right in this House think that taking away the work rights of New Zealanders is some kind of trophy to be celebrated in the first couple of weeks of this new Parliament. Utterly depressing that they are so bereft of any kind of economic development vision for this country that they think making precarious workers more precarious is some kind of development strategy for the economy of this country—God awful. My amendment, which I—

💬 Hon Member: Stick to the bill.

Well, I very much was sticking to the bill. The amendment is a new clause 6 that we’re discussing in clause 5, that would insert this following clause: “Repeal section 67B(5)(a)”. Now, let me take a moment to explain that. Section 67B of the Employment Relations Act exempts small and medium enterprises from the requirement in section 4(1A)(c) of the Employment Relations Act, which requires employers who are about to make a decision that, in the words of the legislation, “may have an adverse effect on the employee’s continuation of employment”—i.e., they’re about to get the sack—and in that case, it requires the employer to provide access to information about that decision. That’s the first thing. The employee is about to get the boot; they’ve got the right to request information about that decision.

Secondly, they have under the Employment Relations Act, which has been settled in law for quite a long time in this country, the opportunity to give comment to the employer before a decision is made—all right? They have the ability to ask for information about their impending sacking, and then they have the right to provide comment to the employer before a decision is made. Now that is pretty much the definition of due process.

💬 Katie Nimon: Are you mansplaining?

Yeah. Well, apparently, some people in this House need it—apparently they do. It’s due process, but this bill takes away that fundamental right for—God knows how many; hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders at work—and I ask the members on the other side of the Chamber, who think this is hilarious, how would you feel in that situation? You think it’s hilarious that this is happening. How do the members on that side feel about that? How would you feel if your daughter or son at work gets the boot within 90 days, and they have no right to request information about the decision; they have no right to provide any comment to the employer. Put yourself in their shoes—put yourself in their shoes. Do you think it’s OK to deny due process to hundreds of thousands of Kiwis at work? Basically, under this bill, they can be sacked on a whim and the employer does not have to provide any information about it—they do not have to give any information.

This Government is taking us backwards. It is taking us backwards, and I ask the Minister: would you consider removing that exemption and supporting this amendment?

Of course, we oppose the bill in its entirety. It’s a nasty, tawdry bit of legislation. We have no desire to support it, and, in fact, if you asked members on this side of the House, we’d get rid of 90-day trial periods altogether—altogether. Ask New Zealand First: they’ll give you the answer. They’ll give you the answer, and, believe me, you’ll find out how that feels very shortly. This bill—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Short, sharp, preferably witty, and not disruptive.

Why would you—meaning members on the other side of the Chamber—why would you give employers—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Twyford, just to the judicious use of the word “you”, can you just actually use another word?

It was in the same breath as—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Don’t bring the Chair into it. So just—

Yep.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): You’ve been in the House long enough to know that rule.

Why would members on the other side of the House choose to give employers—and, of course, the bad ones—a free pass to actually sack people on a whim and not have to provide any information to the worker who is affected? Why would that be done? What’s the reason for it? They wouldn’t actually subject themselves to that denial of due process, and if they thought about it for a nanosecond, they would realise that people in their lives who might come up against an unscrupulous employer—they wouldn’t want them to be subject to this kind of Draconian process. It is a step backwards for employment law in this country and it’s a step backwards for New Zealand.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I very much appreciate the opportunity to take a call, and I want to speak to the first of two amendments that I have on the Table that are relating to new clause 6, although noting that my amendments are considered more of an addition to the existing clause 5. So I am looking forward to being able to take a couple of contributions, the first one just to speak about the amendment that I have, which is “After section 67B(2) insert ‘(3) employees who are dismissed under a trial provision are entitled to a termination payment of three months of ordinary pay by their employer, to be paid out over the three months following termination’.”

Now, a clause such as this would achieve a number of objectives. First, I wish to note that, as other colleagues have mentioned, for many people who are employed under these provisions, they are often precarious workers. We’ve heard examples tonight about my own family member and about the devastating example used by my colleague Jan Tinetti, around young people being employed under a 90-day trial and then losing their job within that 90-day period. Those of us in the committee will be aware that a person in that situation would likely then have to turn to Work and Income and could be subjected to a 12-week stand-down period. It could be very difficult for that person to access funds during that time.

This is very much around fairness and ensuring that vulnerable workers aren’t then left without any access to income, after having been dismissed under a 90-day trial. I say to members opposite that, actually, all members of this House have a clause of this nature in our agreements as members of this Parliament. Any of us who are turfed out after an election are able to access a three-month payment, so I say to members opposite: if it’s good enough for us, surely it’s good enough for some of New Zealand’s lowest-paid workers? We don’t have redundancy provisions in this country. We have a stand-down period for accessing Work and Income support. So, for vulnerable workers who perhaps have given up being on a benefit to go and try a new job—which is something we would all encourage—to end up potentially without having income for a period of time, as a result of what this side of the House believe is bad law, is around fairness but also ensuring that there is that financial support for people.

Also, a clause such as this would also have a precautionary effect, I believe, on employers, to just take that extra piece of care—to consider whether a 90-day trial is the best course of action in the first place; furthermore, whether a dismissal under a 90-day trial is a fair course of action. As we all know—well, some of us in this House know—there are existing trial provisions in the law. From my experience, those existing trial provisions do work. They allow a proper process to be followed. So a clause of this nature would, basically, say, “Look, if that employer was going to take a less rigorous approach to the dismissal of someone who may not be working out, well, then there would actually be a financial consequence to them.” So, in my view, a clause such as this would really encourage employers to think a bit more carefully about whether they would use a 90-day fire-at-will, no-process clause within an employment agreement, versus a trial period that does require there to be a process, that does require an opportunity for the employee to improve, and that does require feedback and further training to be given so that that person on a trial period would be able to engage in a more rigorous and fair process as the employer is considering their suitability.

So a clause such as this—such as my new clause 6, which would insert after section 67B(2) a provision for three months of ordinary pay to be paid out—in my view, would achieve two outcomes. One would be to ensure that that vulnerable employee, if they were dismissed, wouldn’t end up being financially disadvantaged, especially if they were having to wait to receive support from Work and Income, and it would also, I believe, give employers just some time to consider what would be the better option for them, to ensure they’re running a fair process within their business. I look forward to a further contribution on my other amendment. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the Minister’s previous comment that she feels satisfied with having spoken to the idea of, basically, that there’s no need to give reasons. But she didn’t really address my other two amendments, so I just wanted to remind her that there are these other two amendments: one on the Employment Relations Authority, and the other one around making sure that employers who are too hasty with dismissal under trial periods have considered all options before ending someone’s employment.

The other thing before I was interrupted in my call that I wanted to check was around the child impact assessment, and whether that had been done. As I have mentioned in previous clauses, I kind of started with saying that I would have had the opportunity to have had this raised at the select committee stage, and also with that, there is the impact that adding it to larger businesses or otherwise may have on child poverty reduction targets, and I ask whether she had considered whether this has an impact on child poverty altogether. I think that the clause that we’re in best reflects that because of the language around where they’re expended to. And the reason why I’m asking about the relationship to child poverty reduction targets and child impact assessment is, as has been canvassed, because of the benefit levels but also the period in which then someone may not have an income if they transition to that benefit.

There are those kinds of just real household, material issues that I think should be addressed in this debate, and, no doubt, if we’d had a select committee stage, those communities and people who advocate for them would have had the opportunity to raise the impact that they believe this bill would have had. So I’m looking forward to the Minister addressing my other two amendments and speaking to what she considers to be the impact on working families with children.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I wish to speak to my amendment to clause 5, which would be to insert after the amendment to section 67B(1) a new subclause (2), which says that “Employees who have a legitimate trial provision in their employment agreement are exempt from legal proceedings against them from their employer for wage recovery.”

I think this is a useful amendment for the committee to consider. There’s an issue here. Essentially, if employers were to use their new powers under the amended Act, as the Minister is proposing to dismiss workers within the 90-day period, then there would also be this further power for employers which creates a pretty terrible situation for workers—especially vulnerable workers—where they then might enter into proceedings to recover overpaid wages. That is something that employees may face when they’re faced with dismissals. It is a way for employers to recover costs in situations where there has been some sort of mistake or an overpayment. But it’s also just a really bad situation for a young employee to find themselves in, where if you’re paying your bills based on what you’re getting in your income, you’re probably not checking exactly on your payslips and you’re probably living on exactly what your payslip is, and then to be faced with proceedings from your former employer who is trying to recover some of those wages, it just seems to be an extra level of unfair in this situation.

So let me take the committee through those wage recovery provisions. They’re found in the Wages Protection Act of 1983. Usually, it would require an employer to seek the written consent of the employee whom they are trying to recover wages from, but in certain circumstances the employer can either begin proceedings under the Employment Relations Act or obtain a court order to look for a remedy and to recover wages.

Sometimes in situations where there is a power imbalance between employers and employees, those proceedings are also entered into by employers to make a point. The point being made there is that the employer has the power to pursue the employee—

💬 Carl Bates: And the point you’re making?

Was that a point of order?

💬 Carl Bates: And the point you’re making?

Did I hear a point of order, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I didn’t hear a point of order. Carry on.

OK, thank you. The purpose of these wage recovery provisions that we need to put into this bill would not allow employers any avenue for pursuing employees who are dismissed under the 90-day provisions that the Minister is seeking to put in, because that adds, essentially, this extra level of unfairness whereby an employer, who has these extra powers—because it’s not the right fit, as the Minister has told us, because of the need for more flexibility within the employment market—could then sort of add the costs back on to the employee who has been let go. This is a useful amendment for the committee to consider, and I hope that we can consider putting it in.

There are also two other amendments in my name that I hope the Minister will consider. They are about allowing the House to be clear about the number of employees to whom this new provision would apply. Thanks, Mr Chair.

Thanks very much, Mr Chair. Now, I have two drafted amendments for a new clause 6. I’ve got advice to understand that the first of mine will be debated under clause 5, and the second one subsequent to voting on that clause. So the new clause 6 proposes that section 103 be amended, which refers to section 103 of the Employment Relations Act. So in section 103, following section 103(1)(k), my proposed amendment is that a new section would be inserted after paragraph (k), which would be paragraph (l), “that employee has been dismissed unfairly under a trial period”.

Now, that section of the Employment Relations Act, which this bill, the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill, amends, basically lays out the grounds for a personal grievance for all of those different reasons why an employee may take a personal grievance against their employer. What the extension of the 90-day trial period to all businesses—what this amended bill essentially does is remove all grounds for a personal grievance.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, Ms Andersen, can I just interrupt. I think this particular additional clause of yours is actually part of clause 6, because that will actually trigger a new clause 6.

So we did seek advice. The whip sought advice from the previous Clerk and we showed both amendments and we wrote that that was actually the advice we received, that this should be debated under clause 5. I’m happy to take it at a different point, but the advice we did receive—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, look, we’ll continue on now and then we will actually—you’ve got another couple of minutes to go, but it will actually also be relevant to clause 6, because it will actually trigger a new clause 6.

OK, thank you. So the point I would like to have an answer from the Minister on is: would she be open to inserting an additional clause under section 103 of the Employment Relations Act that would add in that an employee has been dismissed unfairly under the trial period? Essentially, that enables those rights to continue if there are grounds that the employee may feel that there’s been either discrimination, unfair conditions—there might be a whole range of reasons why they’d believe that they have been unjustifiably dismissed—by adding in the additional provision into the legislation that would enable a greater strengthening of workers’ rights, and it would stop the erosion of workers’ rights, which this bill so dramatically does for New Zealanders.

Thank you, Mr Chair. There are a couple of things I wanted to mention in my first contribution to this clause 5. This is really the operative clause, in a way, of the entire bill, as the main change that means that the effect of this bill can be carried is the change in section 67B(1) to replace a “small and medium sized employer” with “employer” in general, and also the change in section 67B(5)(a) and (b) in the Employment Relations Act. Without those changes, there would not be a bill to really discuss in this debate. So thank you, Mr Chair, for having a view to take some comments on that section, which go to the purpose and nature of this piece of legislation.

I did also want to touch on, after I make my comments in relation to those sections, an amendment, brought by my colleague Jan Tinetti, that not only looks to what occurs once a trial period is inactive within an employment agreement but adds in an additional clause—it says clause 6 but, as we’ve discussed, it would be under clause 5—to allow an employee to be entitled to benefit payments if, in fact, they qualify for that after a trial period is enacted.

My first comments really are in terms of the—as I’ve said, this is really quite an important operative section, this clause 5 of the bill. I just feel I would like the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to respond to exactly what evidence she believes and, apart from the conversations that she’s had with people, is there any evidence to suggest that this is something that will make a difference to New Zealand as a whole? You see, that’s her responsibility as workplace relations Minister. All of the evidence seems to suggest that it doesn’t make a difference to include larger businesses within trial provisions. It seems to suggest that there isn’t any impact at all on those larger businesses, apart from the obviously terrible and devastating impact that it can have on individuals when they are covered by a trial period and they have no recourse to challenge a dismissal. I know that that’s a big question, but I really feel this is an operative part of the Act, and I don’t really feel that, from the Minister, we’ve got a significant or substantive response on that.

I have heard that there was an election and they have a mandate for this. My comment has been that an electoral mandate does not justify bad lawmaking. The issues that we have with this section really are: why, and what’s the evidence? I know that in the coalition agreement it states that this is to be a Government that bases their decisions on evidence. What evidence is there? Further to that point, why has she decided to implement this when it appears not to make a bit of difference in terms of the studies that have looked on the wider impacts? I mean, I do appreciate, and I don’t at all discount, the fact that it may be that the Minister has had individual conversations with individual business owners and they’ve suggested this. But, of course, we need to look at the overall impact of how a policy like this will affect New Zealand, and whether it does indeed lead to people being hired more regularly. The evidence seems to suggest that, no, it doesn’t.

I did want to touch on the amendment before my time in relation to this particular call is over. It is a big problem for people if they are unable to access payments for benefit if they’ve been dismissed in a timely manner. Of course, in this situation, it could be without any fault of their own. It could be for any reason at all. I mentioned a few of those: hair colour, weight—whatever. They just take a dislike to you. They don’t like something to do with your name. It could be for any reason. So what protections are there in place for people, now that we’re expanding trial provisions to the majority of the population? An additional 78 percent of all employees will be covered by this. So what protections are there for those people who are at the sharp end of this amendment? Are they, in fact, entitled to benefit payments? I’d appreciate the Minister’s clarification on that. Are they entitled straight away? Is this something that will be available to them? Is there any other additional support available to people subjected to this provision?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thought I would get a few of these queries and concerns under way within my allocated time. Speaking firstly to Rachel Boyack’s two amendments, the first of which was about allowing employees to be entitled to termination payments of three months—well, this amendment would add a huge, significant cost to businesses and does not align with the intent of the bill, which is to reduce cost and risk and restore employer confidence. The second one was about allowing for any dismissal under a trial provision in an employment agreement to have the written agreement of both the employer and the employee. I just note that dismissal processes aren’t undertaken with consent of both parties. If we took that to its natural conclusion, it just means no one would ever be able to leave an employment agreement—that’s quite a deviation from employment law.

Speaking to the Hon Duncan Webb’s amendment where he wanted to talk about the mediation services that would be available for resolution, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) already has a dispute resolution service available to employers and employees, and we’re not proposing to change the Act’s existing provisions for mediation, which is voluntary between both parties under the current law.

Speaking to the Hon Phil Twyford’s amendment, the substance of that amendment I have discussed at length in clause 4, which I’d already discussed about Ricardo Menéndez March’s. Ricardo Menéndez March had another amendment which was about people bringing personal grievance proceedings if they have the leave of the Employment Relations Authority. The issue that we take with this one is the whole point of this trial period is to increase employer confidence to hire a new employee, and that’s why—removing risk. This adds more risk into a law, and we don’t believe that it will actually help streamline the labour market but make it worse off. So we oppose that provision.

Arena Williams had an amendment which talked a little bit about “exempt from legal proceedings against them from employer for wage recovery”—so trying to make it about wage recovery. But I just have to note that that’s not part of the Employment Relations Act; that’s part of the Wage Protection Act, so that’s outside the scope of this bill.

Ricardo Menéndez March also had quite a few more Amendment Papers, which we’ll get through, requiring MBIE to monitor and report on the use of trial provisions, and then also another one requiring a report from the Minister three years following the commencement of this operation. I don’t support either of these amendments. As I said, I think, back in the title clause, I will be looking to further work in the labour market space but I don’t believe these sorts of provisions need to be in this law.

Then also speaking to Camilla Belich’s last suggestion there about welfare benefit payments, I just note that this is the Employment Relations Act. We’re not really talking about benefit payments, which is not under my purview in my portfolio—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Just asking if it had an impact on that in terms of the rules around benefits and when people lose jobs. It’s a relevant question.

And then we also wanted to talk a little bit about this issue here—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: It’s something she should go and find out, as Minister.

—thank you very much for your contribution—about whether or not a business can afford the cost of unnecessary regulation. It doesn’t mean that they should afford to do it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, can I thank the Minister for providing the regulatory impact statement. It seems to be something of a rarity before the House under this Government these days. I note from that that when we’re looking at paragraph 32 in it, it does provide the overarching sort of focus, or objective, really, of this regulatory system when it comes to employment relations. It says in there that it is “to enable productive, mutually beneficial employment relationships” and that, “As such, the system assumes an ongoing relationship between the employer and the employee.”

Again, that sort of lends itself that the process around this in this clause is obviously pretty important. I note that my colleague Camilla Belich referred to the global context, and the regulatory impact statement also does touch on some of the international context in the sense of arrangements. My question to the Minister, firstly, is around her comfort in that this proposal sits or aligns adequately with other international jurisdictions and contexts when the regulatory impact statement itself points to, for example, the fact that in the United Kingdom there’s generally an agreement between the employer and the employee. When we look at Germany, there is a discretion about a probationary period. In the Netherlands the probationary period must be agreed in writing.

That brings me to two amendments in my name. The first one is, I guess, a pre-emptive one. It seeks to amend section 67B, which falls under clause 5, and seeks to insert a new provision, which is: “Any employer seeking to utilise a trial period must first”—so there is the timeliness—“meet with the employee and consult on the decision to implement the trial period.” This includes seeking the employee’s feedback on other options that do not include utilising the trial period.

I’m interested in the Minister’s thoughts around whether that is something that she would accept, because it might be that in an employment situation those other options could be things like starting out with some other level of support. It could be around putting in place some guidance for the new employee, and while many think that that is automatically something that would kick in as part of a new employment relationship, it may be that if there is agreement between the two parties, actually, there is no need to utilise the trial period. It also, I think, goes back to what has been covered in this Chamber tonight around the tenet of good faith and that being a key provision. So I’d be interested in the Minister’s thoughts around that.

The other amendment is an additional amendment to section 67B, and that is inserting an additional provision which is “employees have the right, at no cost”—which is important because it is about it being accessible—“to seek a determination from the employment authority that a trial period used to end their employment is valid and has been used correctly and appropriately.” My question for the Minister is: what comfort in this clause, as currently drafted, is there to ensure that there is an adequate process that allows for the employee to understand what is happening? We’ve talked about the fact that there are many individuals who are in employment situations who would not be familiar with legalities, familiar with contractual law, familiar with contractual obligations, and so this amendment is really focused on ensuring that if an employer does seek to action that part of the agreement, there is an accessible avenue available to any employee to effectively seek the determination from the appropriate authority or agency, which in this case would be the employment authority that exists, to ensure there is a sense of validity to it but also that it has been used correctly and appropriately.

These two amendments are about process, both pre-emptively, before engaging a trial period, and also in circumstances where a trial period may actually be utilised so that there is an accessible avenue available to the employee, as part of the employment relationship, to seek some validation that the process, whatever may have been followed, that has been taken by the employer has been done so correctly and appropriately.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to propose a clause that I put in in handwriting and it will be on the Table. It’s a clause that I think goes to the debate we’ve heard tonight, in particular the comments of the Minister, so I am listening. What I understand the Minister is suggesting is that this is good for New Zealand because it’s good for employees who need to be given a chance, and those employees are the ones who are the most precarious, the ones who are seen as risky by employers.

Now, my concern is about the chilling effect that this kind of trial period has on a whole lot of employees who don’t really fit into that category at all. They tend to be workers who are already in employment, and what this does is it puts them into a position where they can’t move across into another employer without significant risk.

Now, the statistics—and, yes, it is based on the research that I have seen from America with regards to a concept called portability of employment—are that it is an issue particularly for women, and women actually seem to significantly be more conservative and less risk-averse when it comes to moving from one job to the other, sometimes because they’re not the primary income earner and their job needs to fit in with their family, etc. So they are less risk-averse and they don’t move easily, and if, in fact, there’s an impediment to the moving, which is the risk that they may suddenly lose that job, then they’re not likely to leave.

I am concerned that they aren’t taking the advances that they can get in a new job because of things like trial periods, so I wanted to know whether you’d looked at that issue of the chilling effect, and whether you’d consider my amendment, which targets your proposed change to the law, but it actually does it so that it cuts out and carves out this provision in so far as it affects people who are already in gainful employment, and I’ve spelt out the reasons for that. One is the fact that it’s contrary to the stated object that you’ve got—that it would actually really work best, in your view, on those employees who needed a chance to get into the workforce. Another is that there is a huge financial loss in that situation to an employee, which is an injustice itself, and so there is that. The third, of course—in fact, I’ve spoken about this in speaking to an earlier clause—is I’m very concerned about the cost this visits on taxpayers, because when people lose their jobs, they don’t fall in to a void. The taxpayer has to pay them a benefit. So it’s not even good for the taxpayer to do this.

So, really, I am concerned, and I’d like to hear why is this OK. Why is it OK that the taxpayer ends up picking up the tab every time a big business—we’re not talking little businesses—decides that it wants to jettison an employee in 90 days without any reason given? Why is that OK? Why are we just picking up the tab for what employers do in that situation, given that, I understand, the new Government is committed to people being responsible for their own situation? I would have expected a Government that was made up of the ACT Party to be one that was supposed to be sitting on “Employers pay their own way here”, not “The taxpayer ends up paying for all those employees.” So I’d really like to know the answer to that question, because there’s very good research, and I’d like to know what the Minister’s done about finding out about that research into the chilling effect.

Now, my second amendment on the Table is one that’s about the pattern of behaviour. I am concerned about employers overusing this clause. So, again, you’ve talked about, Minister, these employees being just the precarious—the ones that you wouldn’t give a go otherwise. Well, one of the problems is the habitual use of the clause: the four people in one month all being terminated, each one being substituted with the next one who’s willing to hope and then be dismissed.

So my suggestion in my second amendment is that you make a provision here that only one employee out of every 50 in a 12-month period is able to be terminated under this clause. I’d like to know why not, because what has the Minister done in terms of looking at the pattern of abuse?

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I want to thank the advice that I received from the Clerk, who clarified that, actually, the amendment that I have tabled—I should actually discuss it in this part of the debate.

Following on a couple of weeks ago in my reply to the Speech from the Throne, one of the queries I had was around the vision that this new Government has for our country, and my concern has been, over the last couple of weeks, that there has been a lot of urgency, there’s been the inability to be able to actually scrutinise particular bills, except through here in the House. I thank Mr Chair for allowing us to be able to speak to the different amendments because, as you can see, there are a lot of amendments that a number of members on this side of the House do want to be able to speak to.

One of the issues that I did have in relation to this bill, other than the fact that it’s reinstating those trials, is the imbalance of that policy decision. The imbalance of it is that it weighs heavily on the employer’s side, so one of the solutions which I have tabled is to be able to provide a safety net for the employees who have been subject to this trial, because, ultimately, again, if you look to the regulatory impact statement, it provides—further to what Tangi Utikere spoke of earlier today—the purpose of the employment relations regime, the framework in which this particular bill sits within.

Therefore, my new amendment, which I have tabled, is that following the new clause 6, section 67B be amended: “(Effect of trial provision under section 67A). After section 67B(5), insert subsection (6): ‘Any employer that wishes to use trial periods into their employment agreements must register with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’.”

Some people may say that, well, that’s just providing an additional compliance cost. However, one of the very new features that had actually come through—and I think it was around 2015-16—was the New Zealand Business Number (NZBN). Now, that was a policy that the previous National Government had put through. Obviously, businesses are applying to get New Zealand Business Numbers through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). Again, this would be the type of advice that you’d want to seek from officials around: could this work—sort of leveraging off the NZBN—so that you’d ask employers who want to use those 90-day trial periods that, as part of that process, they just basically tag on to their New Zealand Business Number that they’re using the trial periods.

Then I look to the second part of my amendment around subsection (7), which is “Businesses registered with MBIE under this clause must pay 1.39 percent of the salary of the FTE employed at their business into a fund overseen by MBIE and ACC.” Again, that is a new regime; there would need to be some real thought around the implementation. Obviously, like when you have tax, the incidence of tax and where that falls, the incidence of this particular levy might fall on the employee; however, it is for the employee’s benefit. Again, similar to the ACC system, where a collection of a levy is used for the greater benefit of ACC provision, this now leads to subsection (8), which is what I’ve tabled, and this will create a fund that will be used to pay workers dismissed under trial periods 80 percent of their wages for up to seven months.

This may sound controversial; however, I believe that the reinstatement of the trials is imbalanced; it totally balances and weighs in favour of the employer. Therefore, this particular tabled amendment is about providing additional balance for the employee in the respect that, because they are unable to put forward a personal grievance because they’ve been dismissed, they aren’t able to actually ask as to why. They could ask why, however. There’s been a number of amendments where members have tabled, asking them to be able to provide a reason. This provides an additional safety net. Again, the Minister will probably have to work through the incidences as to who this falls on, but, again, if businesses have to comply in other aspects of the regime, particularly when they’re touching base with MBIE in relation to the NZBN, my suggestion is that this particular tabled amendment is just another way to be able to rebalance it, to allow employees to have a safety net in relation to the reinstatement of these 90-day trials.

My question, really, to the Minister is if she has any particular views. If she doesn’t agree with my Amendment Paper, then what is her proposal in order to rebalance the 90-day reinstatement to help our employees?

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s been canvassed in previous debates as to disabled people, and with regard to clause 5, with the expansion of 90-day trials to those bigger businesses, I wanted to check whether the Minister had sought any views from Whaikaha, or whether that was explored, around the impact of the expansion of 90-day trials on disabled workers, particularly because of the minimum wage exemptions and other kinds of specific interactions that disabled people experience in the workplace. I ask whether she had sought any second opinions there or, in fact, from any other ministry that are population-specific.

Particularly with regard to disabled workers, I did want to see if the Minister had any reflections around the fact that there are specific discriminations that are already felt in the workplace, both in law but also in practice and in culture. I think, if there were no opinions sought from Whaikaha, just what are her views on how this may impact disabled people more generally? I know that she’s talked about the flexibility element, but with it being extended to those larger businesses, not all of them have the management practices to support new disabled workers into the workforce, and so I’m interested to see how she thinks those 90-day trials may impact disabled people.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d like to speak to my proposed amendment for a new clause 6, and this is the second one. So this is the implementation of this bill contingent on a review in three years’ time. The proposed amendment is made subject to a review being undertaken in three years in order to investigate how trial periods and employment agreements have improved the outcomes for workers.

Tim van de Molen: Point of order, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): If this is a point of order regarding the relevance of this, that is a job for the Chair. I’m well aware of what’s going on. If that’s your point of order, there’s no need. However, point of order, Tim van de Molen.

Tim van de Molen: OK—all right. My point of order is to seek consistency. What we heard from Ms Belich earlier was a clear agreement that had been reached that Ms Andersen’s amendments were not part of clause 5; they were part of clause 6.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): That’s correct.

Tim van de Molen: Now, I’m interested in whether your view now is that that’s incorrect. If they are to be in this part, then presumably they will not be available for debate in the next—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The member is actually speaking to another part from the part that actually became part of clause 6, but thank you for your assistance. Carry on.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. This amendment is made subject to a review being undertaken in a period of three years in order to investigate how trial periods and employment agreements have improved the outcomes for workers in employment. The report of this review will be important information to understand the impact of what this legislation has done to those New Zealanders it directly impacts. My amendment also stipulates that this must be provided no later than six months following the three-year anniversary of Royal assent of the repeal bill, and it also states that the Minister must, within 60 working days of the day the review is provided to the Minister, present it to the House of Representatives.

The purpose of this amendment really speaks to that part identified in the regulatory impact statement that says that there is simply very little evidence that New Zealand has right now that indicates what the impacts are of this, not only to businesses but also to working New Zealanders. The regulatory impact statement lists three different sources of information that have been made available to try to understand the impact of what the legislation will do, and it’s quite clear that that is scant and that there is insufficient evidence to fully understand what this will do to the rights of working New Zealanders over time. So I think it’s only right and fair, if we want to learn from our mistakes, and if we want to learn what the outcomes are and how this directly impacts upon people in New Zealand, that we build into this hastily made legislation a built-in clause that we can take a look at it after a significant period of time and understand how it has made an impact upon that.

Taken alongside of some of the other recommendations which are to require the recording of information, this is a really important step to make sure that in 10 or 20 years’ time, when we are going through processes such as this again, as we go in political cycles—to understand, when we go to do this again, what the impacts of the law we make today are and how that impacts upon workers’ rights and the employment relationship, because that goes right to the heart of the Employment Relations Act, which is that fundamental good-trust relationship between an employee and employer. My real fear with this legislation is that it fundamentally undermines the good faith that underpins that critical relationship between an employee and an employer.

So I think that we have a fundamental responsibility in New Zealand, as good lawmakers, to understand that if we are taking this step and if we are undermining that fundamental right within the Employment Relations Act, then surely we should take it upon ourselves to check back in in a period of three years and understand exactly what is the damage that has been done in terms of workers’ rights and in terms of the rate of unemployment in New Zealand, and in terms of the ability of people who are in precarious work situations to still pay for their rent and meet their bills each week. What are those implications when we have introduced every business in New Zealand having the ability to fire workers at will within a 90-day period? If we’re going to make sweeping changes that fundamentally undermine the balance that exists in the Employment Relations Act, which is already tilted in favour of the employer—if we’re going to be doing that, then we have a right and a responsibility to all those New Zealanders whose lives will be impacted to take a look at what has been done after three years and learn from the mistakes that we’ve made.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on my other amendment. I note that the Minister made some comments in response to this amendment, but I do note that I hadn’t actually had the opportunity to put my case to the committee and to the Minister for this particular amendment, so I’m going to take that opportunity now. This specific amendment would insert, after section 67B(2): “(3) For employers who employ 20 or more employees, any dismissal under a trial provision in an employment agreement must have the written agreement of both the employer and the employee, and the employee’s representative where they have one.”

Now, I want to make some particular points about what this clause would address, because throughout this debate there have been references made by my colleagues about two matters which I think are important at the heart of this debate, and are relevant back to this clause that I would like to introduce. That is around the object of good faith but, furthermore, the objects of this Act about the power imbalance in the relationship. I want just to mention this because I heard an interjection from a member opposite earlier tonight, and I’m not sure which member, so my apologies to the member. I heard an interjection stating that it was a perceived power imbalance, but, actually, that’s not what the Employment Relations Act states. The Employment Relations Act is very clear that there is an inherent inequality of power in the employment relationship.

The reason I note this is that it’s relevant back to my clause, because what the bill that the Minister has introduced tonight does is that it takes away and undermines the object of the Act. So what my clause would do would actually add back in a mechanism to address that power imbalance that has been taken away through the bill that’s been introduced tonight.

The reason I bring up the fact that this is what’s stated in the Employment Relations Act is that this particular clause and object was included in the original version of the Act when it was introduced by the fifth Labour Government, when Margaret Wilson was the Minister of Labour, and this particular clause survived the previous National Government that came in after that, prior to the sixth Labour Government. It is not a clause that has ever been removed from the Act. Every Government of every colour since the introduction of the Employment Relations Act 2000 has accepted that there is an inherent inequality of power in the employment relationship; not, as a member opposite interjected, a perceived inequality of power. The Act is very clear, and as parliamentarians, as lawmakers, it’s important to us that any amendments we make to that Act don’t actually undermine the objects of the Act.

So my point to the committee tonight and to the Minister—and so my question, again, for the Minister—is that I’d like her to reconsider this. There is a power imbalance being reintroduced through introducing 90-day trials to employees who work for employers where they have 20 or more employees. It is the view of this side of the House that upholding and maintaining good faith and upholding and maintaining mechanisms that address that power imbalance are important for all of us as parliamentarians to uphold. Otherwise, I would suggest that, actually, the other side of the House should change the objects of the Act. If that is how they really feel, show New Zealanders what they really feel: show New Zealanders that, actually, they believe that employers should be allowed to have significantly more power in an employment relationship. If that is how they feel, they should say it—change the Act. Don’t just tinker with it; come on out there and tell us what you really think.

So the reason why I’ve introduced this amendment is because I believe that having a written agreement between the employer and the employee, and the employee’s representative where they have one, would help to ensure that there was some understanding, a process to acknowledge why that person was dismissed, and reasons given for that person to have been dismissed, so that there was actually a proper acknowledgment and a proper agreement so that that person—as many of us have noted tonight—will not be left sitting in limbo, wondering, “Well, why was I dismissed?” This clause would assist the parties to that employment relationship to have a proper understanding and for there to be an agreement, so it would actually address that power imbalance and ensure there was a fairer process involved if a dismissal were to occur under this new bill.

I thank the member Rachel Boyack for that very fulsome contribution, but I also remind her—as she also noted at the start—that I have also already responded to that particular clause. I always just want to take the chance to talk about Ginny Andersen’s amendment, which talked about requiring a review of the impact of the 90-day trial periods. I remind the member that I have already spoken on that, on a previous amendment doing the exact same thing.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the amendments to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 9 in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.

The question is that the amendment to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 10 in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.

The question is that the amendments to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 11 in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to clause 5 to replace “employer” with “employers who employ fewer than 20 employees” are out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 67B(2) to allow an employee to revoke a trial provision at any time is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 67B(3A) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(2) requiring employers to use a trial provision only if they can prove financial or reputational harm to the employer, be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(5) to require any employer wanting to utilise a trial period to consult with the employee, be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(6) to enable employees to seek a determination from the Employment Relations Authority, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(6) to require an employer to pay legal costs to a dismissed employee, be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(3) to entitle dismissed employees to a termination payment, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Barbara Edmonds’ tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(6) to (8) to establish a fund for dismissed workers, be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(3) to require written agreement between an employer and employee for any dismissal, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Phil Twyford’s tabled amendment to clause 5, repealing section 67B(5)(a), be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(6) to require any disagreements about trial provisions to be referred to mediation services, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(2A) requiring employers to keep records of dismissal processes under trial periods, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, exempting certain employees from legal proceedings being brought against them by their employer, be agreed to.

The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 67B(6) limiting the number of times an employer can utilise a trial period, be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 5, exempting workers listed under Schedule 1A of the Employment Relations Act from trial periods, be agreed to.

The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 5, limiting the number of employees that an employer may dismiss under a trial provision per calendar year, be agreed to. All those in favour, say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Noes have it. A party vote is called for. Please conduct a party vote. [Interruption] Whoever the member is who’s trying to be a budgie over there, stop it please. This will be—[Interruption] Sorry, who was that member whistling? Stand, withdraw, and apologise. That’s the second time you’ve done it.

💬 Ryan Hamilton: Sorry, Mr Chair, I do apologise for that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Thank you.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 5, requiring third party witnesses to verify trial provisions, be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 5, barring employers from using trial periods for three years if they are found to have previously used them unlawfully, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 5, proposing a penalty regime for employers who unlawfully use trial periods, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 5, providing for dismissed employees to be retroactively entitled to beneficiary payments, be agreed to.

Helen White’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 6 is out of order as being contrary to the object and principles of the bill.