Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I'm happy to answer questions from Erica Stanford and the Hon Paul Goldsmith now. We had a few interplays around the question on the representation test—the 10 percent test in particular—and the size of the workforce. I've responded a couple of times but if I can clarify again: the point of this test is it is a little more onerous as the members talk about. The union will need to provide evidence that is initiating that that 10 percent threshold is met. At its simplest it's a relatively simple equation with a divisor: how many people have applied want to initiate; how many people are in that area of coverage. It's one divided by the other. To get to 10 percent—Erica Stanford: Yeah but how do you know the bottom part?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: If the member will just let me finish—I didn't interrupt her. The union will be required to provide evidence to that effect. The chief executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) will need to be satisfied on a reasonable basis that test is met. The chief executive of MBIE as I have described already will be able to seek submissions from employers to receive further information to determine whether they are satisfied or not by that. Employers will generally know how many people are employed in different roles. So I think there are reasonable ways of MBIE being able to determine that test in a reasonable way. We've said that it's challengeable if someone thinks that it has not been determined in a reasonable way as well and there's a capacity for regulations to be created to give greater guidance to the chief of MBIE in coming to that conclusion. But that is something that I do not expect to actually be as onerous or as difficult as the member has indicated. In terms of the notification requirements in clause 36 that Paul Goldsmith has identified this is one of those areas where the Education and Workforce Committee has provided further useful clarification. I just say to the member: he is catastrophising here. How does the member think that when this Parliament makes new laws or a Government department like WorkSafe makes new regulations that information gets communicated to the employer in Kaikohe or other employers around the country? It's through sensible and rational channels. This information will be promulgated through publicly accessible channels in newspapers and on websites. There will be a process of contacting employer associations and asking them to feed that out through the networks. It will be through normal communication channels as we use for those other things that we do as a normal part of running the Government and regulatory systems across the employment relations system. MBIE will have a function there in terms of getting that information out as will social partners. If there was a fair pay agreement initiated for example within the retail sector it would be obvious to talk to Retail New Zealand. It would assist getting that information out across their networks. Some of these things are not rocket science Mr Goldsmith.In addition to that the legislation requires that the union must use its best endeavours" to directly contact employers in that sector and they will have networks and information to that respect. They must place information on a website and they must also go through the major newspaper. So taken in its totality there are number of very reasonable steps which are set out here. And of course in particular I think there is a role that employer associations will play here—they will be contacted and they will let members know. So I think overall the answers to the member's questions are set out relatively clearly in clause 36 and in other parts of this part and they will ensure a reasonably smooth process in this area that as I say it is not inconsistent with how other information gets promulgated to employers in the normal course of business."