SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I sort of feel in the parlance of films that this is the coda. So three questions—firstly jumping to Part 5 is this legislation bringing about unnecessary bureaucracy in so far as people already work through a process through the Incorporated Societies Act to become incorporated or not? It feels to me that we're adding a further burden here understandably to make them—whether they're a worker or an organisation or an engager it is a question of whether it's just more bureaucracy. As I say either you're incorporated or not and there feels to me in the first point to be a little bit of repetitiveness.Secondly and we have traversed this along with Chris Bishop new clause 65G is referring to a chief executive which ipso facto we no longer really know unless we go to the legislation website which I would have thought was meant to be a fairly static website. The legislation is passed; it's sort of immutable. But now we're being told it can change.Chris Penk: Good word—good word.SIMON O'CONNOR: Yeah I thought immutable" was another good word along with "coda". Who knows what else will come! And thirdly jumping to new clause 75A the review of the Act the Minister will know that moviemaking is a fast-moving sector and yet he's chosen—I think it's five but I'll pop my glasses on; yes it is five—five years. Should it be fewer? This is quite generally a fast-moving situation. I know I keep coming back to what we've seen with Amazon leaving amongst others. Do we really want to wait five whole years to come back to this? Is it more prudent—or rather did he seek any advice on whether we return to this within a year or perhaps three years? So three aspects there. As I say are we through new clause 65A adding extra complexity to societies which are already incorporated? Secondly just to draw his attention as I'm sure he's aware to new clause 65G where we're referring to a chief executive of a department that can arguably change outside the legislation. And did he under new clause 75A and beyond consider fewer years around the anniversary of commencement?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I'm happy to answer a few of the questions that have been asked there. I think the question asked by Mr Goldsmith in respect of new clause 65B and the question asked by Mr O'Connor in respect of new clause 65A come together somewhat and I think I can provide some clarification here. So an engager organisation is an individual employer themselves. An engager organisation is an organisation like for example in this sector Screen Production and Development Association which represents the sector or represents a number of individual organisations in the sector. So what we're really talking about here is a kind of organisation that can engage in occupational-level collective bargaining where it's not an individual employer; you need a body who will represent you—a bit like you might think of an employer association in other sectors. So it is necessary that that organisation is incorporated so that it has a legal form and conforms to the responsibilities of the legislation. It is necessary that it represents the collective interests of that sector so that it has responsibilities back to the organisations that it's going to be representing at the bargaining table as occupational-level contracts are negotiated. It is a very similar structure although it came before in terms of the policy design and drafting as with fair pay agreements which the House is currently considering as well.In terms of access under clause 68(2) to the best of my knowledge and my judgment I think that the provisions there are pretty comprehensive and cover likely scenarios where there might be an issue to be considered about the appropriateness of access. I do note that at the select committee process there were no concerns or issues raised with that access or provisions. You would have expected that companies producers if they had thought additional things should be added might have suggested so at that stage but they did not. Coming to new clause 75A as raised by Mr O'Connor—the review after five years—I do believe that is an appropriate juncture. It gives time for a new piece of legislation like this to settle in for people to get used to it to really assess how well it may or may not be working. Of course not every piece of legislation that comes to this House has an inbuilt review mechanism. It's effectively an optional extra that we have decided should be built in given that this is a new and novel regime. My judgment is that five years is about the right level of time to conduct that."