Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. I wanted to discuss clause 160A in a slightly different way than my colleague Jan Logie has talked about it. This came up in the Education and Workforce Committee and I was one of the people sort of scratching my head early on around how this could possibly work when these days you have employees who can often fulfil many tasks in their role. So I think I remember at select committee taking the example of someone who works in the hospitality industry maybe for a hotel chain. They may be on the bar they might be doing laundry they might be changing rooms they might be on the front desk; they've got a variety of different roles and their employer is able to be flexible depending on the season how full they are sickness and move people around. So we had this quite lengthy discussion at select committee around how much of a role you would need to do in order to be covered by a fair pay agreement (FPA). The result is in this bill in clause 160A(1)(b) 25 percent or more of your role. So in effect a quarter of your role if it's covered by an FPA will require you to be under that FPA. Now in a workplace where most employers value flexibility I have similar concerns. This is where my questions intersect with Jan Logie's in that you are essentially driving employers to become less flexible in a time when we need flexibility in order to work their way around this if they choose to do so by not having employees cover multiple roles; instead having certain employees do certain roles to have them covered and the others not. So I can totally understand Jan's point where there might be a workaround there for employers. My question which is different than Jan's—she's talking about her tabled amendment. My question is: why the 25 percent? Why is it that the majority of someone's role if it's covered by an FPA so 50 percent or 51 percent of that role then it's covered by the FPA—25 percent or a quarter of what someone does to be then drawn into the FPA and eventually covered by it seems like a very very low threshold and I would like the Minister to answer as to where he came up with 25 percent and why it wasn't the majority of a role.The other question that I've got is around determining that 25 percent. So it's a little bit of a sort of grey area in the bill under clause 160A(2)(b) where it talks about the percentage of the work that must be assessed based on the work that they've done in a reasonable period prior to the date of the assessment. Now I guess I want to ask the Minister what a reasonable period is because if you think about the example I was using earlier of an employee at a hospitality business it's extremely seasonal. So in the summer months for example in some areas when they're very busy and very full in that particular hotel then it's more likely that those employees who have flexible working arrangements and do a number of tasks are more likely to be doing one task than others whereas if you go back say eight months or 12 months that could be completely different. So my question is: what is reasonable? Would the Minister consider that period to be an entire year given the seasonal nature of the tourism sector in that particular case or are we just talking about the last three months? Because if it was the last three months I could imagine that an employee would have very different work split between jobs; if you took it over a year they may have been doing lots and lots of other jobs. So two questions there: why are we taking 25 percent rather than the majority of the role which would have seemed to be the sensible thing to do? And then around the reasonable period and what he expects that to be and could that in fact go back an entire year and on what basis would you be able to argue for a whole year? So if the Minister could address that it would be useful.