Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you to the Minister in the chair Michael Wood for those answers. Nobody disagrees that worker participation is both necessary and appropriate in managing risk in the workplace but the Minister's own words talk about how certain aspects of worker participation that don't involve a health and safety rep or committee—he said he suspects might be sufficient which is consistent with the kind of high-level rhetoric that we've had about this change but what I'm trying to do is establish the case on a quantitative basis.Now we've had this legislation in place for seven years one month and 27 days. I remember the day vividly 4 April 2016 when it came into effect—happened to be the same day that the Panama Papers were released and I also was Minister of Revenue at the time so I was a bit busy. But I don't think that's sufficient now Minister because we have had more than seven years to assess whether the businesses and the workplaces of those who do not have health and safety reps and committees have had a poorer outcome with respect to injury and disease than those who do.The regulatory impact statement at page 10 points out that the elected health and safety reps and health and safety committees—26 percent of businesses with fewer than five staff already have them; they're probably high-risk industries. Of those 48 percent 6 to 9 percent have a health and safety rep; they may well be high-risk industries. But I want to know if there's been any analysis undertaken to model the rates of injury or occupational disease stratified for these differences. So if there were fewer than 20 at a low risk with no health and safety rep or committee fewer than 20 of high risk—well they're going to have a health and safety committee—more than 20 of low risk that don't have a health and safety committee because they're not absolutely required to; they're only required to if it's asked for. Even high-risk industries of more than 20 don't—oh actually high-risk industries of more than 20 do have to have them I think regardless of whether they're asked for.But we've got these stratified populations where over seven years we should be able to see whether or not the injury profiles of the staff that work in these PCBUs are different. Similarly we should also see whether there are ones that have low risk and small numbers who nevertheless do have a rep and a committee—what are their injury rates?Throughout this whole process since the Government campaigned on this in 2017 I haven't seen a single case that establishes that there are differences according to this and the risk we run is that the nearly 105000 small businesses that are not currently subject to this regime because they're low risk and small and who could—well will—be subject to the regime and could well have these committees and reps are going to benefit from them. If the Minister can establish that case I'll back down. I'll go quiet. But in the meantime all we are hearing is lofty rhetoric without the substantive case for burdening small businesses who are already burdened with a higher level of compliance than they were six years ago. I want to know whether or not there's any benefit to it.