Stanford Erica; Wood MichaelERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. Right the penalties part. In a similar vein to my colleague Paul Goldsmith it's interesting to go back and look at some of the clauses that will fall into these penalty clauses and one of those is clause 16 right back at the beginning the Undue influence" clause which could see a penalty of up to $20000. So in this instance I want to talk to the Minister about the ability for a bargaining party lead on the employee's side in the case of most likely it would usually be a union to be fined under this fining section when it comes to undue influence. Under clause 16(1)(a) undue influence is said to be for the purposes of bargaining "to become or remain a member of a union [or] a particular union" right? So that then relates back to the fining regime. Yet there is the possibility in this legislation earlier on in this bill for a union to be able to bargain for their union fees to be covered. Does that mean in this particular instance that if a union prior to going into bargaining or during bargaining were to ask or tell potential members that "Hey if you join up we're going to negotiate your fees back so it's basically free to join the union for the purposes of this bargaining." would that then fall under this penalty regime and could then the union in that case be liable for a penalty not exceeding $20000 or $40000? So particularly around the unions and their ability to try and gain membership by using that particular clause would they fall under this penalty regime?The other question I've got around the penalty regime is: is it possible for an employer who restructures their affairs prior to or during bargaining to avoid having their staff covered under the fair pay agreement (FPA)? I take the example of the Four Square in Whangaroa where you've got four workers each of them share four different tasks rather than paying them all under—let's say one of the things that they do 25 percent each is cleaning there is a cleaning FPA going on if the employer was to restructure so that only one of them did cleaning full time and the rest of them didn't so to have to avoid paying all of them under the new FPA is it possible under these penalty clauses for the business to be fined or attract a penalty for restructuring their affairs during or before or even after an FPA if their workforce was flexible and they then made it less flexible?So I'm keen to get answers on those—that last part around the employer restricting their affairs. But also in the case of a union who's offering membership and using the fact that there will be the ability to have the person's fees covered in the agreement as part of the coaxing into the union—would that then fall under these fees as well. So just those two parts.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Mr Chair. I think we're into about the ninth hour of this committee stage and all of it is happily emblazoned on my memory. So I do recall that on Thursday afternoon at some point I did explain very clearly that a union advocating to employees about what improvements they might be able to make to terms and conditions including the negotiation of the union recognition payment would not constitute undue influence.Secondly in respect of an employer who engaged in restructuring employers are not prevented from engaging in restructuring under the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. They would of course under the Employment Relations Act be required to engage in that process in good faith and provided they did that for genuine business reasons and in good faith there is no reason to expect that they would be liable for any penalties under this section."