O'Connor GregMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. Yeah I did make a comment in my opening remarks that it is very likely that a court would apply the Legislation Act and conclude that only new agreements would have to contain this new required content. But I think it's important to really dig a little bit deeper into what the Supplementary Order Paper seeks to change. Currently sections 54 and 65 of the Employment Relations Act—these were made to both the collective agreements as well as the individual employment agreements—require that both types of these agreements and it's specified in the law must contain a plain-language explanation of the services for the resolution of employment relationship problems including a reference to the period of 90 days within which a personal grievance must be raised. So what clauses 4 and 5 of the bill do is they amend sections 54 and 65 of the Employment Relations Act. So in both types of agreement the plain-language explanation of the services available for resolution of employment relationship problems will need to then include a reference to this new 12month time limit for a personal grievance in respect to sexual harassment. And each agreement also must continue to reference that 90-day limit that applies to any other type of personal grievance. The question from the member with regards to unintended consequences is a really interesting one. Talking about some unintended impact potentially leave can be granted for a personal grievance to be raised outside of the time limit so section 115 is discretionary. The authority is not required to find the lack of provision regarding the 12month period as extraordinary. I guess what I would add to that is that because section 115 specified exceptional circumstances" it includes where the employee's employment agreement doesn't contain the explanation concerning the resolution of employment relations problems required by section 54 or 65. So a court could potentially hold that because it was not specified within an employment agreement the reasons for granting leave aren't there. So the new law could potentially be affected because the existing employment agreement wasn't updated. I mean we had advice on this and it was said that that was an unlikely decision that the court could come to but I guess that is where the clarity comes in that we needed to provide because uncertainty in these areas and in grey provisions would only be helpful for the lawyers trying to argue it. What was the other question? I spoke about the court that would be likely to apply the Legislation Act so that also goes to the comment of the shoddy oversight and there's no difference in the requirements for collective agreements and individual employment agreements which I think was the third question on process with regards to personal grievances. So I think I've addressed all those three questions. Thank you very much.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Marja Lubeck's amendment to the Schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 331 be agreed to Amendment agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill."