Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair. It's a great pleasure to be joining the debate within this committee on the Fair Pay Agreements Bill—so-called. Like my colleague Paul Goldsmith and indeed the Minister I will be focusing on Part 1. In particular I wanted to have some advice and guidance from the Minister in relation to various definitions within that.The first is the phrase bargaining side" which is defined within Part 1 to mean an employee bargaining side or an employer bargaining side and I just wonder if the Minister can speak a bit about the language chosen there—if there is a particular reason that the word "side" was used. I know oftentimes it has an adversarial tone: one might be on different sides of an argument different sides of a battle and so forth. I would love to suggest to the Minister some appropriate synonyms that could perhaps be used in its place but following the passage of the Plain Language Bill last night I would be in danger of being convicted under that so I don't dare get out the thesaurus to suggest any alternative language. So I wonder if the Minister can speak about the choice of language there: "bargaining side" as opposed to some other way of denoting that there might be different perspectives. If the spirit of the legislation is to ensure that there is a discussion reaching a mutually agreeable outcome either the parties themselves doing so or failing that by heading off to the authority then I wonder if he might contemplate different language to be used in relation to that meaning of what is now "bargaining side".I've got a couple of other questions still within this section so unless the Minister's indicating that he wants to leap to his feet immediately and put me right on that I'll continue. One is a slightly more substantive point which goes to the definition—and indeed the role—of eligible employer associations. The significance of that type of entity is that these are representative bodies that can speak for one side or the other and there are various criteria set out in Part 1 to say what an eligible employer association is. Of course there are types of employers that are not generally covered by a business association and I note that that's the starting point of the legislation—actually I think the finishing point too in terms of groups that can be representative bodies representing the interests of employers.I note that charities and NGOs would often not already be members of a business association in a chamber of commerce kind of way and yet they are no less affected by employment law and labour relations and oftentimes they're operating in a very constrained economic set of circumstances. Indeed they've made a choice in becoming a charity—almost invariably; I don't want to open another can of worms in terms of charities law and the anomalies within that. But roughly speaking we're talking about enterprises that are not-for-profit so I wonder if it's reasonable to expect the employment interests of those kinds of groups to be represented by a definition that contemplates—indeed requires—that business associations are to be the representatives for such employers.One can think too of sole traders who might employ from time to time—I know that might sound like a contradiction in terms that a sole trader might be joined by others who are doing the work and they're not necessarily a pure sole trader in that sense. But in terms of the type of legal entity someone who is in private practice—for example a lawyer—might not be represented by an employer association; they might be part of a bar association or some other professional group. So I wonder if the Minister can speak a little bit about types of employment situations that aren't covered by the standard conception of an employer who is a person or a group making widgets who goes along to their chamber of commerce and says "I want you to go in to bat for me to play for my side of the argument my team"—indeed.I have a couple more points that I'll leave for now but I look forward to the opportunity to cover if I may. But for now I'll put those two different points in front of the Minister and look forward to any response he can give us."