Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. I've got a couple of things I want to ask the Minister the Hon Michael Wood about one of them is in relation to a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP).But firstly just sticking with the part we've been talking about around the representation tests I guess the question I've got is around determining whether or not you've met the tests. And I can see here that the union that's seeking to rely on the representation test must provide evidence to the chief executive that the relevant number of employees who would be within the coverage of the proposed fair pay agreement (FPA) are there.What I want to know from the Minister about this part is: what information will he be looking for? The question is: if they claim that they've got 10 percent what information will the Minister be relying on to ensure that's correct? Because the unions won't necessarily hold information around the total workforce. And we've got quite a flexible workforce so you might find that you've got people who are employed say in hospitality who do multiple roles in their job. And it may well be that 50 percent of their job is in for example cleaning which might be something that is being sought to have an FPA on. But the unions don't have that information.So I guess the question for the Minister is: if the union can't come up with a thousand they come up with say 300 or 400 and claim that's 10 percent and provides some sort of evidence how is the Minister going to know whether or not that is 10 percent of the total workforce; where will he get his information from to ensure that that 10 percent threshold is met? Because the unions won't necessarily have that information because obviously not everyone is part of a union and as I mentioned there's quite a flexible workforce of people doing multiple roles. So who holds that information; how do we know what the total workforce is when many people are flexible; and how will we know that that 10 percent has indeed been met? That's my first question.And then I guess the second part of that question is: is there anything in this bill whereby that could be challenged? So if the major employers get together and say Well actually no that's not 10 percent" is there a vehicle within the bill for them to be able to supply evidence to suggest that that is not 10 percent and actually challenge that that representation test has not been met is that something that's been included and if not why not? Because I've not been able to find it. So there's that part.I just wanted to clarify: when the Minister was just talking about the regulations that will come into force around the public interest test and around the low pay will those regulations include the number of people on that low pay? Because that was one of the questions that we asked earlier—that there might be a workforce where there is a small percentage of people that are low paid and if this was being covered by the public interest test. I understand that in regulations it will set what that low pay will be but will it also set the proportion of people that fall into that and will there be a requirement to meet a certain percentage—so 5 percent 10 percent or 20 percent of that workforce? So those are my first questions about that particular part.I just want to move on now to the tabled amendment in the name of my colleague Paul Goldsmith—I'm failing to find the number but we can work it out. It's around clause 39 after subsection (1) and inserts a new subclause (1)(a): an employer must acquire permission from each of their employees before releasing their contact details to the initiating union. Now I do see that in this particular clause there is a requirement that "The employer must not provide the contact details of an employee who has elected … not to have their contact details provided." This sort of adds a belt and braces to that requiring the employer to formally request permission from all of their employees before passing on personal information—contact details email phone number or name—of those employees. So it's just an extra check and balance and step for the employer that they must go through in order to ascertain that one of their employees may well elect not to have their contact details provided because people are very careful around their privacy these days and may well not want their details passed on to a union. Thank you."