Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair and again I thank Simon O'Connor for his direct questions. Unfortunately I feel I will be repeating myself a little because the questions that he raised—I did address most of those in my previous contribution. However Simon O'Connor asked: why do we not want to hear from the public? We've heard from the public time and time again about this. The member has been in the House for some time. He will recall exactly this bill being considered by two select committees already thousands of submissions—over 97 percent of the public in favour of doing what this bill does. I think we've heard from the public.In terms of complexity I did outline in my previous contribution some of the complexities that we have identified. I can go further. We've not had time really yet to work through all the consequential issues with this proposal as there are many of them but here are some of our concerns in terms of consequential issues that arise from Amy Adams' Supplementary Order Paper 3. Section 71EA of the Act Effect of transfer of entitlement to spouse or partner" would need to be reconsidered in light of this Supplementary Order Paper. The Act uses the primary carer concept—I know it is one Mr O'Connor does not seem to very much like—to work out entitlements for the spouse or partner in relation to the partner's leave. Having two primary carers means section 17 would need to be rewritten to take this into account. There would—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Sorry could you just clarify?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Section 17. There would be consequences on who could and how the two carers could take their keeping-in-touch hours and restrictions would need to be placed on this and thought should be given to whether this could be divided up or if each carer had an entitlement in their own right. Thought would need to be given to how pre-term baby payments would work and whether these could also be shared in which case amendments and consequential amendments would need to be made to the Act.So I'm sure it seemed very straightforward to the National Party when they were doing the drafting but the fact is this is complex and we cannot in good conscience pass Amy Adams' Supplementary Order Paper this evening without dealing with those consequential amendments that would come from it.The final point I want to make is that Mr O'Connor suggested that the Government is supporting Sarah Dowie's Supplementary Order Paper 2 because it is proportionate. That's not why we are supporting it. We're supporting it because it fits with the purpose of the bill. It supports the purpose of the bill. It is proportionate. It is a proportionate change to make but that's not why the Government is supporting it. We're supporting it because it supports the aims of the bill. It fits within the policy intent of the bill. The policy intent as I said earlier of Amy Adams' Supplementary Order Paper is actually quite different from the policy intent of the bill. So I apologise to the committee for repeating myself but I do want to answer members' questions and I hope that has clarified the matter for Mr O'Connor."