Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Madam Chair thank you and thank you to members for their questions as we carry on with this committee stage of the debate.In respect of the Hon Michael Woodhouse's questions which relate to clause 120 and minimum wage exemption permits I think the key point to be aware of here is that exemption permits will effectively operate in the same way against pay that is set through a fair pay agreement (FPA) as they will act as against the minimum wage.The important thing here is that FPAs will set the minimum legal entitlement for the purposes of pay. It's just an important point to reinforce that when FPAs are established they will not actually have the legal character of individual employment agreements or collective employment agreements: they will be brought into force via statute and will form the minimum legal entitlements for certain terms and conditions that are described in this part including pay.So effectively this provision will work in the same way as it works as against the minimum wage. If a permit says 80 percent of the minimum wage it will apply to 80 percent of the minimum rate in the FPA. So effectively the relativity of that person who the exemption permit might apply to because of their disability will be retained. If there wasn't this mechanism in there those people would potentially end up being paid disproportionately less than other workers otherwise. I'm afraid I don't have information to hand—and neither do officials—in terms of the percentage of people who have a percentage. I'm happy to try and find that out but we don't have that at the moment.In respect of whether this will have a negative effect on employment this is really a broader question and debate around the Government's intention that FPAs will improve pay and conditions for many workers who they cover. Our view on the whole is that that will not negatively impact employees. I accept some members opposite might have a different view on that as just a difference of view but we do not believe so.In response to Mr Uffindell's question he notes that the financial services sector is large and so how will minimum rates apply across a large sector that might have varied roles? Well I think the core answer here is one that we've canvassed quite a bit in this debate which is that FPAs set minimum standards and there is capacity for employers employees and unions—at the collective bargaining or individual bargaining level—to vary terms and conditions over and above those minimum standards. So in the same way that there might be a collective agreement that's in place at the moment that sets minimum conditions people can still have more than what's in there just not less than what is in there.In terms of questions about mandatory content in 114(1)(d)(iii) I think it's a somewhat unlikely example he raises but it's theoretically possible that the good stockbrokers and analysts of Queen Street might want to organise themselves into an FPA. The key point here is that the Government will not set terms and conditions for those people. They will through their representative mechanisms bargain for what they think are appropriate terms and conditions in respect of hours or overtime or whatever.The mandatory-to-agree provisions described in this part are simply headers. What is actually then bargained and agreed for each of those mandatory terms and conditions is entirely up to the parties to work through as they see fit—and will inevitably vary from FPA to FPA depending on the nature of that occupation or that sector and what seems sensible to the parties who are at the table. And really that same point applies to the provisions around training and development. I note we received very strong representations at select committee—and this is one of the changes made at select committee—that training and development should be something that's in here because a core goal of FPAs is to drive a more productive workforce that provides more and better training pathways for people. But exactly how that is established will be up to the parties to bargain for themselves. It could be that the parties bargain for themselves that there is not a substantive additional requirement in place.