Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to move forward to a clause we haven't discussed but is in relation to what we have been talking about—151: Chief executive to check whether coverage overlap exists". Now I want to ask the Minister four specific questions about this. The chief executive in this clause must take the fair pay agreement (FPA) that's been concluded and one that is still under way and determine whether or not there is overlap.My first question is: in this part why—actually in 153(2) there are two different time frames for making that decision: under subclause (1)(a) no later than 10 working days after the proposed agreement is submitted or going back to clause 137 in accordance with that time frame which is 20 working days. So I'm keen to know why there's a difference there in terms of the time frames.But specifically about this idea of overlap as it relates to clause 151 the only thing that the bill ever talks about is there being a potential overlap of two FPAs: one that's been concluded and one that's under way. It doesn't allow for any instances where that might be more than two. As we know at the moment the unions already are gearing up for this bill to be passed and getting under way and so I think that the Minister might be surprised at the number of these that come through. I'm wondering what happens when there are more than two that have potential overlaps. It's not talked about in these particular clauses. Will there be a different process than what's outlined in this bill if there are more than two FPAs that are being negotiated or finalised that may have some form of overlap?The other question I've got is around the very very early stages of a negotiation between the parties. I guess the question there is: in order for the chief executive to determine whether or not there is overlap how far down the negotiation would the parties have to be for the chief executive to determine that there is in fact an overlap? Is it something that she or he will be able to determine very early on in the process or will it be something that comes as a result of the negotiations? I note in clause 151 here that the chief executive can request from the parties their proposed agreements that haven't been finalised yet but are still under way. So at what point in the process would the chief executive be able to be aware that in fact there is an overlap? And if you do have in the case that I was explaining before a potential for three different agreements to have potential overlaps—they could all be at quite different parts of the process: one that was only just beginning; one that was halfway down or close to being finalised; and one that in fact had been finalised. So how would the process then work in terms of identifying the potential overlaps? So those are my questions but also around the difference in time frame.Also just before I finish I wanted to go back to something I mentioned earlier but I missed actually asking about it and that is in terms of the exceptional circumstances. We talked about this earlier Minister around if there are exceptional circumstances then the 20 working day time frame under clause 136 and clause 137 can be extended out. I understand that—the Minister made it clear as to what those exceptional circumstances might be—but then the question that I want to ask is: why is there no time frame given? Every other part of this bill has a time frame attached to it whether it's 10 working days 20 working days or five working days. This particular clause here has no time frame attached to the exceptional circumstances that might exist once there has been determined to be an overlap. I guess that that that decision could go on for an extraordinarily long amount of time given that there's no time frame in the bill—so if the Minister could explain why he hasn't set a time frame in the bill for that."