Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair and thanks to the Minister for engaging with my previous questions. I have a couple more questions obviously also in Part 1 and also still within the definition or interpretation section. The meaning of court" is defined to be the Employment Court and in a separate but related point to that made by my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith in terms of the difficulty of accessing justice—my point's a slightly different one. I wonder if the definition is intended to include by implication if not explicitly that other courts that are hearing the same matters are effectively included in the way that the "court" is able to operate—so if there are appeal courts that are able to hear matters on appeal from the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court and if decisions made under this regime would be subject to judicial review by the High Court. The Minister may or may not know the answer but if he does then I think it would be helpful just for the sake of clarity. I'm not going to suggest that the legislation be amended explicitly in that way at this stage of the game but nevertheless an important function of course of the committee of the whole House stage is to ensure that for those charged with administering the legislation—either they're sort of actively involved or of course those adjudicating in some way or other its actions flowing from it—that can be helpful.I will just go back briefly if I may to a point that the Minister made in response to the question I have made about employers or those affected by employment arrangements who aren't necessarily businesses in that typical sense. I think with respect the Minister may have missed my point when he's pointed out that a lot of these NGOs are already bound by collective agreements or arrangements. Well that may be so of course but it's not all of them and of course that's part of the issue at play substantively between the different philosophies that underpin parties' approach to the bill. The fact that there may be a large proportion of the charitable sector that's engaged in collective arrangements implies all the more strongly that those who've chosen not to have made a conscious choice not to. And to remove that choice from them seems to me a strange thing and the pointing out by the Minister that there's a degree of familiarity of NGOs with this kind of arrangement or approach isn't really the point. It's not about familiarity so much as voluntary participation that's at issue in a philosophical or policy kind of way.Other questions that I had go again to the idea of these associations or representative bodies and we've got a definition of an eligible employer association. It talks about a constitution enabling the association to reflect the collective interests of its covered members. And I wonder if the Minister contemplates that the constitution would have to explicitly enable such representation for the purposes of bargaining and so forth or if it would be enough that that would be implicit in an existing constitution. The significance of course is that for incorporated societies that don't currently have a constitution that says that its members agree to be bound by its actions for the purpose of the Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022—and of course they don't yet because such a thing does not exist. I wonder if the Minister's considered the implication that there's going to be a lot of constitutions and rules that are going to need to be changed internally by special general meeting and uploaded to the incorporated society's register and so on. And if that's the case if that's merely the price of doing this business in the Minister's mind then fair enough as far as it goes but I think it would be good for everyone who's sitting around one of those tables to know exactly what is involved. And if the Minister happens to know for a bonus point how many such associations there are in New Zealand just sort of to get a scale of the amount of additional administration that's going to be required in that regard that would be good but I don't expect that.Then my final point which I'll make within this five-minute call—and again it's a question and an invitation to the Minister to explain anything he can in this space—is that the contact details again as defined within Part 1 in relation to an employee means certain things about them and the way they can be contacted. I wonder if the Minister has considered how this interacts with the Privacy Act and the information privacy principles within that. Is it possible for example for an employee to opt out of having some of those contact details—for example their phone number—not used for this purpose? I think that would be a reasonable expectation albeit that the legislation does make clear that the regime as a whole cannot be contracted out of. So the Minister's thoughts on those points would be much appreciated."