McKee Nicole; Woodhouse MichaelNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister thank you for your prompt reply. Although you know when you start politicking instead of actually listening to some of the issues that are being raised—which are genuine issues that have been raised—and the response is We're going to look at integrity but not necessarily balance that out with fairness"; that's exactly what the ACT Party are looking for. The moment you start talking about certain issues you get labelled in certain ways but our second reading speech even said "It's not about transphobia; it's actually just about fairness in sport" and addressing some of those issues of some of the submitters.When I look at the select committee report Minister it says on page 4—the acknowledgment of women and girls having been historically "greatly affected by issues of discrimination in sport and active recreation." It goes on to say that clauses 16 and 20 have been amended to actually recognise women as being stakeholders within this arena. For that we congratulate the committee for looking into it and also making those amendments.We think that it could be stronger if the board could actually be made up of one female within that sport just to actually take on board what is within the select committee report. It's about fairness as well as maintaining that integrity Minister. It's not about having a go at anybody in particular or any type of person but actually being able to have fairness within sport so that it goes hand in hand with the integrity. Thank you Minister.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to make a final comment about clause 50 and leave the Minister and his officials to be vigilant in making sure that when fees are charged they are reasonable in the circumstances. Now the Social Services and Community had—Angie Warren-Clark: Quite the discussion!Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well for all the things that we had to deal with it was actually a little thing that became a quite big thing and a cause of some tension at the end of the process. Maybe we were a bit tired and emotional that day but we got there in the end.Just for the committee's benefit I have had a little bit of experience of—when there are health tests—certain organisations charging like wounded bulls frankly and well above what I know are the reasonable costs for them. It was with that in mind that I wanted to sort of tighten up a little bit on the freedom to charge because ultimately it's going to fall on either the athlete or the national sports organisation. We settled on subclause (2A) "The amount of a fee charged under subsection (2) must be reasonably related to the expenses incurred or to be incurred in relation to the testing conducted."Now that belies a great deal of discussion about what constitutes "reasonably related to the expenses occurred". I guess in professional services it used to be the old way—used to be you'd go one-third one-third one-third: one-third salary one-third overhead and one-third profit. Well it's a lot higher than that now—and the lawyers in the room will probably want to shrink a little bit. But the health sector can also do that and there will be some health tests involved in this regime.I guess the homework for the Minister and officials is to make sure that there is a monitoring regime to ensure that there are benchmarks or some other kind of guidance for these expenses so that it doesn't get silly. That was the intention of the committee in including this clause which is not dissimilar to subclause (2) of clause 49. It will be an issue I think. I just want to make sure that officials continue to—Angie Warren-Clark: Look at the review though. We built the review in remember.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That's right; we do have the review and the review should include any inappropriate charging by stakeholders in the integrity framework because that would be undermining integrity—how ironic would that be? With that I think that's basically what I wanted to say."