Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm pleased to take a short call on this to speak primarily to the tabled amendment in my name to make an amendment to clause 160A.But first up when we've been hearing a bit of discussion from some members—from the National Party in particular—around the danger of unions I want to take a quick second to celebrate the successes of the unions today. Winning against Uber and clarifying that Uber drivers are employees which is a life-changing decision for people here as well as around the world. Power to the union I say. And also for the Public Service Association's win for social workers in the community towards pay equity. Evidence of the brilliance and benefit to our communities of collective organising which is related to this bill.Simeon Brown: I hear the 1970s calling.JAN LOGIE: Cheer before your eyebrows go any higher. So back to the amendment to clause 160A. In the select committee process we had a bit of discussion around application and effect of the fair pay agreement. And some of the discussion that was raised earlier around: how do you know which one—if there are two—to apply to?The committee made some amendments to ensure that where at least 25 percent of an employee's work is covered by a fair pay agreement (FPA) that employee is covered by that FPA. If two or more FPAs meet this 25 percent threshold the FPA that covers the largest portion of the employee's work should apply.And the third point being assessments about which FPA applies to employees should be based on work done within a reasonable period of the date of the assessment taking into account the employee's particular circumstances. We kind of went through a bit of interrogation on that in the committee and I was alright with it. But on further reflection I actually worry—and which is the point of the amendment that I've put up—that this may create a bonanza for our courts as we debate: actually is it 25 percent of the job or not and is it covering the largest portion of somebody's job as well as the point of the assessment being done within a reasonable period but then that assessment is made and then a few weeks later the employer makes some changes to the job.And actually it could be quite easy for the employer to set this up to target their advantage and that would require the employee to take the case to court to be able to ensure that they get the best possible outcome. So what my amendment is proposing is—and this has the support of the Council of Trade Unions and the collective voice of workers because they shared those and brought those concerns to me. So the proposal is: an employee meets the threshold to be covered in relation to a fair pay agreement if the employee performs work or a type of work that is within the coverage of the fair pay agreement and if an employee performs work for the same employer that could be covered by more than one FPA the employee may elect which FPA applies to their role.So in some ways this is an echoing of what happens in Australia where their law is basically set up so that it's what's best for the employee and the best overall outcome. And the assessment of that overall outcome is from the perspective of the employee so it really is giving them the power to make that assessment. It'll keep it out of the courts it'll keep it simple and it'll ensure that the goal of this legislation—which is for us to raise the collective outcomes for working people in this country—is most easily achieved I would argue.And like there are these examples of crossover where supermarket staff may be stacking shelves and driving. And the assessment of 25 percent of their time could be quite difficult particularly as that moves across time. An assessment may be done to benefit an employer at one point in time and a few weeks later subtly slowly the job changes and the cost to the employer is reduced.