Woodhouse Michael; Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Strident though Mr Goldsmith's critique of Part 8 was I don't think he went far enough because this is the most confusing and concerning part of the bill so far. I want to just touch on a scenario of parties to an agreement that is being varied. The coverage clause in the interpretation section talks about variations including variations on the work or the type of work and if applicable the industry. So effectively what we have here is once an agreement has been reached—I don't know let's say with the trucking industry—and then some employee decides that it would be good to have the agreement varied to include courier companies that weren't previously in it. Now the employees and the unions are quite happy with that because they want a growth strategy they want to increase the union base and the employers probably don't care so much. They've already gone through that and the costs of bargaining could be spread if there were more employers joining the agreement by amendment.The problem is it doesn't appear to me that Part 8 provides for that new part of the freight sector to be even consulted on whether they want to join it. The only people that need to agree to a variation to the agreement are the existing parties to the agreement and that's in clause 166(1). If they both agree they can do it; if they don't agree they can discontinue it. And there is a possibility at clause 168(1) for a new bargaining party to join it but there is no requirement for them if they are affected by the variation.Now I'd also point out clause 61—we are going slightly back but this is all relevant to Part 8 variations. Clause 61 requires the chief executive to approve an eligible employer joining the bargaining party but it is not required to amend its inter-party side agreement. So not only is it not able automatically to join it doesn't appear able to stay out. And if there is an inter-party side agreement it has no choice but to agree to it.So we've now got this long tentacle of one fair pay agreement having been agreed in an industry or part of an industry drawing in other parties without any approval by them. And my question to the Minister is: what part of that scenario is wrong? Because it's pretty clear that variations can include extending the coverage clause into other types of work and potentially other industries. If that's the case we come back to the problem that I raised in Part 6 which is that fundamental principle of privity in contract law being breached once again where contracts are binding on parties that aren't a party to the agreement. They might get pulled into it incredibly unwillingly but they weren't part of the initial negotiations. So my question Minister is: what part of that scenario is incorrect? Reassure the committee that that scenario could not happen because of my reading of Part 8 that's exactly what could happen. And not only could it happen I believe that's the intent.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Very happy to provide a quick response which I hope puts the member's mind at ease. Clause 169(3)(b) ensures that (3) A variation of a fair pay agreement may relate to any term of the agreement except for a term that specifies—(b) the coverage of the agreement;". So that scenario could not occur."