Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to talk to the Minister and ask him some questions around Part 2 clause 20 the Penalty for the breach of … good faith". So this clause of the bill talks about if employers are meddling in the system beforehand trying to persuade their employees not to start the process not to take part in the process or not to ratify. So it talks here about—if they do that then there is a penalty clause but it talks about in clause 20(2A)(a) and (b) those actions being "deliberate serious and sustained" or "is intended to undermine the process of bargaining." The penalty for this laid out in clause 196 is up to $20000; or $40000 if it's not an individual. So it's a serious penalty. And I wanted to ask the Minister some questions—around clause 20(2A)(a)—about the "deliberate serious and sustained." Do all of those criteria need to be met? Because at the moment it's not and and and; it's "deliberate" "serious" and "sustained." So what is the test? Because we're talking about quite a big penalty here for the individual. Can the Minister explain that requirement to be "deliberate serious and sustained"; does it need to be all three of those or just one of those? Because it does use the word "and" there so I presume it has to be serious and sustained. Does it need to be deliberate as well—so all three of those need to be met in the test?And then the next part is intended to undermine the process of bargaining. So I guess my next question is: what would be the test there? Because if you go back to clause 20(1) where it talks about the employer persuading their employees "not to participate in initiating bargaining [for] or ratifying …"—what is the I guess level of undermining that he is expecting to be met in that "intended to undermine". And if he could give us some examples but I guess at the very low level where an employer gives everyone a pay rise and gives them an extra week's holiday or to try and subvert the course of the initiation by doing something that would give their employees a reason not to enter bargaining—in this case if they improved conditions and pay slightly—would that be deliberate or serious enough to meet that test? Or would the Minister expect that that would be something intended to undermine the process of bargaining where an employer is trying to do the right thing I guess but also trying to avoid going into bargaining—especially if it's a really big employer or a couple of really big employers where they're like "Well we really don't want to go into this we don't want to have a price or wage floor. Let's improve conditions and pay slightly to try and discourage our employees from entering bargaining."? I guess my question to the Minister is: does that meet the test of intending to undermine the process of bargaining? That's just one example but there are many others. If the Minister could give us some examples of what could meet that test. I mean there are some obvious example—such as if the employer was to actually physically say to them "Don't do this or you'll lose your job."—I get that. But there is a big grey area in the middle there and I'm quite keen for the Minister to explore where that line is where it's not intended to undermine the process of bargaining. But also going back to my earlier question around deliberate serious and sustained—does it have to meet all three of those just two of those or one of those in that part? Because as I say it is a significant penalty and just understanding where the lines are and how that test is met I think is very important. So if the Minister's able to go into that that would be appreciated."