Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I'd like to respond to a number of the questions raised by members around the Chamber. Penny Simmonds raised some questions about family members working in businesses. I've already addressed that issue in Part 1. I'm not sure that it relates to Part 2 but just to be very clear because someone is a family member when they're an employee doesn't mean that the laws of the land in respect to the employment law do not apply to them.Jan Logie spoke to her Supplementary Order Paper 271 which seeks for the right for strikes and lockouts to be allowed under the fair pay agreements legislation. The Government has been very clear right from the beginning that we do not agree with that and we will not agree to that in the committee of the whole House stage. I'd note two points here. The first is that all workers still have the ability to engage in strikes and indeed employers have a right to engage in lockouts in pursuit of collective agreements under the Employment Relations Act (ERA). So nothing is taken away there in respect of those fundamental rights. This is a new process of setting minimum standards at a sector occupation level and we've built in very clear mechanisms primarily through the determinative function of the ERA to ensure that in the event that bargaining becomes protracted or difficult there is a mechanism that helps parties to get agreements settled. So we do not think it is necessary or desirable for strikes or lockouts to be part of the regime and that was indeed one of the recommendations of the working group chaired by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger at the beginning of the process and we've brought through that recommendation and many others in this legislation.Erica Stanford asked about some of the particular provisions in clause 20(2) that relate to good faith—for clarity clause 20(2)(a). Yes the answer is that the behaviour would have to be deliberate serious and sustained" to meet the test there so it's quite a high bar. It is all of those factors taken as one. In respect of clause 20(2)(b)—"is intended to undermine the process of bargaining"—I hesitate to provide particular examples because none of this is particularly new. These provisions are largely built off provisions that are in the existing Employment Relations Act that the authority has interpreted over the years. They're always very fact-specific so when complaints about breach of good faith come before parties to resolve between themselves or end up coming to the authority the authority will look at all of the factors pertaining to that particular bargaining all of the behaviours of the parties in the round to come to a view as to whether there has been a breach of good faith. I would note that paragraph (b) is a particularly high test. It is not only the test of undermining bargaining; it is also intention so the mens rea matters here. It has to be the intention the deliberate intent of the party whether it's the employer or the union to undermine that bargaining before that test is met.Marja Lubeck asked further questions around the right to strike. I've affirmed that the Government's clear position is that there is not a role for that under the fair pay agreements regime. We've been very clear about that. We've been very clear on pushing back against misinformation that has been out there in the public domain around this and so I repeat and underscore that point. It is important that this debate occurs on the basis of fact and not on the basis of misinformation and that's affirmed in the legislation. The right to strike even under the Employment Relations Act are limited in respect of either striking or lockout for the purposes of engaging in collective bargaining and around health and safety and none of that is changed under this legislation."