SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Mr Chair if I can respond to a couple of further questions. The two questions from Mr Watts are effectively about threshold questions—who's brought into the ambit of the Act and who's not so clause 11(3)(a) and (b) refer to effectively looking back three years and the 50 percent threshold. As I said before you've effectively got to have some sort of an assessment as to the degree to which people are primarily employed doing this kind of work. You wouldn't want a situation where you have a de minimis which is very low and maybe you know 1 percent of the person's earnings over a period of time have been from this kind of work—you wouldn't necessarily be wanting to catch them within that. So the provisions at clause 11(3)(a) and (b) are effectively about establishing a reasonable threshold and as advised previously that was worked through with the screen industry working group which included the producers the unions and the guilds and they thought that was reasonable. In respect of how that impacts the tax affairs of the person concerned given the nature of the employment relationship is that the person is a contractor the individual will need to work through what their tax obligations are there. But I don't actually think there would necessarily be a huge impact for them there.In terms of volunteers clause 11(4) is simply confirming that people who might be there in some sort of a volunteer capacity the legislation will not provide to them and the various bargaining rights and other things that are contained in the legislation will not apply to someone like perhaps a student who has come in to have a look at a production for a few hours and get a bit of experience about how these things work and is sweeping the floor—they won't need to get brought into the ambit of the legislation. So the meaning of the volunteer is simply the normal meaning of the word volunteer" and that is there to ensure that we don't inadvertently bring in a group of people for whom there was never any intention to do so.In respect of Mr Goldsmith's questions I mean they really go to the fundamental reason why we have this piece of legislation in place. The Government's view is that we're actually dealing with some pretty fundamental rights that workers have and should have and that are generally internationally recognised—that being the right to engage in collective bargaining. It's not the view of the Government that we should be taking away what are fundamental international labour rights for any reason including the whims and wishes of international companies. Those are basic building blocks of a decent civilised society. International labour rights including the right to collectively bargain are generally considered under international jurisprudence to be an important part of the human rights framework. So we simply don't have any truck with the arguments that there might be someone who wants to invest here that wants us to remove fundamental rights and therefore we should do that—we just don't accept that. The member opposite might but that is a fundamental difference of view.In respect of when the Act comes into force as reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper that is simply a pragmatic and straightforward arrangement as I've described before."