Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I'm happy to address the questions raised by Erica Stanford and the Hon Paul Goldsmith which mainly go to queries around the representation test. Firstly it's just important to clarify that that test is to the satisfaction of the chief executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE)—one or tother of the members mentioned the Minister there. It's not a role for a Minister; it's a role that sits with the chief executive and they have to be satisfied. That is a duty and a test that has to be met to the satisfaction of the chief executive of MBIE taking into account the application that is made and if they choose to open up for submissions additional information that comes forward most likely from employers. So in particular respect of the 10 percent test—and there was a question here. The question was: well how would there be confirmation that a group of workers who had initiated on that pathway did represent 10 percent? That is where the chief executive of MBIE could directly engage with employers to test out the number of people who are within that coverage. So people who are seeking initiation have to be within the coverage that is being claimed for. They could receive that information from employers. In answer to Erica Stanford's question: yes that would be a judicially reviewable action from the chief executive of MBIE. In terms of the question around the proportion of people who are low-paid that goes back to a previous answer I have given which is that that can be set by regulations. That's in new clause 29A(3)—the question around the proportion of people who would have to be low-paid. Obviously you'll have sectors where the vast majority of people most of us would agree are low-paid and we'll have a small number who are not and so reasonable proportions will be set there through the process of regulations. I acknowledge the member for her comments around the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) seeking changes around the contact details process. That is not an SOP that the Government will be agreeing to. We have set in place in the legislation a very clear process. People will be able to opt out if they do not want their contact details passed on and we think that that is broadly satisfactory. In terms of clarity around coverage which Paul Goldsmith had questions around this goes to clause 31. As I have outlined previously the Government again has the ability to set regulations to provide clarity around coverage and I've confirmed to the committee my intention that we'll be looking to use the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) and Australia and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) codes there which are well understood and provide good clarity. The reason we want to do that through regulations is that it could be that things evolve in terms of the tools that are used by employers to understand job roles and job families. ANZSCO and ANZSIC are the most useful tool now but if that changed we'd want to provide the flexibility there. Then in terms of the time frames—the 30 days or 45 days for MBIE to make assessments and confirm—this was a change made by the Education and Workforce Committee who in response to submissions all round actually did put in place a number of changes to make sure that the process moves through relatively expeditiously. The reason that it's six months after commencement is there is a possibility at the outset that you might get a large number of applications come in at once and that could be difficult for MBIE to process. So in that time they have to process them and respond in a way that's reasonably practicable but beyond that point you'd then expect applications to come in a more staggered way and that's where the stricter 30/45-day requirement will come in there and we think that is important to ensure that ultimately the entity who is responsible for the system is performing their duties in a reasonably efficient way.