Woodhouse Michael; Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to continue that line of questioning of Erica Stanford's in relation to bargaining overlap. It seems to me that the clause 139 of Part 7 is without doubt the most comically confusing that I have read in a very long time.So my first question relates to the issue of coverage overlap. It appears to me that the question of coverage overlap is not addressed at any stage in the initiation bargaining process between employer and employee groups. It would strike me as fundamental to understanding and avoiding coverage overlap that that be the case.Now I may be wrong but I've had a good look; I can't see any requirement to make sure that the boundaries of coverage are more clearly articulated to avoid coverage overlap. So that's the first question: is there a way of avoiding this? Is this some sort of belts and braces exception? Because one could think of many many scenarios—I think Mr Goldsmith's already gone through a couple—where industries or occupations do overlap at some point.Then we come to this—the only way I can describe this is a—comical process set out at clause 139 where a party or parties unrelated to the agreement are either bound in or biffed out depending on which agreement is more favourable. So in the scenario of agreement A providing better terms overall then the authority must advise both bargaining sides for agreement B that aren't the party to agreement A that they're no longer a part of agreement B; they're now part of agreement A.Now even if one agrees that there is the potential for coverage overlap there must have been a much-simpler way of joining these two agreements so that if the intention is that the best terms overall are accorded this is a really really odd way of doing it.The other question that I have in respect of that is: what legal advice was provided or asked for in respect of whether this is even lawful in contract law? I mean obviously the legislature has its own cognisance but it seems to me that this is a very bad breach of the principles of contract law and the principle of privity which is that one can't bind third parties to agreements to which they are not a party. They didn't negotiate them. Agreement A is separate from agreement B even if there is overlap. One can't then draw on employers—and employees for that matter although they're probably pretty happy about it—that were not a party to subsequent negotiations and then say that because agreement B provides better terms overall than yours you're now bound by that agreement. Even though those parties had absolutely nothing to do with the negotiations the costs and requirements will fall on them. Even the employees who may be members of one union are effectively told that they're no longer part of the agreement to which they have contributed.That's why this is comical. That's why this is going to turn into a complete farce and the risk to both employers and employees of a complete muddle is very high. So do we have clauses in the bill that prevent to the degree possible coverage overlap? Was there consideration of a much more straightforward process to deal with coverage overlap when terms and conditions are better in separate agreements that avoids this farcical process? And how does that reconcile with the very well-established principles of contract law where one shouldn't be binding parties that are not subject to that agreement?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Responding to the member's question there are provisions I think in Part 3 which set out a structure to avoid as much as possible there being overlap that might emerge subsequently. The member is right perhaps in describing the provisions of Part 7 as being belt and braces" that in the event that that does arise there needs to be clarity as to which agreement applies.In respect of the member's second question which is about his assertion that parties who might not have been involved in another agreement will get brought into it I don't agree with that. By definition if work is covered by another agreement the employer would have had the ability in the bargaining of that agreement to have participated in that process from the point of its initiation."