Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd just like to thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Julie Anne Genter for being available for our questions. Obviously there's a relatively significant Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—548—that has been made available for us that I've got some specific questions to ask the Minister about. They're quite technical; so I hope that she doesn't mind that I've written them down. I'm going to read them out because I don't want to get it wrong.I want to specifically talk about new section 13DB. It sets out the requirements for a union raising a pay equity claim. These requirements are almost the same as the requirements for an individual raising a claim but there is one additional requirement; that is a claim that's raised by one or more unions with multiple employers must include a brief explanation of how the work performed by the employees covered by the claim is considered to be the same or substantially similar. So my question is: does this explanation have to be taken as fact? What if the employers reject the premise that the work is the same or substantially the same? And if they reject that premise can it be the basis for an employer deciding that the claim is not arguable?Hon Julie Anne Genter: Do you want to take another—ERICA STANFORD: Oh I'll carry on in that case. Just a broader point for the Minister while she's getting some advice potentially: the SOP also provides for large multi-employer multi-union claims to be made. This is a far more general question. So these pay equity claims to date have generally been made when the State's been the employer but I guess I want to question the Minister on how manageable she thinks these claims will be when they have to apply to private sector claims particularly occupations that are largely employed by a large number of small businesses—how she thinks that will be manageable.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): I thank the member for her questions. With respect to the first one as long as one party considers the comparator to be relevant it can be used. So I don't believe both parties need to consider it. As long as one or both parties consider the comparator relevant it can be used as part of a process. But ultimately it is a bargaining approach and the final outcome will depend on what both parties get to looking at one or more comparators. And I would say that in most cases that I've seen undertaken so far there has been more than one comparator used. So usually a settlement wouldn't hinge on just one comparator at least not in my experience.With respect to the second question my feeling is that allowing a more consolidated approach with multiple employers will be better for achieving pay equity and I think it will be more manageable for businesses who have employees who are employed in similar or you know the same work for them to be able to work together in this process. It will mean they just have to go through it once that they've got the support of other businesses who are in the same position and I think that ultimately that's going to be a much more practical way to get good pay equity outcomes across the economy than if every individual small business had to deal with claims.