Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm interested in clause 228O Entitlement to attend FPA meetings" and the requirements for arranging meetings. I note that "if [an] employee has attended 2 or more FPA meetings in relation to the proposed agreement" then "no additional … meetings [are] under this Part." But indeed attendance at two meetings and then the meeting's to "last no longer than 2 hours". Again I said in my last question I'm struggling to get my head around the scale of this and the logistics of how this will all take place if we're talking from Stewart Island up to the Far North—just the logistics of having these meetings and how they are going to only be for two hours. Not every workplace is going to have access to audiovisual equipment. And is it going to be suggested that these might be Zoom meetings what is the logistics of holding meetings with potentially hundreds or thousands of employees across the country to get buy-in and feedback and for people to feel that they are being taken on the journey of negotiations and just how are the logistics of this going to work? And if an employee chooses to go to a meeting in person is the employer going to be obligated to allow them to take half a day's travel to go to the meeting in person? There's nothing here that stipulates that an employee has to join it through a virtual meeting so presumably someone in Invercargill could ask to attend a meeting in Auckland even though the actual duration of the meeting might only be for two hours—it would in fact take a day either side of that to be able to get to the meeting. So I am really struggling with the logistics of how this is all going to work and I note that an employer who fails to comply with the clause is liable to a penalty. We've discussed those applicable amounts back from clause 196 when we were debating that section. So it's real for the employers. They are not wanting to be in a position where they might be subject to an imposition of a significant penalty—up to $20000—if they get this wrong. So just what might the logistics of this look like? And I know we sit here in Parliament and we've got access to all the latest audiovisual equipment but if you are a small cafe out in Orepuki in Western Southland you probably haven't got great coverage out there in terms of being able to get internet coverage to be able to have Zoom meetings etc. so I'm perplexed by the scale of this and just how it logistically is going to work and how people are going to be able to go to a meeting for two hours. It said that an employee who's absent from work for more than two hours is entitled to their ordinary pay for a maximum of two hours but then if an employee still chooses to go to that meeting in person the employer might only have to pay for them for the two hours they're away but then it's that loss of productivity in their business if in fact they take the whole day to get up to a meeting and a day to get back. I know the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety feels that perhaps we are overcomplicating it but he has himself said it's a new process it's a complicated process the scale of it can be significant and I'm interested."