Mr. Ronnie Neville:

At the outset, we acknowledged that various written submissions and oral presentations have been made which covered numerous aspects of the Bill, including legal issues. Given the time allowed on foot of the invitation to be present, for which we are grateful, we deliberately did not seek to go over all the relevant sections or indeed to support or acknowledge some of the other recommendations or observations offered, including Dr. Ryan's regarding potential improvements from a worker's perspective.

As Ms Hyde, as chair of the committee observed, we act for both sides of the equation. We identified concerns over potential challenge to the legislation. That does not mean to say we do not agree with potential improvements, including, for example, compensation as an alternative to merely making an order for an increase in hours, or a suggestion that some form of penalisation clause might be built in to protect a worker. Our not making that express recommendation does not mean we do not acknowledge that these issues exist.

The two main concerns we have with the Bill as drafted relate to potential constitutional challenge. These are the two most striking points that occurred to us and perhaps were ones that did not seem to have been acknowledged, particularly the potential for block-building regarding requests. It is not necessarily in circumstances that we are making representations for employers that we observe that an employee could conceivably make repeated requests every six months to effectively ramp up their hours over a period of time.