Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Just following up on that I mean just how does somebody enter the mind of an engager as it's called here—it's a film producer presumably or something like that who's hired somebody. Clause 17(1) included in Supplementary Order Paper 234 says An engager must not terminate or refuse to renew a screen production worker's contract if the decision to do so is motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the worker of any right". And so somehow somewhere along the way when it comes to renewing a contract—which usually most people would regard as something that you have a right to do or not—somehow we've got to get into the mind of the motivations of the person and I'd just be intrigued from the Minister as to how you think that would work in in practice. I'm also interested in the question of—so all individual contracts have to have everything it seems included in a collective contract if there is one in place and then can improve on it in terms of conditions. But you're limiting the ability to have any lesser conditions as part of an individual contract and I was just curious—I could understand partly the thinking behind it but is not the purpose of an individual contract assuming that it is within all the other laws of the land in terms of minimum wage and all those sorts of things and provisions—why it has to be exactly the same as the collective contract.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Responding to the first question raised by the member it goes back to my previous comments really. We can provide wording in the legislation to make it very clear that it is not appropriate to take this kind of retaliatory action in response to people raising complaints. The fact that there's an intents-based test here and I think the precise wording—where am I?—in clause 17 here is "if the decision … is motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the worker of any right power authority or remedy". I mean ultimately this is where authorities who are hearing complaints will need to make judgments based on evidence that is presented by the different parties. That is no different from other aspects of employment law where intent may come into it or indeed criminal law or other aspects of the law where competent authorities need to assess the evidence that parties with different views put before them to determine whether it is likely that that happened. And so we need to leave it with those authorities to determine. The important thing here is to draw a very clear line in the sand and say that it would not be acceptable in the view of this Parliament for someone to have their contract terminated purely because they had raised a legitimate complaint for example about discrimination bullying or harassment which I don't think is something that any of us would wish to see.In respect of the member's second question the building blocks of bargaining under this legislation are effectively that we look to put in place minimum standards should worker organisations choose to initiate for them at the occupational level then potentially the enterprise level and then the individual level. So it's about having base standards that are developed at the occupational level which will likely be more general. But then the bill very specifically provides for the additional flexibility for there to be individual conditions that are negotiated at that level. This is partly a response to some of the critiques that have been put forward that this is about inflexibility. Well no it's not because we clearly build into the legislation that leaves the ability for there to be individual bargaining on top of that core basic set of terms and conditions that will get bargained at the occupational level."