Dean Jacqui; Watts SimonClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on Title" and "Commencement". The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part.SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): This is the section of the legislation that I have been looking forward to this morning because I've got a pretty serious contribution to make in regards to the title of this bill. I don't think it's going to come as any surprise to the Minister in terms of what my suggestion potentially might be for the title.But before I give a hint of what that is I want to just look at the title which is the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. And of course the definition of "fair" which is one of the significant words in the title of the bill in clause 1 is treating people equally. I think as we have traversed over the past what is nearly three days it is very clear from the conversation that the word "fair" in the title does not correlate with the definition of the word "fair" and that is a great shame.So on that basis I wanted to make a suggestion to the Minister in regards to the title and the suggestion that I wish to propose today which I do hope that the Minister will seriously consider is the title of "Mandatory Union Deal Bill". I think that has quite a nice ring to it. As we've traversed before—[Interruption] As my colleague Erica Stanford has just said it is an accurate description of what is actually included within the contents of this bill. I think is very important from a legislative point of view that we have a title that is reflective of the content of what the bill will actually deliver and that is mandatory union deals. The detail behind that suggestion—I mean I'm happy if the Minister wants to acronym that within brackets so "mandatory union deal (MUD)". So we can call that "MUD" just for simplicity—because we like acronyms don't we down here—and then quite simply we can just refer to this as the "MUD bill".So the reason why I think that title is very sensible and appropriate if you may just let me go through it is that actually the legislation that we've been reviewing is fundamentally unfair to employers and employees—bottom line. This legislation removes the choices and the rights of employees particularly in regards to these agreement deals and on that basis it is in effect forcing individuals in regards to undertaking a deal with the unions hence the use of the words "mandatory union deal" or "MUD" to keep it short. So that is pretty much my first suggestion.I've actually a couple of other suggestions if the Minister doesn't think that that is appropriate but I do think to date he's shown a genuine interest in providing good contributions in terms of the questions that we have discussed. We have thought about this; it's not something I've just come up with off the cuff. I think it has a nice ring to it but most importantly it is actually descriptive of the legislation that this Government is ramming through this House in regards to agreements which are fundamentally not treating people equally that are fundamentally unfair to employers and employees and are removing choice for employers particularly around their rights. That is completely mud in my opinion hence why it should be called the "Mandatory Union Deal Bill"."