Goldsmith Paul; Wood MichaelHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. The point I was making to the Minister who seems very pleased with himself not to have to answer it is just because something is not in a part doesn't mean that the point can't be made that it should be in the part. And the part which deals with what to do with a fair pay agreement (FPA) that isn't up to scratch in some way or does need to be changed in some way—a part that deals with that doesn't have the option of actually eliminating it or repealing it in any way shape or form. The Minister can sort of hide behind some technicality to not answer it but I don't think he serves himself well. He doesn't serve himself well or this Parliament by not doing so. And then it struck me as highly amusing that he would attack our newest MP Mr Uffindell for suggesting that it would be a terrible thing or a ridiculous notion to try and vary an agreement before it had come into place. This was the very same Minister who introduced this bill into the House and on the very same day brought in a variation to the bill that he brought in. Before the bill had been passed he was changing it which goes to show he didn't—Simeon Brown: A pothole in the process.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well yes he's ignoring the pothole in his own eye rather than dealing with the issues that he faces.Marja Lubeck: Taking cheap shots now—talk about the bill.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you for the encouragement on the other side of the Chamber. This has been a long debate; there's no question about that. And the reason why it is a long debate is because it's a very long complicated piece of legislation that is going to fundamentally complicate our working environments. And so what we're left trying to work out is how this works. And the question that I raised and I have an amendment which amends clause 190 which I have referred to in passing but I want to go into a little bit more detail now which again raises this issue of why there is such a weak and low threshold for these changes—I suppose I'm answering my own question as to why the Minister did not include the ability to repeal a fair pay agreement under this part because the hurdle to starting that process of repeal is so ridiculously low; you only need a thousand workers. And so if there are 200000 workers in an industry you only need a thousand of them to start a process to vary or renew or replace the agreement. That's all you need. You just need a handful to get together and then you can change it all and uproot everybody's lives and take them through a long expensive detailed distracting process when people are trying to compete in their businesses against the rest of the world and do well and instead they're mucking around with these complicated processes. So a low threshold is fine for doing that. But you would never see the Minister coming in and saying Well only a thousand of you and then you can start the process to repeal it." because there is no process to repeal it and that is a fundamental flaw in this legislation. Once you're in you're in; you can't get out. And once you're in you'll never get a chance to vote on whether you're in because it just happened regardless. Once you're in you're in and you can't get out. That to me is a disgrace and is one of the many reasons why this bill needs to be repealed.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I've already responded on numerous occasions to the questions and points that have been raised around the representation test of a thousand employees—Hon Paul Goldsmith: Not effectively.Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —and 10 percent. I did so about five minutes ago. The member is wrong when he indicates that there can never be an end to an FPA. FPAs as described in this part have a span of three to five years. If the party that initiated the FPA does not reinitiate it and if there's not a renewal then the FPA will cease to exist."