Ms GILLARD (5:52 PM) —by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5) as circulated in my name:

I have a series of amendments that I will move in the House today. It is my intention to speak very briefly to each of them in the hope that that will give some time for other members of the House to make a contribution. Amendments (1) to (5) are very clear in their impact. This bill is supposed to be about a fairness test, it is supposed to be about providing compensation to people if they lose conditions that they otherwise would have enjoyed. The terminology used in the bill is that people get fair compensation but nowhere is ‘fair’ defined. We say if people are going to lose conditions they should get full compensation. So these amendments replace the word ‘fair’ with the word ‘full’. Why would the government be opposed to someone who gives up penalty rates, for example, getting full compensation? Why would the government be opposed to someone who gives up overtime pay or some other term of condition getting full compensation? These amendments will make sure that, even under this sham legislation, at least there is some prospect of a worker getting full compensation rather than fair compensation. I commend these amendments to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with the wish of the House, the question that opposition amendments (1) to (5) be agreed to is deferred until after debate has concluded on all the non-government amendments.