Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I rise for the purpose of placing on the record the reasons for rejecting the opposition’s amendments. Applying a global test to the National Employment Standards for transitional instruments as suggested by opposition amendments (1) and (2) would deprive almost all employees of the safety net and, we believe, would be unworkable and uncertain. It is inconsistent with the government’s commitment to ensuring that the National Employment Standards, which underpin employment conditions across the country, are operational from 1 January 2010. The employer cost orders proposed by opposition amendment (4) are also unnecessary, we believe. The award modernisation request already requires the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to consider transitional arrangements and the government has made a submission urging the commission to take account of increased or decreased labour costs in each industry or occupation.

Opposition amendment (7) would take away the ability of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to tailor transitional arrangements for particular industries or sectors, entrenching state based inconsistencies in terms and conditions for another five years, and then providing that they must automatically cease. This big bang approach, we believe, is a recipe for chaos. The commission is best placed to set out an orderly transitional arrangement and arrangements in the awards themselves. Opposition amendment (3) would require the commission to take into account business profitability in carrying out award modernisation. We note that this concept is already covered off in the existing criteria, which require the commission to consider economic sustainability, reducing the regulatory burden on business, the creation of jobs, productivity, high levels of employment and also labour force participation.

See this speech in context