Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to close the debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014. I would like to thank all the members for their contributions to this debate. The Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014 implements the government's commitment to sensible, harmonious and productive bargaining. The changes were clearly stated in the coalition's policy to improve the Fair Work laws and will help to restore the balance of the workplace relations system back to the sensible centre.

A key measure of the bill is to ensure that productivity is put back on the enterprise bargaining agenda. Contrary to claims from some of those opposite, improving productivity does not necessarily mean working harder; it can mean working smarter and more effectively. This bill includes a new common-sense requirement. The Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that productivity improvements were discussed in the course of bargaining before an enterprise agreement can be approved. The measure will make sure productivity is actively considered by employers and employees during negotiations for a new enterprise agreement.

This bill does not detract from the good faith bargaining requirements in the act. The requirement to discuss productivity will be subject to the good faith bargaining provisions in the same way that all bargaining discussions are subject to the good faith process requirements.

I reject claims by members opposite during this debate that this new requirement will increase red tape and uncertainty. A requirement to discuss productivity is not onerous. The Fair Work Commission already requires employers to fill out statutory declarations for enterprise agreement approvals so the commission can be satisfied that the constant and numerous requirements in the act are met. To suggest that providing confirmation that productivity was discussed is somehow going to hamper the process is clearly absurd.

Those opposite have also suggested the Fair Work Commission needs a legislated definition of productivity in order to enforce the new requirement. The term 'productivity' already features heavily in the objects of the Fair Work Act, without a legislative definition. So how could it sensibly be said that the organisation which oversees the act would not be able to determine if a measure raised during bargaining would impact productivity? Further data from the Department of Employment indicates that around 48 per cent of enterprise agreements approved between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2014 contain clauses on commitments to improved productivity. Not only does this demonstrate that the Fair Work Commission is routinely assessing and approving agreements with productivity clauses; it also shows that this amendment will complement what many parties clearly already do.

It has been suggested that an employer might refuse to discuss productivity in order to stall negotiations. This argument is nothing but a red herring. In the event that this unlikely scenario did arise, the other bargaining parties can simply seek a bargaining order to require the employer to bargain in good faith. In this way the productivity discussion is no different to other bargaining discussions under the act.

The Fair Work Act currently provides that industrial action can occur before genuine and meaningful talks for enterprise agreements have taken place. The government's firm view is that protected industrial action should always be considered a last resort; not the first step in bargaining, as the current provisions allow.

The bill will clarify the 'genuinely trying to reach an agreement test' which is a test that must be satisfied before a protected action ballot can occur. By providing more guidance on how this test is to be satisfied, it makes this requirement more transparent. This will create greater certainty for all parties. Contrary to the claims of the shadow minister, it does not limit the discretion of the Fair Work Commission. It is a non-exhaustive list and it is clearly stated the commission must have regard to all relevant circumstances, not just those on the list.

These amendments will ensure a protected industrial action can only be taken where there have been genuine and meaningful discussions between the parties or where the applicant for the industrial action ballot order has made reasonable efforts in meaningful discussions with the employer.

I call on all members to support the passage of this bill and I again thank all members who participated in the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context