Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I reject these amendments that have been proposed by the member for Gorton to the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017. This is actually a topic where I have some experience. For four years before coming to this place, I was the CEO of the National Retail Association. It participated strongly in some of those previous four-yearly reviews.

I have to say that, fundamentally, these amendments that we are considering right now are really about the opposition—the Labor Party—backflipping on their previously strongly-held position that there should be an independent umpire which ascertains these key matters. Or should this be, ultimately, a decision for this parliament? That really comes down to a question like this on the details: do we here in the parliament think that we have the skills, the knowledge and the expertise to decide, for instance, that in the General Retail Industry Award or in the Fast Food Industry Award or in the Hair and Beauty Industry Award a particular person working at a particular level gets, say, $19.60 or $21.30 or some other amount at a key hour of the day in standard work hours? What should the loading be, specifically, once they have worked a full shift? What should it look like when they are doing some overtime? What uniform allowances might apply? What should the different loadings be if they work on, say, a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday?

This is complicated stuff, and it is for that reason that these decisions were put into the hands of an independent umpire and independent expert by the opposition so many years ago. I do worry strongly about putting these sorts of decisions back into the hands of politicians, when I consider some of the skill sets, experiences and lack of diversity that exists in this place—particularly on the opposite side of the chamber. It is really important to have an independent umpire for matters like this, just as interest rate decisions, many decades ago, were taken out of the hands of this parliament and put into the hands of the independent experts of the Reserve Bank of Australia. That was done specifically to remove any suggestion of political interference. Decisions about employment awards and conditions fall into the same category. They are far too important to have any suggestion of political interference. It is done this way to ensure that outcomes not only are not political but are evidence based.

The decision that those opposite are currently railing against was a decision where the Fair Work Commission took months—years, in fact—studying all of the evidence and hearing from thousands upon thousands of submissions, both written and verbal. They cross-examined witnesses. They considered expert reports that were commissioned by various parties. They carefully considered the views of both unions and employer organisations, along with many experts, to come up with that decision, and on balance they decided that, when they weighed up the competing interests, it was of net benefit to workers and to the economy as a whole to reduce penalty rates in four key awards, in exchange for the huge gains in employment that would be seen in those sectors. So, effectively, they performed the very difficult task of balancing the competing interests of existing workers in the workforce with those currently outside the workforce, the 400,000 or 500,000 unemployed people in this country who are looking for work and want to get a toehold in the job market and certainly deserve the dignity that they would be afforded if they could get such a job.

See this speech in context