Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (9) together:

(1)    Schedule 3, Part 5, item 23, page 32 (lines 6 to 12), omit subitem (1) and note 1, substitute:

(1)    Where a transitional instrument deals with a matter that is dealt with under the National Employment Standards, the transitional instrument is of no effect  to the extent that the overall entitlements of the  transitional instrument in relation to the matter are detrimental to the employee when compared to the overall entitlements of the National Employment Standards in relation to the matter.

(2)    Schedule 3, Part 5, item 23, page 32, line 24, omit “in any respect”.

(3)    Schedule 5, after Part 3, page 61 (after line 11) insert:

Part 4 – Relief from increased labour costs

14  Part 10A award modernisation process is not intended to result in an increase in labour costs

(1)    The Part 10A award modernisation process is not intended to result in an increase in labour costs for employers.

(2)    An employer’s labour costs in respect to an employee or outworker is the actual cost to the employer to employ the employee or engage the outworker:

                  (a)    including wages and incentive-based payments, and additional amounts such as allowances and overtime; but

                  (b)    disregarding the effect of any deductions that are made as permitted by section 324 of the FW Act.

Note:                Deductions permitted by section 324 of the FW Act may (for example) include deductions under salary sacrificing arrangements.

(3)    An employer suffers a modernisation-related increase in labour costs in respect to any employee or outworker if, and only if:

                  (a)    a modern award made in the Part 10A award modernisation process starts to apply to the employer when the award comes into operation; and

                  (b)    the employer’s labour costs are higher after the modern award comes into operation than what the employer’s labour costs were immediately before the modern award came into operation; and

                  (c)    the increase in labour costs is attributable to the Part 10A award modernisation process.

15  Orders remedying an increase in labour costs

(1)    If FWA is satisfied that an employer, or a class of employers, to whom a modern award applies, has suffered a modernisation-related increase in labour costs, FWA may make an order (a relief from increased costs order) varying particular terms of the modern award as they relate to the employer or class of employers, as FWA considers appropriate to remedy the situation.

(2)    FWA may make a relief from increased cost order on application by:

                  (a)    an employer who has suffered a modernisation-related increase in labour costs; or

                  (b)    an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of such employer.

(3)    FWA must not make a relief from increased costs order in relation to an employer or class of employers, if:

                  (a)    FWA considers that the modernisation-related increase in labour costs is minor or insignificant; or

                  (b)    FWA is satisfied that the employer or employers have been adequately compensated in other ways for the increase, such as through increased productivity or flexibility.

(4)    FWA must ensure that a relief from increased costs order is expressed so that it does not apply to an employer unless the employer has actually suffered a modernisation-related increase in labour costs.

16  Relief from increased costs order continues to have effect so long as modern award continues to cover the employer or employers

A relief from increased costs order in relation to an employer or class of employers to whom a particular modern award applies continues to have effect (subject to the terms of the order) for so long as the modern award continues to cover the employer or employers, even if it stops applying to the employer or employers because an enterprise agreement starts to apply.

17  Inconsistency with modern awards and enterprise agreements

A term of a modern award or an enterprise agreement has no effect in relation to an employer to the extent that it is less beneficial to the employer than a term of a relief from increased costs order that applies to the employer.

18  Application of provisions of FW Act to relief from increased costs orders

The FW Act applies as if the following provisions of that Act included a reference to a relief from increased costs order:

                  (a)    subsection 675(2);

                  (b)    subsection 706(2).

(4)    Schedule 5, after Part 3, page 61 (after line 11) insert:

Part 5—Amendments

Fair Work Act 2009

19  Paragraph 139(1)(i)

After “superannuation” insert “but ensuring employers can nominate any complying superannuation fund as the default fund”.

(5)    Schedule 5, after Part 3, page 61 (after line 11) insert:

Part 6—Other amendments

Workplace Relations Act 1996

20  Section 576T

Repeal the section, substitute:

576T  Terms that contain State-based differences

        (1)    For a period of 5 years starting on the day on which a modern award commences, the award is to reflect the State and Territory differences in previously existing awards.

        (2)    If, at the end of the period of 5 years starting on the day on which a modern award commences, the modern award includes terms and conditions of employment that:

                  (a)    are determined by reference to State or Territory boundaries; or

                  (b)    do not have effect in each State and Territory,

those terms and conditions cease to have effect at the end of that period.

        (3)    The Commission may reduce the 5 year period referred to in subsection (1) only when it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, having regard to:

                  (a)    the views of the sector in which the modern award is intended to cover; and

                  (b)    the impact on employment within the sector to which the modern award is intended to cover.

(6)    Schedule 22, Part 3, page 238, (after line 27), after the note, insert:

     (1A)    For the purposes of subsection (1), a dispute can be threatened, probable or imminent.

(7)    Schedule 22, Part 3, page 239, (after line 12), after subsection (7), insert:

Application of right of entry penalties to employers

        (8)    An employer who refuses entry to an employee organisation on the grounds of seeking an order or interim order under this section, and acts expeditiously and in good faith in seeking that order, is not subject to right of entry penalties under Part 3-4 of this Act.

(8)    Schedule 22, Part 3, page 239, line 30, after paragraph (f), insert:

                           ; and

                  (g)    the views of the employer.

(9)    Schedule 22, Part 3, page 239, (before line 31), before subsection (2), insert:

     (1A)    For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), any agreement or understanding includes prior judicial and administrative decisions under previous legislation or involving related or predecessor employee organisations.

It is astonishing that, as we have been sitting here listening to this debate, Labor members of parliament, one after the other, have marched in here to talk about this bill and none of them, as far as I am aware, mentioned award modernisation once. Every single one of them will have small businesses that will go bust in their electorate. Every single one of them will have constituents who will lose jobs because of these changes. Yet none of them saw fit to talk about it or defend it. One of the worst consequences of this bill can be alleviated if Labor and this minister listen to reason and embrace some of the sensible amendments that I am now moving. I would like to go to those amendments.

Firstly, the Fair Work Act created 10 National Employment Standards to replace the five Australian fair pay and conditions standards created under the former Workplace Relations Act. The bill sets rules for how the NES will interact with existing agreements and instruments. The approach adopted by the bill is to require a line-by-line comparison between the terms within an existing instrument and the terms of the NES. Where there is any detriment found, the terms of the NES will automatically apply.

This is going to be an incredibly complex and bureaucratic approach. This is a government that used to talk about reducing red tape and how it planned to deregulate aspects of the Australian economy, although you do not hear much talk about that lately. But this is actually a chance for the government to act on that talk. This is an amendment that will allow Labor an opportunity to make this act less bureaucratic in its operation and it will do something to reduce the red tape that is associated with it. This will make the task of employers easier and, when you make the task of employers easier, you make the task of encouraging them to employ people easier.

These amendments seek to remove the line-by-line approach to the concept of detriment as it relates to the interaction of the NES with transitional instruments. These amendments will ensure that the interaction between the NES and the transitional instruments is such that comparisons can be looked at on an overall basis when they occur. This is something that will make this test easier and make the task of employing Australians easier.

I want to move to the issue that Labor members refused to address during their contribution to this debate. That is the issue of award modernisation—doubtless the most important thing that we will be discussing here today and something that has the potential to throw tens of thousands of Australians onto the dole queue.

The new workplace relations system, when it takes full effect on 1 January, is predicated on the existence of a series of so-called modern awards. The bill creates a new power for Fair Work Australia to issue employee take-home pay orders. These orders are available to employees where their take-home pay is reduced as a result of the operation of a modern award. This is reasonable and it gives effect to one of the minister’s promises—an undertaking that no employees will be disadvantaged under her changes.

Sadly, there is no equivalent legislative provision that gives effect to the other part of Minister Gillard’s promise—that these modern awards will not cause an increase to employer costs. This is simply unbelievable. Labor is happy to stand by whilst thousands of small businesses are put to the sword and tens of thousands of Australians are thrown out of work.

These amendments seek to insert a new provision that provides the equivalent employer version of the take-home pay orders outlined in the preceding part. The provision recognises and seeks to enshrine a provision, within the existing award modernisation requests, that promises, as the minister promised, no increase in costs to business. The provision details what a labour cost might include and describes the circumstances under which an employer may suffer an increase in labour costs related to the transition to a modern award. Where Fair Work Australia finds that an employer has suffered a modernisation related increase in labour costs, they are empowered to vary the particular instrument as it applies to that particular employer. Such an order remains in effect whilst the modern award continues to cover the employer. This amendment will fix up the nonsensical nature of the minister’s promise on award modernisation.

Further evidence of the unrealistic nature of this request was revealed during Senate debates through the passage of the Fair Work Act. On several occasions the government acknowledged that there was no reference to the terms of the minister’s request within that legislation, and in addition they voted against coalition amendments that would have enshrined the minister’s award modernisation request as law. (Extension of time granted) It is beyond dispute that employers must at some point absorb increased labour costs arising from the award modernisation process. Anecdotal evidencesuggests that employers are making alterations to their staffing levels and that employees are already losing their jobs in anticipation of these new workplace laws. The impact of the award modernisation process on jobs and business should not be underestimated. The evidence presented to the committee is of extreme concern as it reveals that thousands of jobs will be lost directly as a result of this process. Worryingly, the sectors that will be the most adversely affected are those that are already the most likely to be affected by the worsening economic situation. These sectors, such as retail, aged care and horticulture, to name but a few, also employ significant numbers of young Australians and female workers. Casual and part-time employment opportunities are higher in these sectors.

It is essential that the bill be amended to provide an avenue for employers to seek relief from increased costs arising from the transition to a modern award. The failure to pass this amendment and the absence of such a provision is simply unfair and it ignores the overwhelming evidence regarding the true cost and impact for employers. It is clearly in the public interest that such a provision be included and that an individual workplace or enterprise be afforded the opportunity to argue its own particular circumstances. Industrial laws and a new workplace system cannot ignore the economic realities that are being felt within Australian workplaces today.

While an avenue such as that suggested deals with individual workplaces, a similar problem exits in relation to particular sectors and/or particular states. The legislation maintains the transition phase-in period contained at section 576T of the current act. We understand that this provision allows the commission a defined period within which it can phase out state based differences within modern awards and phase in these additional labour costs. This phase-in period has also been referred to by the minister with reference to the increased labour costs associated with the modernisation process, with reference to a maximum five-year period.

The minister’s award modernisation request does not provide the commission with enough guidance in relation to award modernisation. If this minister is genuine about this phase-in period—and she constantly refers to it when she is questioned about modern awards—it should be enshrined in law. It is appropriate that the commission maximise the transitional period for phasing out state based differences in order to provide workplaces the best opportunity to deal with the resulting changes to their conditions of employment and increased labour costs. The approach should be one that requires the commission to ensure changes are incrementally phased in over the longest possible period, with some discretion to determine a shorter period should it be satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. This is a markedly different approach to the one that is currently proposed by Labor, which contains an implicit presumption that state based differences will be phased out immediately unless it can be convinced otherwise.

The coalition amendments seek to provide power to Fair Work Australia to hear claims from employers seeking relief from increased costs. They seek to provide power to Fair Work Australia to exempt an employer from certain provisions of a modern award or delay the application of certain provisions of a modern award for any period that it feels appropriate. The amendments also seek to alter part 10A of the Workplace Relations Act, as continued by schedule 5, part 2 of the main bill, to require Fair Work Australia to adopt the five-year phase-in period as a default unless it is in the public interest to do otherwise.

I want to move to another matter, and that is representation orders, which are the subject of further amendments. The legislation creates a new power for Fair Work Australia to issue union representation orders where a dispute exists between unions about who can cover a particular workplace. This has implications for who can represent employees, who can be involved in bargaining and who can enter a workplace. The intention of this aspect of the legislation is to assist in resolving demarcation disputes that will increase, arising from the loss of the traditional party concept to industrial awards flowing from the new system of modern awards. By inserting the words ‘threatened, probable or imminent,’ this amendment has the effect of allowing the pre-emptive resolution of a demarcation dispute via a representation order. (Extension of time granted) This ensures that representation orders can be made before a dispute occurs and avoids disruption, job loss or industrial disharmony. It also provides for the application of right of entry penalties to be suspended for an employer who has acted in good faith in seeking a representation order.

An addition to the items to be considered by Fair Work Australia when making such an order is the views of the employer. Previously, Fair Work Australia were not required to consider the views of the employer. The amendment we have moved requires that Fair Work Australia have regard to previous demarcation decisions issued under the previous legislation. As foreshadowed during the earlier discussion on this bill and debate on the Fair Work Act, a consequence of this removal would be the further potential for union demarcation disputes—sometimes known as ‘turf wars’. A number of employee and employer associations previously expressed concern about this very real potential and they specifically requested a mechanism by which this could be addressed. The bill provides a facility whereby orders may be obtained from Fair Work Australia to hear and determine any such dispute where one exists. Such a facility is welcomed and should provide an avenue to resolve demarcation disputes in the event that they arise.

Notwithstanding this new facility, there are a number of concerns about the proposed provisions. In particular, concern was raised about the failure of the proposed bill to take account of the views of employers when making orders and the apparent limitation on circumstances when such orders can be proactively obtained. The bill as currently drafted appears to require that a dispute must exist before an application can be made for a representation order. This would necessarily require the existence of a disagreement between two competing unions prior to the intervention of Fair Work Australia. Demarcation disputes can be time consuming and raise complex legal considerations. It is essential that such disputes be resolved in a timely manner to ensure disruption to productivity is minimal and jobs are not lost. As the bill is predicated on the existence of a dispute before it is enlivened, it is essential that there be a pre-emptive or proactive element to this section, as is proposed. It is clear that the provision as drafted creates uncertainty. This uncertainty would be alleviated by the amendments we propose here today.

Demarcation issues often emerge in circumstances involving union entry into a particular workplace. This entry is a right bestowed upon unions by virtue of the Fair Work Act and can carry significant penalties in circumstances of non-compliance by an employer. The right or otherwise of a union to enter a workplace has already been complicated by various provisions within the Fair Work Act. This complication would be exacerbated in circumstances of a demarcation dispute. The coalition amendments would ensure that Fair Work Australia were empowered to stay any attempt to enter a workplace subject to a demarcation dispute.

The bill details matters that Fair Work Australia must take into account in making a representation order. These matters include two significant factors, being the existence of any demarcation orders under the current Workplace Relations Act and the views of the employer. There is no valid or logical reason for the exclusion of these two factors, which are essential to ensuring the timely and sensible making of representation orders. The proposed amendment will require Fair Work Australia to take account of the views held by the employer when making representation orders and have greater regard to existing representation orders.

I will very briefly refer to the proposed amendment regarding default superannuation. The coalition see default superannuation provisions in this bill as a restraint on competition. The provisions encourage apathy in superannuation choice at a time when people need to be engaged in their retirement planning. Our amendment would increase the employer’s choice of super fund, and we would encourage them to take account of this choice. This amendment would change the default provisions so that when choosing a superannuation fund an employer could also nominate a complying superannuation fund as the default. (Extension of time granted) The amendments we propose are sensible amendments. They improve aspects of the act. Most importantly, they would alleviate some of the worst job-destroying aspects of the act in the fatally flawed award modernisation process. I urge the government to see sense on these amendments, and I commend them to the House.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for employment for his contribution. I say to the shadow minister that I have some general sympathy for him. I understand he is in a difficult position—belonging to and representing, as he does, a party that is wedded to Work Choices—as he needs to come out in the public debate day after day pretending that he and his party are not still the party of Work Choices. Against that backdrop he does the best he can.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Saving jobs!

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, he is using the same argument the opposition used each and every day up until the 2007 election, and the Australian people saw right through it.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be a million people unemployed under you.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Apparently, he is advocating for Work Choices to be brought back at the next election. But we will let the opposition go out and argue that—that is, if they have the guts to honestly argue it, because they never did.

I turn to the amendments that the opposition has moved. These amendments range from the unnecessary to the unworkable. For example, opposition amendment (6) has the same effect as government amendment (103), to ensure representation orders are available to deal with threatened, impending or improbable disputes. Consequently, the opposition amendment is unnecessary. Amendments (1) and (2), which apply a global test to the National Employment Standards for transitional instruments, would deprive almost all employees of the safety net and would be unworkable and uncertain. It would be inconsistent with the government’s commitment to ensuring that the National Employment Standards are operational from 1 January 2010. I know the Liberal Party never saw a safety net it did not want to see ripped away, and this is more of the same. Opposition amendment (3), the employer cost orders proposed by the opposition, is unnecessary. 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 (5) would take away the Australian Industrial Relations Commission’s ability 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 would be a recipe for chaos and would take away the ability of the commission to set out orderly transitional arrangements in awards themselves.

I will make some further comments on each of the amendments. I understand, from the issues raised by the shadow minister for workplace relations, that he is justifying some or all of these amendments because of his criticisms of the award modernisation process. I say to the shadow minister and to his Liberal Party: award modernisation is a reform that has been sought by employers for decades. The approach of the Liberal Party in government was to create statutory individual employment agreements, to rip the safety net away, and then they delighted in the evidence that showed that working Australians were having basic entitlements ripped off them. That was something that they applauded each and every step of the way. But, in ensuring that the award safety net could be stripped away, they shirked the big job of modernising awards. They found themselves, as a government and as a Liberal Party, incapable of doing it. Too slow, too silly, too unfocused—I do not know what the explanation was, but they could not get it done.

Employers around the country have called for this reform for years. Take just one quote from ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They said:

Workplace relations policy is too important for horse and buggy era approaches to persist.

In its desperate days in opposition, the Liberal Party might be attracted to the reintroduction of the horse and buggy, but no-one else is. We are getting on with the job of making sure that thousands and thousands of awards are modernised and streamlined. That is what employers want, and we are working with them cooperatively to address their concerns as those concerns are raised.

I note that, in government, the now opposition pretended that they believed in this reform. I take just one quote from the member for Menzies, the then minister. (Extension of time granted) He promised he would simplify the existing 4,000 state and federal awards and the 44,000 wage classifications contained within them. However, he never got the job done. Given the absolute incompetence of the Liberal Party when faced with this reform task, I think it hardly falls to them to make criticisms of the government that actually is doing something that they were incapable of doing. I certainly say that the Labor Party is not going to be lectured by the Liberal Party on the question of the award safety net when they made it clear from their time in government they do not believe in such a safety net. If they believed in such a safety net, they never would have introduced WorkChoices.

I come to the specifics of opposition amendments (1) and (2). This is the replacement of the line-by-line approach to the implementation of the NES with a global approach. This is a recipe for ripping employees off. I know that is what the Liberal Party believes in, but we do not. We will ensure that Australians get the benefit of the national employment standards precisely as we promised them. We took it to the election, we campaigned on it and we got public endorsement for it.

Opposition amendment (3)—the employer cost orders—is obviously there to seek to generate fear in the business community about what is happening with award modernisation. But the truth is that the government already has transitional arrangements in place. The commission is already seized of the task of dealing with the phasing in of new, simple, modern awards. That process is working and underway at the commission at the moment.

Opposition amendment (4) relates to default superannuation funds. All Australian employees will continue to be entitled to choose their own superannuation fund when modern awards commence on 1 January 2010. But I do not see why the Liberal Party sets its face against the proposition that default funds for those employees who do not make such an election should be highly performing funds. That is what that proposition is all about.

Opposition amendment relating to the five-year phasing is a doozy. This is a recipe for complete chaos. Instead of having transitional arrangements over a five-year period, which the commission is working on now, the Liberal Party says, ‘Let’s keep all state based differences and then just have them go out of the system overnight.’ No-one who knows anything about workplace relations would think that that is an adequate system. They certainly would not get endorsement for it. That amendment is obviously being opposed by us. We believe in an orderly transition and that is what this bill provides.

Opposition amendments (6) to (9) are unnecessary. This matter is dealt with in government amendments, and that ought to be transparent to the opposition. We are dealing with the question of representation orders being able to be made in circumstances where there is a threatened, impending or probable dispute. That is already in the government amendments, so it is quite unnecessary.

I say in concluding my remarks on these amendments that I understand that the shadow minister does his best in difficult circumstances—where his party stands for tearing awards away and for industrial relations extremism—but none of these amendments, as moved, would improve this bill. Many of them would impose a significant burden on working people, allowing the National Employment Standards we have promised them to be ripped away from them. Many of them would cause complete chaos for employers. I note that the shadow minister says that he cares about red tape for employers. If that is true then I presume at some point he will issue an apology to the business community of this country for the red tape that was caused by Work Choices and for the more than 100,00-deep pile of agreements that got left unprocessed at the Workplace Authority, with businesses uncertain and in chaos because of the actions of the former government. The amendments are unworkable, unnecessary, to the detriment of employees and employers and ought to be rejected by this House.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am immensely disappointed to hear the Deputy Prime Minister’s attitude in relation to these amendments. The reality is they would have alleviated some of the problems that she has created within this legislation. Of course the most important thing they would do is save jobs. They would stop small businesses from having to close as a result of her award modernisation request.

The minister scoffs at this suggestion, but she does not seem to have any idea what is going to happen once this award modernisation process moves forward. She has no solutions for businesses on how they would implement these increased wages costs, and she does not seem to think that what we are saying about jobs being lost because of this is a credible argument. The reality is she is going to be proved wrong by refusing to look at the sensible amendments that we have proposed to her bill. I have a series of questions for the minister. Firstly, given the attitude that she has just displayed, does the minister stand by her promise that through the award modernisation process no employee will be disadvantaged and that it will not increase cost to business?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I suspect it is a little bit unusual for questions on government policy to be introduced in the context of opposition amendments, if it suits the convenience of the House, I will answer some questions from the shadow minister now and I trust we can then move through to what I presume is a division and then the introduction of government amendments, because as you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, the House has much business pressing upon it and many hours to sit yet.

Everything to do with workplace relations is an important issue, which is why we have gone to so much trouble to work with stakeholders to get the balance right. When I issued the award modernisation request, my instructions to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission were clear: this is not a process in which we want to see employees disadvantaged or additional costs to employers. I understand that is a difficult balance, and to be fair to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, given the huge amount of work that lay before it in award modernisation, and given this is a task that has been tried over the years and people—including, most spectacularly, the Liberal Party—have failed, in getting it done they are doing a remarkably good job.

Yes, there have been some concerns, and people would be aware that very recently I have responded to a set of concerns raised by the restaurant and catering industry. There are concerns that have been raised and worked through by government, and we will continue to work through the issues in a collaborative approach with employers. I would say to the shadow minister opposite, who now presumes himself to somehow be speaking on behalf of others, that maybe at some point—and I understand that this is a process that does not allow me to ask him questions—he might want to explain to the representatives of employers in this country why they have been able to have so much time working with draft legislation and working with the government on getting the balance right when the track record of his political party in office is that these representatives were shut out and presented with a fait accompli, much of it viewed by them as unworkable.

I would also ask the shadow minister to contemplate, before he styles himself as a representative for others in this debate: why is it that his political party imposed on employers a system that ended up with more than 100,000 agreements backlogged while waiting for processing, with employers thrown into chaos as they waited many months for the processing of them? I would also ask the shadow minister why it is, if he is now saying somehow all of this is not the right thing to be doing, that his political party voted for the first workplace relations bill that I brought to this parliament, which included the provisions that set us on the track of modernising awards? Why is it that they voted for that?

Where we are, with this debate, is that the government has an election policy. It got the endorsement of the Australian people.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Keenan interjecting

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister at the table is now saying they were misled. The only misleading in contemporary times of the Australia electorate about workplace relations was by his political party in the 2004 election, when they never told the Australian people about Work Choices. I say to the shadow minister opposite: all of his raising of supposed concerns will in truth be a proxy debate until his political party has the gumption to make it clear to the Australian people whether it still stands for Work Choices and, if it does not, what part it endorses and what part it rejects. I wait with interest the answer to those questions. The opposition have a fundamentally divided party room between the political pragmatists and those who are at the ideologues. We will wait to see how the struggle plays itself out. In the meantime, the government will get on with the job of delivering what it promised the Australian people.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I could just remind the House: the question that I asked the minister that resulted in that diatribe was whether she stands by her commitment to Australian businesses that the award modernisation process will not increase labour costs. What happens when you increase labour costs is that you force employers to make a decision. Some businesses might be able to pass on those extra costs to their consumers. Others are going to have to rationalise their workforce. They are going to have to get rid of people whom they have employed because they can no longer afford to employ people after these enormous labour costs are incurred.

It is astonishing to me that the minister classifies the concerns that have been expressed by industries that are facing this particular prospect as ‘supposed concerns’. What is a ‘supposed concern’ about a pharmacist who says they employ four people, but they can now only afford to employ three people because of the minister’s changes? I do style myself as a representative of other people in this debate because I have been out and I have spoken to small businesses that are going to have to get rid of some of their workers. The minister does not understand that that is a very painful process for a small business. If you have four people in your small business, the chances are you are probably like a little family. What the government is going to do is force them, because of their labour cost increases, to get rid of some of that workforce.

What do you make of a government that says that employment is its highest priority when they come into this House and they refuse to look at amendments that will actually save Australian jobs? I think that that response from the Deputy Prime Minister was nothing short of disgraceful. These concerns are real, the results that are going to eventuate from this process are real and the people who are going to be thrown on the dole queue because of the minister’s flawed ideology are also real. If the Deputy Prime Minister refuses to accept amendments that will make sure that employers are not disadvantaged because of these increases in labour costs, has she done any modelling on the likely results of the award modernisation process on the labour market, and if not why not? Why would she not have completed this basic due diligence process for such a major change?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again I am happy to answer the shadow minister’s question, though I do note it is a bit out of order in the context of the debate. The answer to the shadow minister’s question is as follows: as the shadow minister would be aware, when the former government introduced Work Choices it performed economic modelling it never released. Consequently, his question is characterised by a hypocrisy that no right thinking person would accept. The hypocrisy is exposed.

The government produced a comprehensive statement about the impacts of the Fair Work Act. It was never really clear to me where the Liberal Party ended up on the Fair Work Act. The Leader of the Opposition at one point suggested that they were going to vote for it all, including the unfair dismissal provisions. Then he got dragged back by the ideologues in the party and they ended up basically voting for a set of blocking propositions in the Senate. What I would say to the shadow minister is that if he wants to have an honest public debate about this and he wants to go through the doors of this parliament and say, ‘We the Liberal Party stand for Work Choices,’ I say bring it on. We will have that debate all the way up until 2010 and beyond. Of course he never says that but, fuelled by that belief, he comes in and carps and criticises in the way that we have come to expect from the opposition during its days in opposition.

If the shadow minister is interested in the details of what is happening with the award modernisation process, he can follow it through. Piece by piece, consideration by consideration, as the commission works through the award modernisation process it is obviously being informed by the views of the stakeholders, including any views they want to put on impacts on employment. It is happening each and every step of the way in the award modernisation process. Can I say again to the shadow minister, as I said in my earlier contribution, we continue to work very solidly with businesses and address their concerns. I did that very recently in an amendment to the award modernisation request and I will continue in that very serious process. What I do not accept is that, in moving these unworkable and unnecessary amendments, the shadow minister is in truth representing anybody external to himself and the Liberal Party.

We will continue our very serious measured dialogue with employers, with their representative organisations, around getting award modernisation right, around all aspects of the implementation of the Fair Work system, just as in every part of the process to date—every piece of legislation, clause by clause, page by page, day by day—we have worked with representatives of the employers in a way never dreamed of or contemplated by the Liberal Party when they were in government. This is a government that consults and that can point to its track record on consulting. Our track record on consulting employers on workplace relations is superior to anything that was ever enacted by the Liberal Party when it was in office.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again the Deputy Prime Minister does not have any answers to these sensible questions. You would think when you are making major changes to the industrial relations system you might actually ask the question, ‘What is this going to do to people’s jobs prospects?’ If the Deputy Prime Minister does not think this is a problem, she ought to get out more and actually talk to some small businesses. She ought to get out and talk to some large businesses.

What does she think is going to happen when you massively increase the cost of running a business? What is the logical result of that? Overnight, you come in and you say, ‘Your wage bill is going to go up by 15 per cent or 20 per cent.’ What does she think that small business is going to have to do to survive, if it can possibly survive at all? This is the ludicrous thing about these amendments. This is the ludicrous thing about what this government is proposing. They do not have any answers at all for what people are going to do once their cost base is massively increased, in some cases from 1 January next year. I would be interested to know what the Deputy Prime Minister would say to a small business that is faced with this massive increase in its cost base, and what she thinks will actually be the likely result of massive increases in labour costs in some sectors in some particular states? What does she think those businesses are going to do?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me be brief in answer to the shadow minister’s question. I would say in the conversation with that small business that I saved them from a Liberal Party amendment that would have caused a drop dead date at the end of five years with an overnight end to all state based differentials, with all of the chaos and uncertainty that that would cause. I would say that I and the Labor Party saved them from that madcap Liberal proposal and I would say that in doing that we brought to them, presuming of course that the Liberal Party in the Senate does not clutch on day after day to keep Work Choices by holding this bill up, that we have delivered exactly what we promised at the 2007 election—a sensible and measured transition.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly, we are not getting very far. We have a minister who refuses to acknowledge that she made a commitment to Australian businesses that she would not increase their cost base. We have a minister who does not seem to understand what increasing the cost base is actually going to do to businesses in Australia. We have a minister who will not acknowledge that these changes are going to cost jobs. We have a minister who will not acknowledge that these changes are going to close down small businesses.

The amendments that we have proposed are sensible amendments that will alleviate some of the worst aspects of this bill. The one million Australians who will be out of work are not going to accept from the government their usual global alibi that they cannot do anything about this—‘It is all the result of the international financial situation and our hands are completely tied.’ When you ask the Deputy Prime Minister about employment, she comes to the dispatch box, shrugs her shoulders, says, ‘There’s nothing we can do,’ and goes off on a rant about Work Choices and John Howard. We have tried to help the government here. We have tried to improve this bill. I recommend again that the government accept these amendments. They are sensible amendments. They will save Australian jobs and they will save Australian small businesses.

Question put:

That the amendments (Mr Keenan’s) be agreed to.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move government amendments (1) to (110):

(1)    Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2)    Schedule 2, item 1, page 5 (line 12), omit “and” (first occurring), substitute “to”.

(3)    Schedule 2, item 2, page 7 (after line 9), after the definition of single enterprise, insert:

State and Territory interaction rules: see subitem 5A(2) of Schedule 3.

(4)    Schedule 2, item 7, page 11 (line 7), omit “old”.

(5)    Schedule 2, item 11, page 14 (before line 4), before subitem (1), insert:

Conduct before repeal

(6)    Schedule 2, item 11, page 14 (after line 7), after subitem (1), insert:

Processes begun before repeal to vary or terminate WR Act instruments

(1A) If:

             (a)    a process to vary or terminate a WR Act instrument is begun under the WR Act before the WR Act repeal day; and

             (b)    the WR Act instrument becomes a transitional instrument because of the operation of Part 2 of Schedule 3;

the WR Act continues to apply, on and after the WR Act repeal day, for the purposes of completing the process.

Orders made before repeal

(7)    Schedule 2, item 11, page 14 (line 11), omit subitem (3), substitute:

Item subject to this Act

(3)    This item applies subject to this Act.

(8)    Schedule 2, item 12, page 14 (line 21), after “application”, insert “, other than an interim application,”.

(9)    Schedule 2, item 12, page 14 (line 30), after “(however described)”, insert “, other than an interim process,”.

(10)  Schedule 2, item 12, page 15 (after line 10), at the end of the item, add:

(4)    In this item:

interim application means an application that relates to a matter that is already before, or being dealt with by, the Commission, the President, a member of the Commission or a Registrar before the WR Act repeal day.

interim process means a process (however described) that relates to a matter that is already before, or being dealt with by, the Commission, the President, a member of the Commission or a Registrar before the WR Act repeal day.

(11)  Schedule 2, item 13, page 15 (after line 14), after paragraph (a), insert:

           (aa)    provide that subitem 11(1A) does not apply in relation to specified processes;

(12)  Schedule 3, page 21 (after line 3), after item 5, insert:

5A  Transitional instruments continue to be subject to the same State and Territory interaction rules

(1)    The same State and Territory interaction rules that applied in relation to WR Act instruments of a particular kind immediately before the WR Act repeal day continue to apply in relation to instruments of that kind that become transitional instruments.

(2)    State and Territory interaction rules are provisions of a law of the Commonwealth, as in force immediately before the WR Act repeal day, the effect of which is that:

             (a)    an instrument prevails over, or excludes, a law of a State or Territory; or

             (b)    an instrument has effect subject to a law of a State or Territory.

Note:                Most of the State and Territory interaction rules were in the WR Act.

(13)  Schedule 3, item 24, page 32 (line 28), before “The”, insert “(1)”.

(14)  Schedule 3, item 24, page 33 (after line 13), at the end of the item, add:

(2)    If:

             (a)    a transitional instrument includes terms referred to in subsection (1) of section 93 or 101 of the National Employment Standards; but

             (b)    the terms do not include the requirements referred to in subsection (2) of that section;

the instrument is taken to include terms that include the requirements.

(15)  Schedule 3, page 34 (after line 36), after item 28, insert:

28A  Terms of modern awards about outworker conditions continue to apply

(1)    This item applies if, at a particular time:

             (a)    an agreement-based transitional instrument applies to an employee; and

             (b)    outworker terms (within the meaning of the FW Act) in a modern award would, but for the transitional instrument, apply to the employee.

(2)    Despite item 28 and despite any terms of the agreement-based transitional instrument that are detrimental to the employee in any respect when compared to the terms of the modern award, the outworker terms apply at that time to the following persons:

             (a)    the employee;

             (b)    the employer;

             (c)    each employee organisation to which the modern award applies.

(3)    To avoid doubt, to the extent to which terms of a modern award apply to an employee, an employer or an employee organisation because of subitem (2), the modern award applies to the employee, employer or organisation.

(16)  Schedule 3, page 36 (after line 32), at the end of Division 2 of Part 5, add:

31A  Designated outworker terms of award-based transitional instrument continue to apply

(1)    This item applies if, at a particular time:

             (a)    an enterprise agreement or workplace determination (under the FW Act) applies to an employer; and

             (b)    an award-based transitional instrument covers the employer (whether the transitional instrument covers the employer in the employer’s capacity as an employer or an outworker entity); and

             (c)    the transitional instrument includes one or more designated outworker terms.

(2)    Despite item 31, the designated outworker terms of the award-based transitional instrument apply at that time to the following:

             (a)    the employer;

             (b)    each employee who is both:

                   (i)    a person to whom the enterprise agreement or workplace determination applies; and

                  (ii)    a person who is covered by the transitional instrument;

             (c)    each employee organisation that is covered by the transitional instrument.

(3)    To avoid doubt:

             (a)    award-based transitional instruments are taken to be instruments to which the definition of designated outworker term in section 12 of the FW Act applies; and

             (b)    designated outworker terms of an award-based transitional instrument can apply to an employer under subitem (2) even if none of the employees of the employer is an outworker; and

             (c)    to the extent to which designated outworker terms of an award-based transitional instrument apply to an employer, an employee or an employee organisation because of subitem (2), the transitional instrument applies to the employer, employee or organisation.

(17) Schedule 4, page 46 (after line 29), at the end of Part 2, add:

4A  References to workplace agreements include references to enterprise agreements

(1)    The provisions of the WR Act that continue to apply because of this Part have effect as if a reference in the provisions to a workplace agreement included a reference to an enterprise agreement.

(2)    Subitem (1) has effect unless the context otherwise requires and subject to the regulations.

(18)  Schedule 5, item 2, page 53 (after line 16), at the end of the item, add:

(5)    In continuing and completing the Part 10A award modernisation process, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission must have regard to:

             (a)    the state of the national economy; and

             (b)    the likely effects on the national economy of any modern award that the Commission is considering, or is proposing to make, with special reference to likely effects on the level of employment and on inflation.

(19)  Schedule 5, item 6, page 56 (after line 3), after subitem (2), insert:

(2A) The review must be such that each modern award is reviewed in its own right. However, this does not prevent FWA from reviewing 2 or more modern awards at the same time.

(20)  Schedule 6, item 2, page 63 (lines 9 to 16), omit subitem (2), substitute:

        (2)    An enterprise award-based instrument is an award-based transitional instrument to which subitem (2A) or (2B) applies.

     (2A)    This subitem applies to an award-based transitional instrument that is an award, if the award covers employees in:

             (a)    a single enterprise (or a part of a single enterprise) only; or

             (b)    one or more enterprises, if the employers all carry on similar business activities under the same franchise and are:

                   (i)    franchisees of the same franchisor; or

                  (ii)    related bodies corporate of the same franchisor; or

                 (iii)    any combination of the above.

      (2B)    This subitem applies to an award-based transitional instrument that is a notional agreement preserving State awards, if the notional agreement includes terms and conditions from a State award that covered employees in:

             (a)    a single enterprise (or a part of a single enterprise) only; or

             (b)    one or more enterprises, if the employers all carried on similar business activities under the same franchise and were:

                   (i)    franchisees of the same franchisor; or

                  (ii)    related bodies corporate of the same franchisor; or

                 (iii)    any combination of the above.

(21)  Schedule 6, item 2, page 63 (line 27), omit “subitem (2)”, substitute “subitem (2B)”.

(22)  Schedule 6, item 4, page 64 (lines 30 and 31), omit “FW (safety net provisions) commencement day”, substitute “WR Act repeal day”.

(23)  Schedule 6, item 4, page 65 (lines 7 to 11), omit paragraphs (5)(b) and (c), substitute:

             (b)    whether there is a modern award (other than the miscellaneous modern award) that would, but for the enterprise instrument, cover the persons who are covered by the instrument, or whether such a modern award is likely to be made in the Part 10A award modernisation process;

             (c)    the content, or likely content, of the modern award referred to in paragraph (b) (taking account of any variations of the modern award that are likely to be made in the Part 10A award modernisation process);

(24)  Schedule 6, item 4, page 65 (after line 26), at the end of subitem (5), add:

Note:                A variation referred to in paragraph (c) may, for example, be a variation to reflect the outcome of the AFPC’s final wage review under the WR Act, or to include transitional arrangements in the modern award.

(25)  Schedule 6, item 4, page 65 (before line 27), before subitem (6), insert:

(5A) If FWA makes a modern enterprise award before the FW (safety net provisions) commencement day, the modern enterprise award must not be expressed to commence on a day earlier than the FW (safety net provisions) commencement day.

Note:                For when a modern enterprise award is in operation, see item 17.

(26)  Schedule 6, item 5, page 65 (lines 32 and 33), omit “FW (safety net provisions) commencement day”, substitute “WR Act repeal day”.

(27)  Schedule 6, item 5, page 66 (lines 10 to 14), omit paragraphs (4)(b) and (c), substitute:

             (b)    whether there is a modern award (other than the miscellaneous modern award) that would, but for the enterprise instrument, cover the persons who are covered by the instrument, or whether such a modern award is likely to be made in the Part 10A award modernisation process;

             (c)    the content, or likely content, of the modern award referred to in paragraph (b) (taking account of any variations of the modern award that are likely to be made in the Part 10A award modernisation process);

(28)  Schedule 6, item 5, page 66 (after line 29), at the end of subitem (4), add:

Note:                A variation referred to in paragraph (c) may, for example, be a variation to reflect the outcome of the AFPC’s final wage review under the WR Act, or to include transitional arrangements in the modern award.

(29)  Schedule 6, item 5, page 66 (line 31), after “the instrument”, insert “, being a day that is not earlier than the FW (safety net provisions) commencement day”.

(30)  Schedule 6, item 6, page 67 (line 3), after “Note”, insert “1”.

(31)  Schedule 6, item 6, page 67 (after line 4), at the end of the item, add:

Note 2:             See also item 16A (how the FW Act applies to the enterprise instrument modernisation process before the FW (safety net provisions) commencement day).

(32)  Schedule 6, item 7, page 67 (after line 8), at the end of subitem (1), add:

Note:                See also item 16A (how the FW Act applies to the enterprise instrument modernisation process before the FW (safety net provisions) commencement day).

(33)  Schedule 6, item 9, page 69 (after line 35), after subitem (3), insert:

(3A) Despite subitem (3), if, before the FW (safety net provisions) commencement day, FWA makes a decision not to make a modern enterprise award to replace an enterprise instrument, the decision must not come into operation before the FW (safety net provisions) commencement day.

(34)  Schedule 6, page 73 (before line 2), before item 17, insert:

16A  How the FW Act applies to the modernisation process before the FW (safety net provisions) commencement day

For the purposes of making a modern enterprise award before the FW (safety net provisions) commencement day, the following provisions of the FW Act apply as if they had already commenced:

             (a)    Part 2-2 (which deals with the National Employment Standards);

             (b)    section 134 (which deals with the modern awards objective);

             (c)    Division 3 of Part 2-3 (which deals with terms of modern awards);

             (d)    section 284 (which deals with the minimum wages objective);

             (e)    any provisions that are necessary for the effectual operation of the provisions referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).

(35)  Schedule 7, item 13, page 92 (line 9), after “an award”, insert “or a notional agreement preserving State awards”.

(36)  Schedule 7, item 13, page 92 (line 11), omit “outworker terms as defined in section 564 of the WR Act”, substitute “terms that are (or that would be, if the terms were in an award) outworker terms as defined in section 564 of the WR Act”.

(37)  Schedule 7, item 22, page 98 (line 17), before “Subsection”, insert “(1)”.

(38)  Schedule 7, item 22, page 98 (after line 22), at the end of the item, add:

(2)    However, subitem (1) does not apply in relation to a workplace determination if:

             (a)    the collective agreement-based transitional instrument has ceased to operate; and

             (b)    FWA considers that it is appropriate in the circumstances to make the workplace determination.

(3)    In making a decision for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b) of this item, FWA must take into account the objects set out in section 241 of the FW Act.

(39)  Schedule 8, item 4, page 105 (lines 8 to 13), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute:

             (a)    the Workplace Authority Director must not consider whether the agreement passes the no-disadvantage test under section 346D of the WR Act, as that section continues to apply because of item 3, unless:

                   (i)    the agreement is lodged before the end of the period (the cut-off period) of 14 days referred to in subsection 342(1) or (2) of that Act; and

                  (ii)    for a union collective agreement—the agreement was approved before the WR Act repeal day; and

(40)  Schedule 8, item 4, page 105 (lines 20 to 22), omit the note, substitute:

Note:                The general effect of this provision is that unlodged collective agreements (other than union collective agreements) must be lodged within 14 days of being made in order to come into operation. Unlodged union collective agreements must have been approved before the WR Act repeal day and be lodged within 14 days of that approval in order to come into operation. However, late lodgment will not give rise to a civil remedy.

(41)  Schedule 8, item 5, page 106 (lines 24 to 26), omit paragraph (3)(a), substitute:

             (a)    the period of 37 days beginning on whichever of the following days is later:

                   (i)    the WR Act repeal day;

                  (ii)    the date of issue specified in the notice under subsection 346M(2) of that Act in relation to the agreement; or

(42)  Schedule 8, item 8, page 107 (lines 31 to 36), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute:

             (a)    the Workplace Authority Director must not consider whether the varied agreement passes the no-disadvantage test under section 346D of the WR Act, as that section continues to apply because of item 7, unless:

                   (i)    the variation is lodged before the end of the period (the cut-off period) of 14 days referred to in subsection 375(1) of that Act; and

                  (ii)    for a variation of a union collective agreement or a union greenfields agreement—the variation was approved before the WR Act repeal day; and

(43)  Schedule 8, item 8, page 108 (lines 4 to 6), omit the note, substitute:

Note:                The general effect of this provision is that unlodged variations of collective agreements must be lodged within 14 days of being approved in order to come into operation. Unlodged variations of union collective agreements and union greenfields agreements must also have been approved before the WR Act repeal day. However, late lodgment will not give rise to a civil remedy.

(44)  Schedule 8, item 9, page 109 (lines 1 to 3), omit paragraph (2)(a), substitute:

             (a)    the period of 37 days beginning on whichever of the following days is later:

                   (i)    the WR Act repeal day;

                  (ii)    the date of issue specified in the notice under subsection 346M(2) of that Act in relation to the agreement as varied; or

(45)  Schedule 8, item 15, page 113 (lines 13 to 15), omit paragraph (3)(a), substitute:

             (a)    the period of 37 days beginning on whichever of the following days is later:

                   (i)    the WR Act repeal day;

                  (ii)    the date of issue specified in the notice under subsection 346M(2) of that Act in relation to the ITEA; or

(46)  Schedule 8, item 17, page 115 (lines 1 to 3), omit paragraph (2)(a), substitute:

             (a)    the period of 37 days beginning on whichever of the following days is later:

                   (i)    the WR Act repeal day;

                  (ii)    the date of issue specified in the notice under subsection 346M(2) of that Act in relation to the variation; or

(47)  Schedule 8, page 124 (after line 3), after item 28, insert:

28A  Variations to pass no-disadvantage test after WR Act repeal day

Despite any other provision of Division 5A of Part 8 of the WR Act, as that Division continues to apply because of this Schedule in relation to:

             (a)    a workplace agreement; or

             (b)    a variation of such an agreement under Division 8 of that Part;

only one variation for the purposes of passing the no-disadvantage test of the agreement or variation may be lodged with the Workplace Authority Director on or after the WR Act repeal day.

(48) Schedule 9, page 132 (after line 6), after item 5, insert:

5A  References to workplace agreements include references to enterprise agreements

(1)    The provisions of the WR Act that continue to apply because of item 5 have effect as if a reference in the provisions to a workplace agreement included a reference to an enterprise agreement.

(2)    Subitem (1) has effect unless the context otherwise requires and subject to the regulations.

(49)  Schedule 9, item 13, page 137 (after line 3), at the end of the item, add:

Note:                The AFPCS interaction rules may affect the base rate of pay payable to an employee (see item 22 of Schedule 3).

(50)  Schedule 11, item 6, page 147 (line 17), after “16”, insert “to the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009”.

(51)  Schedule 11, item 

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why did you do that?

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only minor!

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

preserving the existing interaction rules between transitional instruments and state and territory laws; and provision for a review of the first three years of operation of the new unfair dismissal system. Apparently there is some interest in one of those amendments, but obviously, since both the government and the opposition voted for the government’s first piece of workplace relations legislation, which started the award modernisation journey, there has been an event of some significance in global markets. It is called the global recession. Liberal Party members opposite may choose to think about that.

Beyond those amendments there are a small number of amendments to the Fair Work Act also being moved by the government in this bill, including modification to the definition of ‘named employer award’ to ensure that employees that are covered by these awards will retain their entitlements if the award transfers to a new employer; and the addition of a further clause in the objects of the act that acknowledges the special circumstances of small- and medium-sized employers. I commend the amendments and the bill to the House.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition believes that these amendments are reasonably uncontroversial. Importantly, they actually pick up and fix some of the problems that we and others have identified within this bill, and particularly ones that were raised during the Senate inquiry.

We have flagged previously that there would be problems with union demarcation disputes and a return to the days of turf wars from the Fair Work Act. This will undoubtedly be the case, as we see a return to the bad old days of unions fighting amongst themselves, disrupting workplaces, adversely affecting productivity and making workplaces a battleground. Clearly that is a bad outcome for Australian employers and employees. The government has now realised the problem it has created and they have tried to fix it by making clear that a dispute no longer has to exist as a precondition to obtaining a union representation order. This mirrors what the coalition wanted to do, but of course they did not go as far as our amendment, and, sadly, this bill will be worse off for it.

Amendments are also made by the government clarifying concerns raised about the ability to commence enterprise instrument modernisation before modern awards commence in 2010, again rectifying a deficiency. Provisions dealing with the transfer of staff from institutions under the existing system to the new superb bureaucracy of Fair Work Australia are also sensible, notwithstanding the mammoth size, model of inefficiency and confusion that Fair Work Australia is destined to become. There are other technical matters that the Deputy Prime Minister addressed. I do not intend to go into them. The opposition will not be opposing these amendments and the business of the House can proceed.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.