Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Senator Pocock has said that you made a commitment to him to review modern awards. Can you please confirm that you have made the commitment and provide further information to the chamber, particularly regarding the form of the review, its timing and whether it will be conducted independently of government?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Wentworth for the question and also acknowledge that both the member for Wentworth and a number of members of the crossbench in this House raised issues here that have ended up being part of the negotiation that's taken place in the Senate. The review of the awards is one of the issues that had been raised by crossbenchers within this House as well.

The review is something where final decisions of government, through its mechanism, haven't been taken yet, but it is my intention that the review will commence next year. The reason for the review and one of the reasons why I readily agreed to it is, as part of the secure jobs, better pay bill, we're not only updating the objects of the act we're also updating the objects of the modern awards. That means the award system will now have objects that it didn't have when it was developed. For example, the principles of gender equality, particularly under the amendments that were made here, will now be requirements of the act but they weren't requirements when the awards were developed—similarly for secure jobs. Secure jobs, once the legislation is passed, will be an objective of the awards but it wasn't when they were designed.

Certainly I'm not proposing that the review would be limited to these issues, and they'll be a decision of government as to the full breadth of it, but when you change the objects of the award system I think it's very important that you then have some sort of review to work out what that actually means for the awards themselves.

Tracey Roberts (Pearce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How will the secure jobs, better pay bill get wages moving again and is this consistent with the commentary?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Pearce both for her question and for her commitment to getting wages moving.

There is some commentary I want to refer to, but it's commentary that agrees that the bill will get wages moving, and it's commentary that came from the Leader of the Opposition and I thank him for it. It was the Leader of the Opposition who said: 'It's going to result in higher wages.' Similar comments were made by the shadow Treasurer, but because they were said on television he doesn't like me quoting them. The principle there, from the Leader of the Opposition, was made very clear: 'It's going to result in higher wages.' That commentary is spot on. When you include gender equality as an objective in the Fair Work Act, then you look at some of the awards that are dealing very much with feminised industries, you're looking at an area where it will get wages moving. The Leader of the Opposition is right.

When you give the Fair Work Commission the power to consider equal remuneration and work value cases in a much more effective way, and you make it easier to run an equal pay case, that will get wages moving. The Leader of the Opposition is right. Giving the Fair Work Commission the expertise to determine pay equity claims—the panels that we're setting up, both on pay equity and on the care and community sector, will improve the expertise on these issues. That is there within the Fair Work Commission. That will result in higher wages. The Leader of the Opposition is right, and I thank him again for his commentary.

Banning pay secrecy clauses will help get wages moving. Pay secrecy clauses have been used as a way to make sure that people don't know what each other is earning. It's a way of putting downward pressure on wages. Getting rid of those pay secrecy clauses will allow people to better know what the going rate at their workplace is. That will result in higher wages. The Leader of the Opposition is right, and I thank him for his commentary.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about privacy?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the interjection, 'What about privacy?' If you don't want to tell people what you're earning, you don't have to. The problem at the moment is that people want to tell people what they're earning and they're not allowed to. Before you interject as to what you're angry about with the bill, read it. Just have a look, because it's the opposite of what your interjection says.

There are the sunsetting zombie agreements, which date back to the Work Choices era, where people are now being paid less than the award. Getting rid of those will get wages moving. The commentary from the Leader of the Opposition is right. Introducing multi-employer bargaining will get wages moving. The Leader of the Opposition is right. But the fact that he's right on all these issues causes those opposite to reach the opposite conclusion. If it gets wages moving, they don't want it to happen. If it gets wages moving, the government is in support.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. You can thank the number of points of order for why you didn't get more questions.