Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (14) to (18):

(14)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 15 (line 22), omit “fair compensation”, substitute “full compensation”.

(15)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 15 (line 28), omit “fair compensation”, substitute “full compensation”.

(16)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 16 (lines 1 and 2), omit “fair compensation”, substitute “full compensation”.

(17)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 16 (lines 11 and 12), omit “fair compensation”, substitute “full compensation”.

(18)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 16 (lines 22 and 23), omit “fair compensation”, substitute “full compensation”.

This set of amendments relates to Labor’s desire to provide full compensation, not just fair compensation. I note that one of the issues that has been raised in relation to the drafting of this bill is the failure to include a clear definition of ‘fair compensation’. There are provisions which set out what must happen when an agreement passes the fairness test and there is a definition, for example, in relation to non-monetary compensation. Maybe the minister can explain why there is not a clear definition of ‘fair compensation’.

But the reality is that the government is not committed to providing any compensation for certain types of conditions of employment—things like redundancy pay or rostering protections. And it is clear from this bill and from the government’s statements relating to it that the government is not committed to providing full compensation for employees who lose their overtime and penalty rates, shiftwork allowances, rest breaks and public holiday pay. Therefore, within these amendments we are moving a requirement to provide full compensation for the loss of award conditions. In essence, these amendments replace the term ‘fair compensation’ with ‘full compensation’ in all provisions relating to the fairness test. The effect of this will be that employees’ terms and conditions are protected in their entirety, something the Howard government is not prepared to do. Where these conditions are excluded or modified in an agreement, an employee will be entitled to full compensation for their loss, rather than something less than that.

These amendments by Labor are to ensure that protected award conditions cannot simply be eroded away. They will provide clearer guidance to the Workplace Authority Director about what is required of him or her when conducting the fairness test. They will also provide certainty for Australian employers and employees about their obligations and entitlements, given the potentially vague implications of the fairness test which have been alluded to in the second reading debate and in other places.

Just while I am on my feet, can I say that it is interesting to recall the debate in the chamber on the second reading of the initial Work Choices legislation, when the government actually voted against putting ‘fairness’ into the objects of the act and into the provisions governing the determinations of the Fair Pay Commission. When I asked Senator Abetz during that debate why the government was doing that, he said:

You can have fairness without actually saying it.

Clearly, under the Howard government, that is just another piece of rhetoric. We know that this legislation is unfair. We do not think it is appropriate that there is less than full compensation for employees who lose overtime and penalty rates, shiftwork allowances, rest breaks and public holidays. And we think that provisions such as redundancy pay and rostering protections ought be subject to full compensation.