Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Let’s stay with the legislation before us, Senator Abetz, through the chair. It is an irrelevancy because we are considering what the legislation actually suggests. Bear in mind that the amendments I am focusing on with respect to reasons are opposition amendments (19) and (20). They simply say ‘must state the reasons’. They do not say that the reasons have to be extensive, lengthy, involved, convoluted or bureaucratic; they simply say they must be stated. If an agreement passed the fairness test, the reason that the agreement was allowed could be that it met all the requirements of the legislation. If the agreement did not pass the fairness test then they need to spell it out. I think the shadow minister has quite rightly pointed out that 346P(3) says:

If the Workplace Authority Director decides under section 346M that a workplace agreement does not pass the fairness test, the notice must also:

(a) in the case of a workplace agreement that is in operation on the date of issue specified in the notice—contain advice as to how the agreement could be varied to pass the fairness test

In other words, their reasons for rejecting it will result in the creation of advice as to how to remedy it. All the opposition’s amendments are doing is saying explicitly that you must spell out the reasons for rejecting it—here are the reasons—and this is how you can correct it. That is not adding bureaucracy, complexity or undue process; it is merely making explicit what should be a natural consequence if you are rejecting an agreement because it does not pass the fairness test. The minister could argue, through the chair, that the amendments are superfluous and unnecessary, or whatever words he may use, but it is not an answer to condemn them for characteristics and a lack of virtue which they do not have.

That is the reasons area. What I like about the opposition’s amendments is that they do not go to lengths that say the reasons must be full, comprehensive and cover this, that and the other thing; they simply say that a reason must be provided. It might be a clause or a sentence or a paragraph—it depends on the circumstance. When we get to the review process I am critical of the way in which the amendments are devised. I want a review process but I think the way in which they have been devised may be difficult, depending on the circumstances. There I have more sympathy with the minister’s concerns that they may produce consequences which are not that attractive. But I support the principle, and that is important. I always support the principle of giving reasons and reviewing a decision in every case where it is appropriate. Sometimes it may not be. So I think the minister is wrong to indicate inconsistency and he is unfair to the intention of the amendments in the way in which he characterises them.