Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

No, Senator Sherry. Does the bill keep Labor’s promise to remove the place for individual statutory agreements in Labor’s new system—a foolhardy promise, but nonetheless one that was made? No. Parties can choose for existing Australian workplace agreements and new individual transitional employment arrangements to continue to apply indefinitely beyond their nominal term with no end date. Does the bill leave every Australian worker better off? No; expert witness evidence is to the contrary. The operation of the new no disadvantage test for certified agreements means an individual employee can effectively have their take-home pay reduced, says Professor Andrew Stewart from Adelaide University—and the bill’s award modernisation process cannot be undertaken with nobody being worse off, says Professor Andrew Stewart from Adelaide University.

Does the bill keep Labor’s promise to exempt employees earning more than $100,000 a year from awards by January 2010? No, confirms Professor Andrew Stewart from Adelaide University. So what has the recent and very quick Senate committee inquiry into this bill heard?

What has the recent Senate committee inquiry heard about this bill, which is flawed in its policy intent, flawed in its drafting and fails to do what the government promised it would do? Does the bill keep Labor’s promise to deliver simplicity and deliver certainty? Professor Andrew Stewart from Adelaide University says no. As an academic expert, Professor Stewart told the committee in his submission:

The Transition Bill was plainly drafted in a hurry ... many of the new provisions remain unduly complicated and difficult to understand, even for experts.

Does the bill keep Labor’s albeit foolhardy promise to remove the place for individual statutory agreements in Labor’s new system? No. Workplace parties can continue to use existing individual statutory agreements after their nominal term, with no end date. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations told the committee that Australian workplace agreements and individual transitional employment agreements in this situation could continue to apply in workplaces, subject to the parties exercising their legal rights to terminate them—in other words, if the parties chose to allow them to continue, then they could do so—and in this scenario they could continue to apply well beyond 2012. The bill does not provide an end date for this continued application of individual statutory agreements, so confirmed the department.

The fact that parties may not be able to amend or vary these individual transitional employment agreements or Australian workplace agreements operating beyond their nominal term does not prevent the parties from choosing to continue to apply these agreements in workplaces on an ongoing and indefinite basis. Does the new no-disadvantage test for certified agreements leave all employees better off? No. Professor Andrew Stewart confirmed that the operation of the new no-disadvantage test for certified agreements, worded as it currently is in the bill, means that an individual employee can effectively have their take-home pay reduced.

Does award modernisation under the bill mean that every employee will be better off? No. I am disappointed that Senator George Campbell is not here to confirm his recent realisation of that fact. Indeed, during the Senate committee inquiry, Senator George Campbell realised that the award modernisation process means that some employees who currently have a safety net could, under Labor’s new system, end up without one. Professor Andrew Stewart, again, says in his submission:

... it is highly unlikely that such a balancing exercise as the bill’s award modernisation could ever be undertaken with such precision that nobody was worse off. Any process of standardisation must inevitably result in some levelling up or down of entitlements.

Perhaps this explains some of the reasoning behind why Senator Gavin Marshall was concerned that the government’s department was apparently not answering my questioning on the consistent application of dual award modernisation objectives of not increasing costs for employers and of not disadvantaging employees.