Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, just for clarification, I asked a question prior to question time relating to the first government amendment. It is not related to the amendment I am about to move. I seek leave to move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5449 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 29 to 33), omit subsection 346D(1), substitute:

        (1)    An ITEA passes the no-disadvantage test if the Workplace Authority Director is satisfied that:

             (a)    the ITEA does not result, or would not result, on balance, in a reduction in the employee’s overall terms and conditions of employment under any reference instrument relating to the employee; and

             (b)    the ITEA would not result, on balance, in a reduction in the employee’s overall terms and conditions of employment under any law of a State or Territory that was in existence immediately before the reform commencement that the Workplace Authority Director considers relevant; and

             (c)    the ITEA complies with the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (lines 1 to 6), omit subsection 346D(2), substitute:

        (2)    A collective agreement passes the no-disadvantage test if the Workplace Authority Director is satisfied that:

             (a)    the agreement does not result, or would not result, on balance, in a reduction in the overall terms and conditions of employment of the employees under any reference instrument relating to one or more of the employees; and

             (b)    the agreement would not result, on balance, in a reduction in the overall terms and conditions of employment of the employees under any law of a State or Territory that was in existence immediately before the reform commencement that the Workplace Authority Director considers relevant; and

             (c)    the agreement complies with the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard.

These amendments relate to compliance with standards and certain laws. Part of our concern is addressed by the government’s next amendment, which relates to long service leave. We did articulate in our additional comments to the Senate committee report that we had some concerns about long service leave which came up during the inquiry. However, the government’s amendments do not address all of our concerns—specifically around the fact that the NDT does not take into account the Australian fair pay and conditions standards. We believe it is illogical for an agreement to be passed by the Workplace Authority which breaches the act in any way. While the Workplace Ombudsman deals with compliance with the AFPCS, the Workplace Authority could easily ensure that the agreement is at least lawful. We believe that it does not make any sense for it not to be actually stated in the act that they are required to consider and comply with the standards. We believe the most appropriate thing, if they need to be in the agreement, is that they should actually be in the act. If they are not in the act, how does an employee know if they have actually been complied with? The onus is then on the employee to know that the standards have been complied with. But if it is in the act then they know that their agreement has to comply with those standards. So it would be a much simpler process for them to actually be in the act.