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

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (9) and (10) on sheet 5449 together:

(9)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 15 (after line 25), after section 346M, insert:

346MA Workplace Authority Director must provide written reasons

        (1)    If the Workplace Authority Director makes a decision under section 346D that an agreement:

             (a)    passes the no-disadvantage test; or

             (b)    does not pass the no-disadvantage test;

then, in response to a request by any of the following parties:

             (c)    the employer in relation to the agreement;

             (d)    an employee whose employment is subject to the agreement;

             (e)    if the agreement is a union collective agreement or a multiple-business agreement that would be a union collective agreement but for subsection 331(1)—the organisation or organisations bound by the agreement;

              (f)    if the agreement is a union greenfields agreement or a multiple-business agreement that would be a union greenfields agreement but for subsection 331(1)—the organisation or organisations bound by the agreement;

the Workplace Authority Director must provide written reasons for the decision.

(10) Schedule 1, item 2, page 15 (after line 25), after section 346M, insert:

346MB Review of decisions of Workplace Authority Director

If the Workplace Authority Director makes a decision under section 346D in relation to an agreement, any of the parties to the agreement in paragraphs 346MA(c) to (f) may appeal to the Federal Magistrates Court for a review of the decision in accordance with the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

This again relates to the issue of natural justice and people being informed of decisions. It relates to the amendment that I moved before, which concerned employees having the right to know what designated awards are being used. This one has a similar essence in there being a requirement for workers to be able to access information and to be told about decisions that are affecting them. This came up during the inquiry and I would recommend that people look in particular at Professor Stewart’s comments and submission. We believe it is important for workers and employees to get written reasons and the right of appeal and to be able to look at the decisions on the NDT. It is not just a matter of natural justice but also a matter of basic accountability measures for the NDT. We have raised this previously. We raised it last year in respect of the fairness test and we will continue to raise it.

We believe that decisions on the no disadvantage test do materially affect people. The test goes to people’s wages and conditions and they have a right to know about those wages and conditions because these are of fundamental concern to them. Given the potential seriousness of the decisions made by the Workplace Authority and the requirement for basic accountability measures, we believe that it is a question of natural justice that people be allowed to know this information.

Also, the bill is light on details on consistency of application of the NDT, so how will we know about the basic consistency of application if written reasons are prevented from being given? When a similar no disadvantage test operated prior to Work Choices, there were real issues with consistency of decisions and also with fairness. The application of the test by the then Office of the Employment Advocate resulted in employees losing conditions and receiving inadequate compensation. I remember very vividly talking to workers who were coming to us with concerns around how the Office of the Employment Advocate was working at the time. We should be learning from the past. People should have access to written reasons for decisions. I would therefore like to ask the government why this was not taken into account when the bill was drafted in the first place.