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

I can understand that the government is dealing with a big backlog of agreements through the failed processes of the past. However, I do not think past unfairnesses justify future unfairnesses. There is an absolute failure in natural justice here if people cannot find out why their agreement failed or passed, particularly what the reasons were for a decision under the NDT. Also, it is a failure of natural justice to be unable to appeal those decisions. As I said, I totally understand that the government is dealing with a large issue here. They need to find an efficient way to deal with it, but that does not mean that workers should continue to be subject to unfair procedures. This bill is about improving the system—the title of the overall package is Forward with Fairness. It is not fair if people do not have access to natural justice and to the reasons for, and the inability to appeal, decisions that directly affect their lives. We have past examples. You need only to have gone to estimates in the past to listen to issue after issue that came up with regard to the Office of Employment Advocate. Cases in relation to the work of that office were continually brought up and asked about at estimates. Therefore we very strongly believe that these two amendments afford a bit of extra fairness in this process.