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

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 5453:

(1)    Page 121 (after line 11), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 8—Repeal of provisions relating to prohibited content

Workplace Relations Act 1996

1  Section 321 (definition of prohibited content)

Repeal the definition.

2  Subdivision B of Division 7 of Part 8

Repeal the Subdivision.

3  Paragraph 367(2)(b)

Repeal the paragraph.

4  Section 436

Repeal the section.

5  Subsection 453(4)

Repeal the subsection.

6  Subsection 504(4)

Repeal the subsection.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 15, page 40 (line 2), omit “(b),”.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 15, page 40 (line 10), omit “(b),”.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 15, page 42 (line 5), omit “(b),”.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 46, page 50 (line 15), omit “Paragraphs 360(2)(b) and”, substitute “Paragraph”.

This relates to the issue of prohibited content. As I understand it, it is the government’s policy to remove restrictions on the content of agreements. Employers and employees should be free to negotiate the content of their agreements. Furthermore, the prohibited content rules are complicated and carry over into restrictions on industrial actions. Employees and employers also run the risk of breaching civil penalty provisions. We believe this is a straightforward amendment to delete prohibited content rules and, as it is government policy, we do not see why it does not do it now rather than wait until the substantive bill, because I can hear that coming down the track. We believe this would help protect workers from this point forward, rather than waiting another two years. This issue was specifically raised during the committee hearings.

We believe that it is more appropriate, as we move forward into the new industrial relations system—particularly with regard to those areas of the bill that remain that can impinge on the setting of the new system and the process of putting in place the ITEA system for the next two years—that we deal with that now rather than in the future when, I understand, it is government policy that this will be removed. I would be interested to know why the government are not moving this particular element of the Work Choices regime now rather than in the future. If they are not, is it in fact government policy that it will be removed in the substantive bill?