Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Before I get to the same point, because I think it is an important area to be debated, I want to comment briefly, which I had not done, on Senator Fielding’s second reading amendment. I must say in passing I am glad he did not turn up dressed as a pizza to put his amendment about meal breaks! I did note with interest the minister’s commentary in the second reading debate, on his second reading amendment. My opinion is that Senator Fielding is on the right track. What he has exposed and what the minister has identified is that there are gaps in this area which need to be explored. I think in due course the minister might do well to make some kind of announcement as to how that area will be dealt with in the future because meal breaks and so on are actually a very fundamental issue.

Turning to the debate at hand—stripping away the rhetoric and aggression with which this particular debate has started—it is a very difficult area to work through. Whilst most people are sympathetic with the ideal of workers not losing wages and conditions, the fact is that when you reform, modernise or rationalise awards and agreements you have to change wages and conditions—usually conditions more than wages. It is one of the reasons that in 1996 the Democrats introduced the global no disadvantage test—because they recognised that, if you were creating an agreement, you could not match or meet up to the expectations of individual or specific wages and conditions and therefore you needed to assess the matter on balance overall.

I do note that this is an area covered in the Greens’ additional remarks to the bill and I do note that Senator Siewert will be dealing with the specific issues of balance—how you balance out wages and conditions—later on in her amendments. My specific question, and it follows on from the specifics of Senator Abetz’s question, is this. At paragraph 1.109 of the majority report, it said:

It was also noted that the process—

this is, the process of award modernisation—

is not intended to ‘disadvantage employees’ or ‘increase costs for employers’. Yet it was pointed out that it is not possible to standardise conditions without disadvantaging someone. Witnesses urged the government to consider the language used and clarify its intent.

These were remarks made by academics, by Professor Stewart and—I think my memory is correct—by Dr Buchanan, but it is a serious issue because this bill does initiate award modernisation and the request draft as outlined has these contradictory elements in it. It is a matter which I think does need to be resolved.

What I would like is for the minister to answer, not in the sense of a general exposition but in the sense of process, as to what could be done to address this practical issue. Perhaps the draft request could be changed or the wording altered in the manner the academics have suggested to cater for two conflicting and irreconcilable objectives. Their proposition was that you cannot do both, and personally I think they had a valid point and I suspect the majority of the committee members also thought so.