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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 5729 together:

(1)    Clause 3, page 3 (lines 11 and 12), omit “take into account”, substitute “give effect to”.

(2)    Page 3 (after line 36), after Division 2, insert:

Division 2A—Interpretation of this Act

3A Interpretation of this Act

                 This Act is to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with, and gives effect to, Australia’s international labour obligations.

(3)    Page 3 (after line 36), after Division 2, insert:

Division 2B—Review by the ILO

3B Review of this Act by the ILO

        (1)    The Minister must, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act, submit the Act to the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations with a request for urgent advice as to the compliance of the Act with international labour standards.

        (2)    The Minister must also provide to the ILO Committee any additional information it requests to assist in its provision of advice on the compliance of the Act, and must cause a copy of that information to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 6 sitting days of that House after the information is provided to the committee.

        (3)    The Minister must cause any response from the ILO Committee to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 6 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the response.

        (4)    To avoid doubt, the submission of the Act to the ILO Committee in accordance with subsection (1) is additional to the obligations Australia has to report regularly on measures that have been taken to implement ILO conventions.

These amendments relate to the International Labour Organisation, or ILO, obligations. We have three amendments in this series of amendments. Amendment (1) amends the object so that it reads ‘to give effect to Australia’s international obligations’. We note the approach in the bill is weaker than Work Choices, which included the words ‘assisting in giving effect to’ our obligations. With this ALP government, we are deeply concerned that we have even less of a commitment to the ILO conventions than we had with the previous government. Amendment (2) inserts a new clause to require the act to ‘be interpreted in a way that is consistent with, and gives effect to, Australia’s international labour obligations’. Amendment (3) inserts a new division to require the government to submit the legislation, if and when passed by the parliament, to the ILO for advice on its compliance with our international obligations.

We believe a key means of measuring whether an industrial relations system actually provides for fairness is whether it complies with the International Labour Organisation’s core labour standards and conventions. The ILO is a tripartite body, with its standards and policies developed by representatives of governments, employers and workers. The key international conventions are ILO convention No. 87, the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention of 1948; ILO convention No. 98, the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention of 1949; and the UN International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966. The key rights that flow from these instruments include the right of workers to join and be represented by trade unions, to organise and to collectively bargain. The right to strike is also considered an integral part of the principle of freedom of association.

Various submissions to the committee process identified areas of the bill that may breach our obligations, including: provisions that give primacy to enterprise-level agreements and that restrict the level at which bargaining can occur, including the ban on pattern bargaining; provisions that limit the contents of agreements; provisions that give insufficient protection to workers who take industrial action in support of their rights under the conventions; and provisions that restrict the right to strike beyond the limits permitted by the conventions, including provisions relating to secret ballots, termination of industrial action by the minister, the suspension of industrial action due to harm caused by third parties and bans on industrial action in support of multi-employer agreements.

On amendment 2, if the government believes that the bill covers our international obligations then we believe there is no reason to object to this amendment, which has the effect of providing that the legislation be read so as to be consistent with our international obligations. It would only come into use where there is some ambiguity in the meaning of the provision.

On amendment 3, which I remind the Senate is to insert a new division to require the government to submit this legislation, if and when passed by the parliament, to the ILO, we note that in its latest report the committee of experts, in commenting on Australia and the right to organise, requests that the Australian government:

… communicate with its next report a copy of any draft legislation under consideration in the framework of the substantive labour law reform, so as to examine its conformity with the Convention.

I note that the government has been saying that it had not been requested to submit the draft legislation, and the government’s response previously has been that it will submit a copy of the act if and when it is passed. However, as I said, the latest report asks the government to ‘communicate with its next report a copy of any draft legislation’. Of course, it may be too late to submit the draft legislation. We are disappointed the government did not do so before, when it had ample opportunity.

What our amendment does is require the government to submit the final act to the ILO for its consideration of its compliance, as the committee of experts itself requests. I ask the government whether they have looked at these matters and whether they believe the bill is compliant with our obligations. If they believe the bill is compliant then we believe they should have no difficulty with these amendments. And I ask why the bill is not more specific and does not in fact cover the clauses that we have covered. I fail to see why the government have not acted to move such amendments or to include these amendments in their bill in the first place.