Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 5739:

(1)    Clause 3, page 3 (line 34), omit “enterprise-level”, substitute “workplace-level”.

This is an amendment to the objects section of the act. It seeks to omit the term ‘enterprise-level’ and substitute the term ‘workplace-level’. The purpose of this amendment is to alleviate concerns raised about the word ‘enterprise’ by replacing it with the word ‘workplace’. The concern is about the lack of definition around the term ‘enterprise’ such that it could be read to mean an entire company as opposed to an individual workplace within a company.

Should an argument ever be had between a union and employer about the scope or reach of a proposed collective agreement, a tribunal may have to have regard to the objects of the act to determine a position. Our amendment assists in supporting an argument that each place will, where a disagreement exists, be able to negotiate terms specific to it instead of the entire company. I remind the minister, as he objectively and actively considers this amendment with an open mind, that on page 13 of the Forward with Fairness policy document the then opposition, now government, told us:

Collective bargaining will be based on bargaining at the level of an enterprise. The well understood definition of ‘enterprise’ will continue and may include a single business or employer, a group of related businesses operating as a single business or a discrete undertaking, site or project. For example, this means a collective enterprise agreement can be made for employees at a warehouse, a chain of shops, a manufacturing plant or a major construction project.

So, clearly, at the time the minister was considering that an enterprise could refer to a discrete undertaking, a site or a project. We say that this would remove any doubt and that the term ‘workplace’ is a lot better and more definitive than the term ‘enterprise’. We believe that that should not be controversial, given the commitment made in Forward with Fairness. The bill, as we understand it, and according to the numerous speeches Ms Gillard gave, is supposed to encourage bargaining at each workplace and ensure that a business can implement arrangements specific it.

I say to the government that if they are genuine about achieving this aim they can clarify this by ensuring that nothing in the bill artificially restricts employees and employers negotiating conditions at a particular workplace. I commend the amendment to the Senate.