Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Yes. It is a question that you asked: will there be new enterprise awards in the Forward with Fairness Bill? The answer is no, but there will be special provisions dealing with the situation of franchisees in the transitional bill to be introduced later this week.

Another of the broader questions concerns the modelling, and it seems to be the economic modelling that the Liberal Party seems to be stuck on. Something I have not seen during drafting before but something that in fact I have warmed to quite substantially is the ability for this bill to set out in the EM substantial information more broadly about the outline of the legislation together with some significant contributions on the regulatory analysis of the bill dealing with key elements of the new system together with the regulatory implications of the system and setting out the consultation that has been had in relation to this. This was sorely missed out of the Work Choices legislation, quite frankly.

It then set out the regulatory analysis, as I have indicated, which goes to something I have not seen in legislation of this nature before. It is a pity it was not included in Work Choices because we might have been able to avoid many of the harsh effects of Work Choices as a consequence if we had seen some of the regulatory impacts beforehand. The regulatory impact, of course, addresses the issue that the Liberals will broadly raise about people being worse off under the Fair Work Bill. They will certainly be better off than under Work Choices. There is no argument about that, quite frankly, when you look at the significant legislation we are putting forward. The bill does not do what AWAs did, which was to rip people off and strip conditions. It provides fair and flexible workplace relations legislation.

You raised the issue—and I think I have dealt with it in part—about new jobs. The bill’s objectives include promoting productivity and economic growth. Of course, if the opposition know another way of underpinning employment growth that is through productivity and economic growth then, quite frankly, I am happy for that contribution to be made. That is the path for increasing employment and to ensure that we have economic growth and that we promote productivity.

The interesting part, which I also found to be quite cute, was where the opposition said the conscientious objection clause equals 20 employees and tried to tie that with unfair dismissals. Immediately I leapt to the position of where you got the 100 from in relation to Work Choices and thought that you had not read your own clause. It was really difficult to see why you were trying to tie it to that. That clause stands alone; it did under Work Choices and it does under this legislation as well—unless, of course, you are suggesting that your 100 was wrong and that you should have chosen 20 originally. It has nothing to do with the issue that we are putting forward. We are putting forward unfair dismissal laws that are fair and practical and will ensure that both employees and employers can work through them objectively. What they will also do is provide small business with a code of conduct that will assist small business employees and employers to operate in a fair manner.

In relation to the superannuation issue the Australian Industrial Relations Commission award modernisation decision essentially maintains the status quo. It does not affect an employee’s right to choose the fund to which their superannuation is paid. All Australian employees continue to be entitled to choose their own superannuation fund. The effect of the superannuation award clause is to provide a default fund into which an employer can pay on behalf of an employee who has failed to exercise their right to nominate a fund of their own choosing. In respect of the right of entry amendments, the government has decided—and I think I might have gone through this but just to be clear—to propose new right of entry provisions which provide that 24-hours notice of entry should not be required when investigating suspected breaches.

The other issue from the opposition, which I found a little bit confounding, was the broad suggestion that you could not have individual circumstances. That is what the Fair Work Bill is all about, to ensure that collective bargaining allows parties to collectively bargain to reach agreement on a range of matters. That is what award modernisation is all about as well. If you look through—and I am sure you have—the Fair Work Bill it is about fairness, unlike Work Choices which was about stripping and slashing conditions and wages of employees and pushing them onto AWAs, which in some of the low-paid areas was really a drive to a lower wage outcome for those employees. I think the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations had discovered this over the period it examined the statistics in relation to Work Choices.