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

You on the other side made it out to be such a significant issue. I was just merely correcting the record to point out to you that from our perspective it is just simply sorting through the provisions to ensure that the Fair Work Bill provided both the flexibility and the balance that Work Choices did not have.

And turning to some of the questions that have been raised, such as whether AWAs would be allowed to exist under this regime for longer than the previous regime, the government has made commitments that all existing types of agreements will continue to operate until they are terminated or replaced by the parties. As for the question of how long particular instruments will operate, that is one for the parties themselves. The details of how transitional instruments will be dealt with will be in the transitional and consequential bill to be tabled shortly.

In respect of the question about the circumstances in which a union cannot be involved in collective bargaining, unless they choose not to be involved of course, it is when the employees decide that they do not want the union to represent them in collective bargaining. At the end of the day it really is the employees who determine who the bargaining representatives will be.

In respect of matters that are raised in relation to what perhaps we could more broadly call the definition of employees’ records, the general question seems to be around the information on matters such as criminal records, garnishee orders and disciplinary matters. The definition of an employee record is the definition from the Privacy Act. It could include these things but, subject to important conditions and amendments, the government is moving to protect the use of information. There are four things that should be noted. First, a union can only access records that are directly relevant to a breach that affects or relates to a union member, and I note that the government has distributed amendments imposing the requirement that the record must be directly relevant.

Second, the government is also moving amendments that mean a union official cannot require an employer to produce documents or records if to do so would contravene a law of the Commonwealth or a state or territory. As set out in the supplementary explanatory memorandum, an example of how this would operate is section 58 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, which would mean that the information about deductions from an employee’s wages for child support could not be divulged.

Third, the Privacy Act 1988 will apply to information collected by a permit holder and, finally, the government is also moving an amendment to provide strong and unprecedented protections for information collected by a permit holder. This amendment would prohibit a person from disclosing information—not just personal information—acquired by a permit holder exercising a right of entry for purposes other than rectifying the breach. This of course would mean that, even if the permit holder were able to access such information they would face substantial penalties—anything in the order of a maximum penalty of $6,600 for an individual or $33,000 for a union—plus automatic loss of a permit if found to have contravened a provision. This government does take the issue of privacy seriously.

Another question—and I take it to be a more flippant question—was: how many amendments are there as a percentage of the bill? I do not know the precise number. I do know that there are fewer than the 337 amendments that were made to Work Choices. In addition, will there be new enterprise awards in the Forward with Fairness Bill? No, but there will be special provisions dealing with the situation of franchisees in the transitional bill which will be introduced later in the week.