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

by leave—I move Green amendments (45), (46) and (47) on sheet 5729:

(45)  Clause 492, page 398 (after line 20), after subclause (2), insert:

     (2A)    Without limiting when a request under subsection (1) might otherwise be unreasonable, similar considerations to those set out in paragraph (2)(b) apply in determining whether a request under paragraph (1)(b) is unreasonable.

(46)  Division 3, clauses 494 to 499, page 399 (line 1) to page 401 (line 26), to be opposed.

(47)  Subdivision C, clauses 508 and 509, page 405 (line 22) to page 406 (line 29), to be opposed.

We have had a substantive debate around right of entry. There are a couple of points I would like to raise before going on to the specific amendments. I have already spoken about the ILO Committee of Experts’ most recent report. In that report they also went on to request the government to indicate measures taken to amend the legislation ‘to lift the restrictive conditions set out for granting a permit giving right of entry to the workplace, and ensure that the group of workers with whom a trade union representative may meet at the workplace is not artificially restricted’. The conditions the ILO wanted lifted have been kept in the bill at clause 513. We have some strong concerns about that. We keep hearing that we are moving away from Work Choices but there are some clear examples of where we are not.

With respect to amendment (45), as I said earlier, we are pleased that while the bill keeps some elements of Work Choices, there has been movement on right of entry, and we are pleased that the government has placed some reasonableness criteria around the ability of the employer to dictate where unions meet employees. The Work Choices provisions operated to essentially deny workers freedom of association. During the committee inquiry we heard extensively about where employees had been forced to meet—under camera surveillance, in an office next door to the boss, in the tearoom and, in one instance we heard of, in the toilet.

We are pleased that the government has moved to deal with that; however, we believe the reasonableness factors should be extended to where the employer chooses the route the union representative must take. Again, during the inquiry we heard stories about the routes union representatives were forced to take to get to meetings. There was a lot of concern raised about that. We think it is reasonable to extend those provisions to include the route the union representative must take.

Turning to amendment (46) the Greens oppose, as we did with Work Choices, the requirement that union officials have a federal permit for entering under state occupational health and safety laws. State laws are state laws and should be regulated by state authorities. We see this as a hangover from Work Choices, and yet another unwarranted extension of jurisdiction.

In amendment (47) we also oppose the Work Choices provision that unions as a whole can be punished for the actions of their officials in breaching permit conditions. Punishment should lie with the individual who committed the breach. You would be surprised to hear that we think that these items improve the right-of-entry provisions in the Fair Work Bill and commend them to the Senate!

Question negatived.