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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (18) and (19) on sheet 5729:

(18)  Clause 260, page 234 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:

        (6)    For the purposes of paragraph (5)(c), an employer may be identified by a trading name, being a name that the employer trades under, or is known as by its employees, suppliers or customers.

(19) Clause 262, page 235 (line 25), at the end of subclause (4), add:

   ; and (c)    an improvement in the employment conditions of the employees.

I also propose to talk to amendment (20) to progress the debate, and so I indicate that the Greens oppose clause 263 in the following terms:

(20)  Clause 263, page 236 (line 1 to 21), to be opposed.

This is about the low-paid bargaining stream, which the Greens are very supportive of. In fact, I think I have expressed my surprise that these provisions went as far as they did. I have congratulated the government and I congratulate them again for taking this approach. However, we think that they could be improved. There are three amendments that could improve on this stream and these provisions.

In amendment (18) we have taken up a suggestion from the SDA about businesses being able to be identified by their trading name in applications under these provisions. We think this is a practical suggestion, with no detrimental consequences. In amendment (19) we have also taken up another suggestion by the SDA, who pointed out that, in making a low-paid bargaining determination, FWA takes into account future bargaining and the productivity and efficiency in the enterprise but not whether the employment conditions of the employees will be improved by the determination. It may be implied—and in fact that is what the government’s response has previously been, that it is implied—but we believe it should be explicit.

Amendment (20) is a more substantial amendment, to remove the condition for a low-paid determination that the employer must not have been a party to a collective agreement in the past. While we understand the intention of the provisions is to assist collective bargaining where it has been difficult in the past, we believe this restriction is too severe and that there may remain barriers to collective bargaining even where an employer has been involved in one in the past.

These low-paid bargaining provisions are very important, and we believe that these amendments could improve them even further. We urge the government to consider them.