Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

As I read clause 426(4) now, it says:

FWA may take into account any matters it considers relevant including the extent to which the protected industrial action threatens to—

Then there is a debate about the amendments being sought to insert ‘for an extended period’ after ‘disrupt’, ‘significantly’ before ‘reduce’ and ‘serious’ before ‘economic loss’. My question to the minister is: isn’t it the case that there is already a fair degree of discretion built in on the part of Fair Work Australia to consider these matters? It is appropriate to have that level of discretion there so that trivial matters would not be considered. But would further including a significant qualification, which is what is being proposed, not fetter unduly the discretion of FWA to deal with these matters? In terms of current case law, could the minister advise what the status quo is in terms of any precedents that have been set, both for this type of wording and the wording for the higher threshold, which is what is being sought by putting in ‘significantly’, ‘for an extended period’ and ‘serious’ economic loss?