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

Maybe we will not use a pie van then! If we use another small, individual business which is a third party to an individual supplier, but which is quite well away in the sense that it is a small, individual party, clause 426 might allow them to intervene in protected industrial action which has been taken at a large bakery or bread manufacturer who supplies to a whole range of distributors which then supply to a broad market. But one of those third parties right at the periphery could put its hand up under clause 426 and potentially argue that it is being significantly affected by that action and therefore seek to remove the protection from the employees of the manufacturer of pies or the bakery to be able to take protected industrial action in furtherance of their enterprise-level agreement.

We have sought to ensure that, when Fair Work Australia looks at those cases at the margin, it can take all of the circumstances into account and turn to those which ‘disrupt for an extended period’, ‘significantly reduce’ or cause serious economic loss. If it were to cause serious economic loss then there is an argument that those parties should be heard and have the opportunity to argue that the protected industrial action should cease. But if it is well and truly a third party who is at the margin then Fair Work Australia can turn to ‘take into account … the extent to which the protected industrial action threatens to’. We are seeking to ensure that clause 426 operates fairly—in other words, that we get the balance right—between those who are at the margin of the area rather than what generally comes to mind, which is those who are major suppliers or contractors, where the examples are pretty straightforward and usually uncontested, in the sense that those parties will certainly make an application and go to Fair Work Australia.