Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Hansard source

I cannot let that go by. On the one hand we have got a Senator Abetz saying, ‘We should not be talking to people and consulting.’ On the other hand we have got Senator Fisher saying, ‘We should be doing it; we are not talking and we should be consulting.’ You cannot have it both ways in this. We have been 100 per cent clear. This is a major reform. This had been left in the too-hard basket by the opposition during their 12 years in government. When you were pursuing Work Choices, this is the one area where you decided it was too hard and too difficult—’Let’s leave it behind and not get into the detail.’

This is something that business actually want. You claim to be the champions of business. Go out and talk to business. They want this reform. They do not want thousands and thousands of antiquated awards. This is about reducing red tape. This is about reducing costs for business, making it easier in the industrial relations system. And there is a role to play for the AIRC here. This, Senator Fisher, is about judging each case on its merits. This is about flexibility in the legislation. I fully support the comments of Senator Marshall on this.

I will also just go to a couple of other points that have been raised by Senator Fisher, because there does need to be some clarity. Either there are some misunderstandings or Senator Fisher is ill informed. In relation to the AIRC matter re horticulture and wine growing, this matter is not finalised. The AIRC said in a statement on 22 May 2009:

While some urged us to include independent wine grape growing in the Horticulture Award 2010, or at least apply some of the provisions of that modern award to independent wine grape growing, the extent to which current horticulture awards and NAPSAs actually apply to independent wine grape growing was not readily apparent. We invite further submissions on this issue.

That matter has not been resolved. They are seeking further information and further submissions. It is quite clear, Senator Fisher. That is the statement from the AIRC.

Senator Fisher made some statements regarding the AIRC in relation to the restaurant and catering industry too. The AIRC are acting right now on this request. In a statement made in Melbourne on 5 June 2009, they said:

[3] In order to comply with this paragraph it will be necessary to identify precisely the coverage throughout Australia of the proposed restaurant and catering industry award and consider its terms, including those relating to hours of work, penalty rates and overtime. It will also be necessary, as a preliminary matter, to settle a procedure and a timetable for dealing with the proposed award and for any variation to the Hospitality Modern Award.

There it is—a statement from the AIRC.

Senator Fisher has left, but I will still raise this, and I may raise it again: there is consultation going on with the sectors. There has been consultation—there have been meetings—with the restaurant and catering sector. There have been meetings with the retail sector. There have been meetings with the horticulture sector, and last night I mentioned one of those meetings, which took place on 26 May. In relation to the wine grape growers, I am advised that correspondence has been received very, very recently. That matter will be pursued and examined and there will be discussions. But the correspondence was only received very recently. Senator Fisher has made a number of statements which I believe are ill informed.

Senator Fielding, in relation to some of your concerns I think Senator Marshall has told you that this is about providing flexibility. This is about streamlining the system. Business are calling for it. They have been asking for it for years and years and years. I will give you one quote which I think is very important. This is what the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said in 2005:

Workplace relations policy is too important for horse and buggy era approaches to persist.

          …            …            …

… many businesses are subject to overlapping, multiple sets of regulation (both state and federal) within the one workplace. For example production staff may be under one federal award, transport staff under another federal award and clerical staff under a separate state award – all containing differing rights and obligations.

This creates a situation in which employers and employees face profound difficulties in identifying workplace rights and obligations.

This is a reform that is difficult. There is no doubt about it. But it is the right reform. It is the right reform for workers, to provide fairness, but at the same time it is the right reform for business, to provide simplicity and reduce red tape. It will be especially important for small business, and that is why we are opposing the amendment.