Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

Our amendment (9) is no longer required, because the government's amendment has overtaken it. It is the amendment about supported decision making. I table a statement of reasons.

The CHAIRMAN: Is leave granted for Senator Moore to move amendments (1) to (8) and (10) to (24) together?

Leave granted.

by leave—I move:

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 21 to 27), omit all the words from and including "accepts the offer" to and including "continue unchanged", substitute "accepts the offer, the Secretary will make the payment to the person".

(2) Clause 4, page 3 (line 14), omit "matter referred to in subsection 10(2)", substitute "possible ground for compensation".

(3) Clause 4, page 3 (line 17), omit "matter referred to in subsection 10(2)", substitute "possible ground for compensation".

(4) Clause 4, page 4 (lines 14 and 15), omit the definition of group member.

(5) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 1), after the definition of payment amount, insert:

  possible ground for compensation has the meaning given by section 10.

(6) Clause 4, page 5 (lines 9 and 10), omit the definition of relevant representative proceeding.

(7) Clause 4, page 5 (lines 11 and 12), omit the definition of representative party.

(8) Clause 4, page 5 (lines 13 and 14), omit the definition of representative proceeding.

(10) Clause 5, page 6 (line 7), omit "person;", substitute "person.".

(11) Clause 5, page 6 (line 8), omit paragraph (c).

(12) Clause 9, page 8 (line 23) to page 9 (line 23), omit the clause.

(13) Heading to clause 10, page 9 (line 24), omit the heading, substitute:

10 Possible ground for compensation

(14) Clause 10, page 9 (lines 25 to 34), omit subclause (1).

(15) Clause 10, page 10 (lines 1 to 3), omit "(2) The matters are the following, to the extent to which they relate to the use of a BSWAT assessment to work out a minimum wage payable to a person", substitute "Each of the following matters is a possible ground for compensation for a person, to the extent to which it relates to the use of a BSWAT assessment to work out a minimum wage payable to the person".

(16) Clause 19, page 17 (line 8), omit "involve;", substitute "involve.".

(17) Clause 19, page 17 (line 9), omit paragraph (2)(j).

(18) Clause 38, page 30 (line 16), omit "person; and", substitute "person.".

(19) Clause 38, page 30 (lines 17 and 18), omit subparagraph (c)(iii).

(20) Clause 38, page 30 (lines 19 to 21), omit the note.

(21) Clause 39, page 30 (line 22) to page 31 (line 3), to be opposed.

(22) Clause 67, page 47 (line 12), omit "where an amount is wrongly paid to a person, the amount", substitute "an amount".

(23) Clause 67, page 47 (line 15), omit "the person", substitute "a person".

(24) Clause 98, page 64 (lines 19 and 20), omit "matter referred to in subsection 10(2)", substitute "possible ground for compensation".

I think we have traversed a lot of the arguments in the previous discussion. We stand by the principle that we believe that people should have the option to seek redress. In this case, we note that this bill takes away that option for workers who take the decision—we believe the informed decision; we are not quite sure how that informed decision will be made—that they will exclude themselves from taking the option of a legal process. We do not believe that is an appropriate option for the people who have put their faith in their employers and in the government. There has been great interest in this, and I take the point that there has been discussion around these issues for several months, and people have been having meetings and talking about it. Nonetheless, for this particular group of workers, whilst this bill gives them security in some way, with some enhanced money—and no-one doubts that, and that is something the government has decided to do—it in effect says, 'If you take this, you cannot be involved in the legal process,' which is looking at putting a test on their conditions and on the way they are employed by the independent court process.

We heard from minister earlier that there are a great many unknowns in this process. We do not know how the new model will operate. We have not seen it. We do not know exactly how the different employers will implement the model. We do not know whether taking up legal action will bring a better result in terms of employment, wages and conditions than not taking it up. What we do know is that this bill does say, 'Take this and that'll be all you get. Take this; it's the only option you have.' It closes down the clearly discussed option that is out there in the community at the moment through the legal case which argues that there is an opportunity to have this tested. In some ways it actually weakens the legal case. We have discussed this at length in our committee: if people are pulled away by accepting the money in hand because it is an attractive way to have their wage increased. As Senator Lambie said, for people who are getting less than $2 an hour, any increase is attractive—any increase at all. If you pull people away from being part of the legal case, you are detracting from the strength of the legal claim. The important thing is to see how this particular form of wage operates effectively for individuals in the workplace. It is also important to see whether it is a fair response to the work they do and whether it is a fair response to the relationship they have with their employer—something that most people should be able to do without any question. However, if you are among this group of employees, employed in this way, this particular bill says: 'No, you can't do it, no matter the outcome received by other people.'

At the moment there are only the two individuals who are brave enough to work with their legal representatives to test their own working conditions. We only have the results of those two upon which we can base any future discussion. We know that every individual is going to be different. By passing the bill without the amendments that we have put forward, you close down that option for so many workers. We do not believe that is an effective way to work with this group of employees. We believe that the good work that is being proposed by the government by providing support around financial advice and legal advice would only be enhanced if that same advice could be taken for future legal action. In fact, we would be helping those workers to see what would be best for them. We have a range of amendments, though one of those amendments is no longer required—the one about supported decision making. As we have already passed the government's amendment, we will not be pursuing that amendment. I am just checking which particular amendment it is, but all the rest—which are effectively about giving people an option they deserve to ensure that they will get the best possible wage for the work that they do—stand.

We stand by the position that we brought to this place last year: that there should be a way for people not to have that opportunity closed but they should receive the benefit of the government payment, which acknowledges that they could well have been paid incorrectly as a result of the tool. That should be their right, because they are employees in this industry. By bringing forward this legislation, the government feels it is a fair thing to say to the workers who are employed in this industry, 'We think you should have a re-assessment of your particular wage situation and be paid accordingly.' To get a payment through the process is fair, but it is not fair to link that to closing their options to be party to a legal process. Our amendments make sure that that option is returned to the workers, that they are not closed out of that process and that they are supported to have a free choice in ensuring they have the best possible employment conditions and they are part of the decision making so that it is not imposed upon them.