John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that there is a running sheet on the way, so we may as well deal with any general questions that need to be dispensed with first.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question that I have for the quite arrogant minister, who is already interjecting, in relation to this legislation is for and on behalf of all the workers in Australia who might be impacted by this legislation. Can the Australian Labor Party give the guarantee that no individual worker will be worse off as a result of this legislation?

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Crossin interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Crossin foolishly interjects. Having come from her absolute debacle about the Northern Territory intervention, I would have thought she might have thought twice before opening her mouth, especially when she is not in her proper seat. That aside, the point is a very valid one. We as a government did not give that guarantee. That is quite right. But we were castigated from the Torres Strait to Tasmania, from Sydney to the Swan, for not being able to give that guarantee. The Labor Party went around the countryside saying, ‘You cannot vote for a government that is unable to give that guarantee.’

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is still very rudely interjecting. Today they are still unable to give that same guarantee that they demanded of the former government. I say to the Labor Party and to the minister: those good sound bites from the election campaign are a lot more difficult to turn into good, sound policy. The demands you made of the former government you now accept and realise you cannot live up to yourselves. Ms Gillard, in the other place, has been unable to give that guarantee. The minister at the table was unable to give that guarantee at Senate estimates. She was not willing to make the guarantee, which of course means that the Labor Party itself acknowledges that there will be workers worse off as a result of this legislation.

I am giving the minister at the table the opportunity today to once and for all rule out that any worker will be worse off. If, as I suspect, she is unable to give that guarantee, she must have within her mind the category of workers that in fact will be worse off. She must have in her mind how many workers will be worse off and in what states she anticipates those workers will be in. Will they be mainly in the tourism industry or the resources sector? If she is unable to give that guarantee, she must realise that there will be some who will be worse off. So I ask the minister: can she give that guarantee and, if not, will she identify for us those who will be worse off?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can guarantee the chamber that we have legislation before us which will ensure far more protections for workers in this country than were ever put in place by the previous government. Protections were ripped away by Mr Howard’s cabinet apparently on the basis—as the member for North Sydney says—of a lack of knowledge about what it was in fact doing. I do not know which is worse, a government that consciously removes conditions and wages from workers or a government that is not even aware it is doing so.

Frankly, that was the usual churlish contribution from Senator Abetz, a churlishness which was demonstrated by his withdrawal and comments in the debate which just preceded this. The way in which he chooses to behave at times really does belittle the chamber. It would have been appropriate, Senator Abetz, for you to have taken it on the chin and withdrawn when the President asked you to instead of making the sorts of comments that you did. But I will leave that to one side for now. If Senator Abetz chooses to behave like that, that is entirely a matter for him and his conscience.

This government will deliver on our election commitments. We will do what we told the Australian people we would do. That is the substance of the bill before the chamber and I can guarantee, Senator Abetz, that the legislation this government will bring forward—unlike the legislation your government brought forward—will, firstly, be consistent and deliver upon our election commitments and, secondly, will restore the protections that your government either consciously or unwittingly stripped away from Australian workers and their families.

I just want to remind the chamber—perhaps Senator Abetz does not realise this or perhaps he just got rolled in his party room—that the opposition is actually, as I understand it, not opposing this bill. They certainly did not oppose the second reading. Did any senators see the opposition oppose the second reading? I do not think so. After a number of weeks of toing and froing, with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition putting forward a range of different views about what was going to happen, the opposition has finally agreed not to oppose this bill.

But there are those on the other side who cling to Work Choices like someone drowning, cling to what they see as a life raft. I am afraid Senator Abetz is one of those, because he cannot bear to see this piece of legislation that he fought so hard for through this place now being ripped up by this government in accordance with our election policies. That is what is happening here. We on this side of the chamber are absolutely clear that we will deliver on our election commitments. The bill before the chamber does that. I hope that what we see now is opposition senators delivering on the commitment of their leadership group to not oppose this bill.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I get to the same point, because I think it is an important area to be debated, I want to comment briefly, which I had not done, on Senator Fielding’s second reading amendment. I must say in passing I am glad he did not turn up dressed as a pizza to put his amendment about meal breaks! I did note with interest the minister’s commentary in the second reading debate, on his second reading amendment. My opinion is that Senator Fielding is on the right track. What he has exposed and what the minister has identified is that there are gaps in this area which need to be explored. I think in due course the minister might do well to make some kind of announcement as to how that area will be dealt with in the future because meal breaks and so on are actually a very fundamental issue.

Turning to the debate at hand—stripping away the rhetoric and aggression with which this particular debate has started—it is a very difficult area to work through. Whilst most people are sympathetic with the ideal of workers not losing wages and conditions, the fact is that when you reform, modernise or rationalise awards and agreements you have to change wages and conditions—usually conditions more than wages. It is one of the reasons that in 1996 the Democrats introduced the global no disadvantage test—because they recognised that, if you were creating an agreement, you could not match or meet up to the expectations of individual or specific wages and conditions and therefore you needed to assess the matter on balance overall.

I do note that this is an area covered in the Greens’ additional remarks to the bill and I do note that Senator Siewert will be dealing with the specific issues of balance—how you balance out wages and conditions—later on in her amendments. My specific question, and it follows on from the specifics of Senator Abetz’s question, is this. At paragraph 1.109 of the majority report, it said:

It was also noted that the process—

this is, the process of award modernisation—

is not intended to ‘disadvantage employees’ or ‘increase costs for employers’. Yet it was pointed out that it is not possible to standardise conditions without disadvantaging someone. Witnesses urged the government to consider the language used and clarify its intent.

These were remarks made by academics, by Professor Stewart and—I think my memory is correct—by Dr Buchanan, but it is a serious issue because this bill does initiate award modernisation and the request draft as outlined has these contradictory elements in it. It is a matter which I think does need to be resolved.

What I would like is for the minister to answer, not in the sense of a general exposition but in the sense of process, as to what could be done to address this practical issue. Perhaps the draft request could be changed or the wording altered in the manner the academics have suggested to cater for two conflicting and irreconcilable objectives. Their proposition was that you cannot do both, and personally I think they had a valid point and I suspect the majority of the committee members also thought so.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Murray, you are aware that the award modernisation request is in the explanatory memorandum—and the government has been transparent about that. I understand the point you are making. It seems to me that what the government is doing is requesting the commission to undertake a process. What you are asking is really one of the issues that the commission would grapple with and consider in terms of implementing the award modernisation process. I am sure you are aware that we had a very clear commitment to the modernisation of awards in our pre-election policies. The bill effects that commitment. I am advised that this would logically be one of the matters that the commission would consider in the context of the award modernisation process.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I can assist with clarification. Minister, the problem that the academics in particular outlined—and which the committee took on board—is that the draft request to the commission for award modernisation seems to have two irreconcilable objectives, which I have outlined in picking up that particular paragraph in the report. It is their proposition that you cannot do both—you actually cannot do both of those things. Their view is that somebody, somewhere is going to have to suffer. I think that is a practical understanding. The academics suggested—and the chair of the committee is here and can assist us if necessary—a mechanism by which this could be resolved. My question really boils down to this: has the government understood that that is the problem—because of the evidence raised? Will you have a look at it and try to find a means of dealing with what are regarded as irreconcilable, competing objectives? Those objectives are that the process should not disadvantage employees or increase costs for employers. The academics made a clear case as to why it is impossible, in many cases, to do both.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Murray, I appreciate the point you are making. I am not sure there is a simple answer, because this is a large task. I do not think the government has shied away from the fact that modernising awards is a significant task—hence the inclusion of this draft request in the EM which enables some of these issues to be discussed. If Senator Murray has a suggestion about how he would indicate a resolution of that at the outset of the process, I would certainly be interested in hearing it. It does seem to the government—as I indicated—that this is an issue that the commission will need to consider in this process, and will need to balance the various objects that are proposed in the request. Chair, I understand that government amendments have been circulated, so I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. I understand that the memorandum was circulated in the chamber today.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summary, I will conclude my remarks in this way. The proposition put by the academics is that the commission will operate to the instructions provided in the legislation and its accompanying directions. The academics are indicating that you need to give the commission greater flexibility than is apparent in the way the directions are expressed at present. I would simply ask whether the minister would commit to examining the evidence provided to the inquiry on this issue, so that you can consider whether the directions to the tribunal need to be adjusted in any way.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Murray, I will certainly pass on your views on this issue to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a very simple question for the minister: will any workers be worse off as a result of this legislation?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have previously outlined to Senator Abetz and to the chamber, the proposition before the chamber is a set of legislation which restores the no disadvantage test for Australian workers as against the entirety of the award. It represents a much more beneficial industrial relations system than currently exists, and it provides for significantly more protection for workers and their families than under the previous government.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask again: will any workers be worse off as a result of this legislation? It is a very simple question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I repeat the answer, Senator Abetz. What we will not have under this government is a situation such as existed under yours. For example, in May 2006, 100 per cent of the Australian workplace agreements examined by your Office of the Employment Advocate cut at least one protected award, 64 per cent cut annual leave loading, 63 per cent cut penalty rates, 52 per cent cut shift work loadings, 51 per cent cut overtime, 48 per cent cut monetary allowances, 46 per cent cut public holiday pay, 40 per cent cut rest breaks and so forth. What this government is doing is removing the capacity of those employers who seek to do so to remove those sorts of wages and conditions, a situation which was at the heart of the approach taken by your government.

ABETZ, Senator Eric, Tasmania106912.52 pmAbetz, Sen EricN26TasmaniaLPDeputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate00—We can and will debate the detail of the legislation, but I will give her a third go.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Keep going, Senator Abetz. Ask your question.

If the minister is offended by me calling her ‘her’, I withdraw that. I will give the minister a third go. They are very sensitive over there, and I think I know why. I would have thought it still quite parliamentary to refer to the minister in the third person, but, that all aside, I will give the minister a third go with the question: will any worker be worse off as a result of this legislation? Yes or no?

I repeat my answer. Senator Abetz, my recollection was that during the passage of the Work Choices legislation you championed that legislation very strongly. I wonder now, in light of the evidence to date, whether you will concede that a great many Australians, particularly those with little bargaining power, were worse off as a result of the legislative framework you put in place. We on this side of the chamber are committed to restoring fairness to the workplace. That is what this legislation does, and it assures that the sort of stripping of pay and conditions in Australian workplace agreements that you saw under the previous government’s legislation cannot continue.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the record now shows quite clearly that the government are not able to give a guarantee that some Australian workers will not be worse off as a result of their legislation, a guarantee that they demanded from the former government. And, when it honestly said it was unable to give such a guarantee, the former government was pilloried from the Torres Strait to Tasmania and from Sydney to the Swan for its inability to do so. Yet, a few months later, we have this new Rudd Labor government, with all the gloss coming off and with all the cliches that they used during the campaign that no worker should be worse off, now admitting that their legislation will see some workers worse off.

I ask the minister: why has it taken the government so long to bring in this legislation, keeping in mind that the Prime Minister, on 18 November, six days before the election, promised that the parliament would resume before Christmas? We know that that is already a broken election promise, because he did not resume the parliament before Christmas. Indeed, the parliament resumed on 12 February, the latest day that the parliament has resumed this century and this millennium. I ask: given that delay, given that huge amount of time that the Labor government had to get its house in order, why, some 10 minutes ago, did they drop on us 10 pages comprising 24 separate amendments to their proposed legislation, with an explanatory memorandum that goes for 15 pages? I recall Senator Wong was highly critical when the former government behaved in such a manner.

We were told that that was the sign of a government in decay, a government that was arrogant and a government that was doing legislation on the run. I would be interested in whether, after less than 120 days in office, this is indicative of the Rudd government now being a government in decay and displaying signs of arrogance. Also, why has it taken so long for this legislation to come into the chamber and why has there been the delay in presenting us with these very detailed and lengthy amendments?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has circulated some amendments, which I am advised are technical amendments arising in part out of the Senate committee process. I would remind Senator Abetz—and he and I were on opposite sides of the chamber but in the same situation in the debate on the Work Choices bill, during which he introduced, I think, 337 amendments—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like you’re doing now!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, Senator Abetz, I was there and I can tell you there were significantly more amendments in volume and certainly in scope than the government has moved now. These are primarily technical amendments. We are very happy to take the Senate through them.

Regarding the comments Senator Abetz makes about time lines, I would suggest to him that there might be just a touch of overreach in his contribution to the chamber at the moment. To suggest that we have delayed the legislation when this was the first bill introduced into this parliament by the new Rudd Labor government is really going a bridge too far. As I said, we are very happy to go through the technical amendments we have introduced, and I am sure senators would rightly request that of the government if they were unclear as to the scope of the amendments.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I inquire of the minister whether this legislation will allow Australian workplace agreements that are currently in existence to exist indefinitely?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you may recall, Senator Abetz, AWAs continue until their nominal expiry date unless replaced by another agreement. This is consistent with a policy we provided prior to the election.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They exist ‘until their nominal expiry date’ means that there will not be any AWAs around within a period of five years. Is that what I am led to believe by the minister’s contribution?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was it just a repeat of the last one?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have to take advice from time to time. I accept that; I was in the same boat when I was on that side of the chamber. I repeat the question and ask: given the minister’s answer, are we to assume, therefore, that, if all AWAs stop on their nominal expiry date, we will not have any AWAs in existence and operative in five years time?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I may not have been as clear in my first answer as I ought to have been. The advice I have been given is that the bill states and the government’s policy is that AWAs will continue up to and past their nominal expiry date until terminated or replaced. I made two points about that. Firstly, this is a transitional provision and, secondly, the government, when in opposition, did lay out this in detail in our election policy. Both of our policies, as you will recall, were released well prior to the election and were substantively litigated.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I therefore inquire: if this is only transitional legislation, does the government intend to bring in further legislation to abolish for all time AWAs continuing on into the future?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz knows what our policy is. Our policy is as was published. We will provide certainty for employers and employees and the senator knows that there is planned substantive legislation, but the position in relation to AWAs is as I have outlined.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Either deliberately or unwittingly, the senator has not answered the specifics of my question. Therefore, I ask: could it be possible that an AWA could remain in existence, let us say, in the year 2016?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure of the hypothetical circumstances which you are applying. I am advised that under the government’s legislation or bill an AWA cannot be varied. I would not have thought, Senator Abetz, there would be many AWAs out there with a time line that you are referring to. Obviously, you may have different views about that.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is why I deliberately asked the question. I think we are getting closer to the point now where the minister might concede to the Senate, and stop playing the charade, that AWAs that are in existence today, if they retain the support of both the employer and the employee, can continue indefinitely into the future.

I would have thought this is a vital area. For the minister not to respond is a matter of great regret. She may be now handed some information. If the delay was simply to get that information, that is fine.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will read the Forward with Fairness policy implementation plan issued by the then Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, and the then shadow minister for employment and industrial relations in August 2007:

Because AWAs will not be a feature of Labor’s new industrial relations system, transitional arrangements are required. The transition arrangements for Australian Workplace Agreements will be:

• AWAs made prior to the implementation date of Labor’s Transition Bill will remain in force and may only be terminated in accordance with current rules which allow termination by agreement between the parties during the term of the AWA or by one party providing 90 days’ notice to the other after the nominal expiry date of the agreement.

That is on page 7 of the policy issued in August 2007. This bill delivers on our election commitment.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that clarification. The difficulty that we have on this side, Minister, is that the Prime Minister promised to recall the parliament before Christmas and did not. So just because there is an election policy does not mean that it necessarily translates into the legislation that is before us. What this now highlights is that AWAs—those obscene, nasty agreements that were a blot on the industrial landscape!—are now, under Labor’s own legislation, going to be allowed to continue indefinitely. I would have thought social justice and all those other terms that the Labor Party bandied about during the election campaign would have demanded that AWAs be abolished, got rid of holus-bolus because of all these terrible sins that they committed—how they ripped workers off. Labor is now saying that all those AWAs, even the AWAs being made today, I assume, can continue indefinitely, irrespective of what Labor may have said about AWAs in the past.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the same point, it is a standard, indeed basic, legal principle of courts and governments not to seek to overturn contracts between parties by fiat. They will do so by agreement. Sometimes that is unfortunate, but that has always been, as I understand it, a basic legal principle. An important part of what you read out earlier, Minister, the policy which this government holds to, is providing that the continuation of those contracts is with the agreement of both the employee and the employer. My question is: how will you know whether an employee, for instance, might have been placed under duress in signing on to the original agreement and might in fact want out of it but cannot? Is there any mechanism for someone with a genuine grievance, who felt pushed into it originally, if you like, and wants out of it in the future? Will there be any mechanism for them to take that matter up in some tribunal or some dispute mechanism?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think this issue of duress has been the subject of some discussion and there are, I am advised, existing provisions in the act which enable remedies to be sought for alleged duress. I would also point out the second part of what I read out, which does enable, post the nominal expiry date, one party—that is, in the example you are raising, an employee—to provide 90 days notice to the other party after the nominal expiry date in order for the agreement to be terminated. So there are two termination routes which are envisaged by our policy and, I am advised, are picked up in the various provisions in the legislation.

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

This is the point, and I will come to it later during the debate. This is why we the Greens have in fact put an amendment up that says that AWAs should cease on the nominal expiry date. I am sorry, but I do not think the mechanisms that are in place sufficiently deal with the issue of duress in a workplace if an employee wants to get out of their AWA but feels sufficient duress. I think the degree of that is debatable, but I also ask—and to a certain extent, for once, I agree with the opposition—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’d better reconsider!

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

Yes, exactly! You are worried now, aren’t you? I repeat the question: if the policy is to get rid of AWAs, why don’t AWAs cease on the nominal expiry date? It seems to me that, if we want to get rid of these instruments, that would be the simplest, best and fairest way to deal with it.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say first, Senator Abetz, if you are agreeing with the Greens—not that I have a problem with that per se—it probably indicates, if you are a coalition senator, that you might be being a little bit opportunistic. There are two points I would make, Senator Siewert. The first is a technical point, and I will make sure I get this right. If by legislative fiat you simply mandated the termination of agreements as at a nominal expiry date, you could in fact have a reduction in conditions for employees, and the point is that we wanted an appropriate transition arrangement. Hence the transition arrangements that I have read out.

The second point I make is really a mandate issue. I appreciate the position that you are putting, but what we are putting now is absolutely consistent with the election commitment that was made.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was delighted to hear about the mandate issue and to cast my mind back to such things as budget surpluses, GST and other things. But of course it appears that those things were not important on that occasion. The question I now have is: does the OECD publish tables or a reference guide in relation to the degree of regulation that exists in OECD countries’ workplace relations systems? If so, where does Australia fit on that table?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not have advice on those issues.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you just confirm for us whether you do not have advice or whether the department is not aware of such a table. That would be helpful to us.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are happy to try and assist you, Senator Abetz, if you can perhaps be a little bit more precise about which OECD dataset you are talking about. At some point, unless Senator Abetz plans on making sure we are all here next week, it would be useful if we could actually get to some amendments. I assume that there is a point to this question that is relevant to the debate on the bill.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We would move along a lot quicker if the honourable minister would desist from trying to question motives. It was her own Labor Senate colleagues, on page 2 of their report—so it seems the minister did not even get to page 2 of the Senate committee report that her own colleagues wrote—who told us that the current regime of workplace relations ‘resulted in the most complex and highly regulated industrial system of any OECD country’. Very tellingly, there was no footnote in the report, and that is why I wanted to see what the veracity of that comment by Labor senators was, because it is a general issue relating to this bill. It clearly is relevant because, if it were not relevant, I am sure Labor senators would not have included it in their report.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there any further general discussion?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, there is. It is quite clear that the Labor minister at the table is not willing to defend the Labor majority report in this regard. I note that and accept that. Moving on to another topic, I ask the minister: how do the proposed changes enhance employment growth?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think your point about complexity is probably demonstrated by what we are talking about. There are three volumes of legislation, as you know—two of the substantive bill and one of the regulations—which currently comprise what your government did to industrial relations. So if you want to talk about complexity, it can be weighed in terms of what your government actually did. Your question related to employment impacts; is that right, Senator Abetz?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rather than worrying about stunts, if you had listened to the question you would have heard that it was: how do these changes enhance employment growth?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have previously indicated in this chamber, we have very clearly in mind an industrial relations system where productivity is the incentive for wage increases. We have in mind a system predicated on collective bargaining over the safety net. We have made very clear our views about the importance of driving productivity, of productivity being the incentive for wage increases. As the senator would know, today’s productivity is tomorrow’s prosperity, and that is very much the approach the government is taking.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again I am not provided with an answer. But I am quite thrilled that the minister pulled the stunt of pulling out all the legislation. I recall coming into this place when on the other side with a ream of paper that represented one single industrial award. So, when we talk about a complicated system, if we were to stack the awards on top of each other we would undoubtedly exceed the height of the flagpole on top of this place. Three meagre volumes disappear into insignificance by comparison. But I have a question, seeing we are not getting any answers, which highlights the fact that the glib one-liners run during the election campaign are not able to be delivered on for the Australian people. I recall when doing Work Choices, the Labor Party—and I thought to a certain extent they may have had a good point here—asked whether any economic modelling had been done to support such wild assertions as, if I recall, if the legislation was passed we might in fact get an increase in employment of 70,000-plus people and we might be able to break the psychological figure of a five per cent unemployment rate! Today we celebrate an unemployment rate of 3.97 per cent, which is a great outcome for those thousands of Australian workers who are in fact now able to be described as working families; previously they would have been welfare families. Having mentioned that, I ask: has the government done any economic modelling in relation to its proposed changes and, if not, why did it demand economic modelling of the previous government when it itself is not undertaking economic modelling for its changes? Is it that one rule applies to the Liberal Party and the National Party and another one to the Labor Party?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The position of the opposition is quite extraordinary. I want to clarify this so people understand what is occurring here. The opposition put in place the most unfair laws this country has ever seen—laws which removed wages and conditions from a great many working families in this country, laws which stripped away conditions in the sorts of percentages that I read out earlier. They are now coming in here—I am not actually sure what their line is because the opposition, as it is wont to do, is all over the place. On the one hand we are being criticised from the right; on the other hand, bizarrely for Senator Abetz, we appear to be being criticised from the left, which is an interesting experience. This is an opposition which, when in government, put in place a set of laws for which it did not have a mandate. Senator Abetz, I do not recall you going around Tasmania telling families in Tasmania that you were going to champion laws that were going to enable their penalty rates and their overtime rates to be removed. I do not recall you putting out a press release prior to the 2004 election telling them. Perhaps you would like to disabuse me if I am incorrect on that.

The government have made it clear that we predicate the approach we have taken on the experience of the productivity increases during the period this country did move to enterprise bargaining. We have proposed a new fair and flexible workplace system which is firmly focused on lifting productivity. If productivity improves in an enterprise then there are gains to be shared. That is the approach we will be taking. The workplace relations system the Rudd government will introduce is a decentralised system where employers and employees bargain at the individual enterprise level. We have been very clear about our focus on productivity. We have also been clear about what we regard as an important priority, and that is modernising awards. We are implementing our election policy commitments on this front.

In terms of the effect of our policy, which the shadow minister seems to care about so much, I would like to emphasise to the chamber that these issues being discussed now were discussed quite a lot, you would have to say, in the period leading up to the election. I do not think anyone in this country—unless you really did not read any newspapers or watch any television or talk to very many people—could possibly have thought that industrial relations was not an issue. It was a significant topic at the last election. A great many of the assertions that Senator Abetz is putting forward are the very same arguments that the previous government sought to put against the Labor Party in the previous election and he is continuing to do so in this chamber on a bill that he is charged with handling that, as I understand, his deputy leader and leader have instructed him to support.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, not oppose.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am so sorry, Senator Abetz: to not oppose! I have not quite understood—this is clearly coalition party speak—what the difference between ‘not oppose’ and ‘support’ is in a chamber where you actually have to vote at some point, unless perhaps they are just going to keep silent for the entirety of the voting period and only make contributions during the debate. Senator Abetz, we have a bill before the chamber which delivers on this government’s election commitments in a policy area that was, absolutely, a significant focus of the last election. From this side of the chamber we would like to proceed with debating the various amendments, including those from the crossbenches as well as government amendments, which I am happy to provide detail of.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We would be delighted to get on with the debate as well. I asked a very simple question: had any economic modelling been done? Instead of the torrent of abuse, the minister could have said either yes or no to that question. But of course she could not and did not because she did not want to tell the Australian people that that which she had demanded from the previous government they themselves are not doing.

Allow me now to move onto another topic. This minister does not answer questions, but it is important to get on the record what the responses are. Given that she was able to advise us how many Australian workplace agreements removed overtime pay, penalty rates, annual leave loading and rest breaks, is she able to advise us how many awards and collective agreements have removed overtime pay, penalty rates, annual leave loading and rest breaks? And let her deny that awards have not removed those conditions.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, as you know, certified agreements are public documents so, unlike AWAs, which your government chose to try and hide from the Australian people by not releasing the data because it was embarrassing to you, certified agreements are on the public record and people are free to analyse them in the manner that they see fit.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, no answer. The minister is, on the one hand, willing to condemn but, on the other hand, not willing to admit or acknowledge that these very items she believes are so vital have in fact been removed from a number of union negotiated awards. I think one of the first ones to do that was in her home state of South Australia with the shop distributive alliance. I ask the minister: in the event that the original bill was clearly election policy and all clear, why is it that she had to come in here half an hour ago, tail between her legs, with 24 government amendments and 15 pages of explanatory memorandum if it was all so simple? If it was all so simple, why is it that she has now had to come in with all these amendments?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I know what you probably think of me, but contrary to what you might think I do not have a tail.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or horns.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or horns. Thank you, Senator Murray, I am very glad you pointed that out. Can I just come back to a couple of questions. One point is that the department has reminded me, Senator Abetz and others in the chamber, that the department’s submission to the Senate committee did include economic analyses in relation to the issues that are raised. The second point I wanted to make to Senator Abetz in his attempt—and this is not a new game by the senator—to suggest that there was somehow some equivalence between collective agreements and Australian workplace agreements that were imposed by and put in place by his government, is that if he is concerned about wages and conditions such as penalty rates being traded off, as he appears to be suggesting, one wonders why he supported Work Choices and championed it in the first place. I would make the point therefore that he should support the bill because the bill introduces a no disadvantage test against the full award which would include conditions such as penalty rates. Senator Abetz, I apologise; I have forgotten what your third question was. There were two or three, I think.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why do you not have a go at the first and admit to the chamber that, while some economic information was provided, the specific question was: did you have any economic modelling undertaken by the department? That was the question. Do not try to squib out of it by saying that some economic information was provided. The specific question was: was economic modelling undertaken? And I trust that it was not the department that provided you with that previous answer.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I am not sure which answer you are referring to. If it is about me not having a tail, I can probably work that out myself. In terms of economic information, there is a substantial amount contained in the department’s submission and I draw the senator’s attention to it. I am not sure I can assist him any further on this.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Allow me to assist the minister. On page 27 of the Hansard of the hearings on this bill conducted on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 by the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, my good friend and colleague Senator Fisher asked:

Has the department provided to the government any economic modelling on the wages impact of this bill?

The answer was:

As Mr Pratt indicated before, the department has not, at this stage, undertaken any economic modelling on the issues—

Senator Fisher asked:

At all on the bill?

Mr Kovacic’s answer:

On the bill.

So it is quite clear the department said before the Senate standing committee on 11 March 2008 that no economic modelling had been done. I trust, or can I assume, that that answer remains the same, or was economic modelling undertaken between 11 March and Tuesday, 18 March—in the last seven days?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I have recalled the third issue that I had not addressed that you asked about, which was a criticism of the government’s 24 amendments. As I indicated at the outset, these are—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was not a question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Abetz; as I recall, you said something to the effect of: ‘If this was so simple, was your election policy, why do you have 24 amendments?’ That might be a bit of a summary of the position that you put to the chamber, but that is my recollection of it. As I said in the second reading speech, we are a government that is prepared to consult and consider issues put to us. I am advised these are primarily technical amendments and, as I said at the outset, we are very happy to provide advice to the chamber as to their effect so senators can consider them. I again make the point that they pale into insignificance when you consider the 334 amendments that Senator Abetz introduced during the debate on Work Choices.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that answer was a good alibi, but of course it does not deal with the issue of whether any economic modelling was done, and I think we now know, like with so many of the other questions that I have asked, that the minister is unable to answer them because the glib lines of the election campaign are becoming very difficult to actually implement in law. I ask the minister: does the federal Labor government now accept the use of the corporations power for workplace relations law?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Abetz will probably recall, our policy—and I think it was the first—as opposed to the implementation plan, indicated that our objective was a single national system and we indicated that we would use all available powers to achieve that.

Senator Abetz, I am very happy to stay here today and tomorrow and into next week, if that is what you want, to debate this issue. I would remind the chamber and opposition senators that, as I understand the opposition’s position, you are not opposing this bill; you are supporting this legislation. I understand why Senator Abetz feels a proprietary interest in defending Work Choices, in defending the legacy of the legislation he put through the chamber which was so resoundingly rejected at the last election. I understand that that is troublesome for Senator Abetz, but the reality is that he is now part of a party which has put up the white flag on this issue. Senator Abetz, you can make any point you wish in this chamber, but your party has put up the white flag on this issue. You have recognised—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I applaud that, because the opposition should take heed of what the Australian people voted for at the last election. They did vote to restore fairness to the workplace. They were presented with two clear policies from the federal Labor Party prior to the election, in our Forward with Fairness policy and implementation plan, and that is what we are delivering on. The only thing at the moment which is holding this Labor government back from delivering on its promise to the Australian people is Senator Abetz and the people behind him. You are the only things that are holding us back. So my suggestion, Senator Abetz, is perhaps you should get out of the way.

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

I wanted to go back to the issue of economic modelling. At that same inquiry hearing, I actually asked—and it should be on the record—the department whether they had done any modelling on Work Choices and, as I understood it, they had not done any modelling on Work Choices either. So here the opposition are trying to have a go about the modelling on a new IR bill when there was no modelling done on the previous system, Work Choices. I also point out that the evidence presented to the committee by DEEWR showed that collective bargaining was in fact better for productivity. That is what DEEWR were saying in the evidence they presented to the committee on 11 March. I was there and I have read the submission. That is the evidence that we were presented with.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, are you aware of comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister referring to the 138,000 Australian workplace agreements awaiting processing and finalisation? Are you aware of comments by the Deputy Prime Minister that processing that backlog could take 8½ months? She said:

“That is eight and a half months where employers and working Australians would have no idea whether or not … the agreement they were working under was lawful.”

The Deputy Prime Minister went on to say:

“It is conceivable that after five, six, seven, eight months of delay in processing, a small business in this country is going to be told that its agreement has failed,” she said.

“If you are told it’s failed eight months after it’s been made then that quantum of back pay could break a small business …”

Minister, what amendments will the government be making to this bill to reduce that time delay and to ensure that employees in Australia know their rights and small businesses know their rights and obligations?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that Senator Fisher reads off a question asking about backlogs. I am advised, and I will confirm that this is correct, that—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fisher interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you waving something around there, Senator Fisher?

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A press clipping.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased that you can show me a press clipping. That is a good contribution to this debate! I remind Senator Fisher that, as I am advised—and I will check these figures—around 57,000 agreements entered the backlog between your government’s announcement of your so-called fairness test and the legislation being passed through the parliament. If anyone on that side of the chamber wants to talk about backlogs, they ought to be very careful. I will get advice on this issue, if you wish. I am not aware of the comments to which you have referred, but if I am able to provide you with any further information I will.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you agree, Minister Wong, with this comment of the Deputy Prime Minister:

“It is conceivable that after five, six, seven, eight months of delay in processing, a small business in this country is going to be told that its agreement has failed,” ...

“If you are told it’s failed eight months after it’s been made then that quantum of back pay could break a small business ...

Do you agree with those comments from the Deputy Prime Minister?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator Fisher. I am sure that that does not surprise you. I will get some further information when I read that. Please give me a minute. Was the question in relation to this legislation? Otherwise, I am sure that Senator Fisher can ask this question in question time, which is rapidly approaching. I am advised that most agreements start on approval under this bill, so no back pay issue arises. Agreements have to be signed when lodged. We make the point that the no disadvantage test that is introduced with this legislation is significantly simpler than the so-called fairness test.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. Will the government be amending this bill to reduce the backlog of workplace agreements more quickly than the time frame contemplated by the Deputy Prime Minister?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have dealt with the provisions in the bill which deal with this issue. The government amendments have been introduced. I remind the chamber and those senators opposite that the backlog is as a result of your legislation, your government and your policy.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are the government. Are you doing anything to fix it?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To fix up your mistakes? Yes, we are.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, will the government be amending the bill to ensure that workplace agreements are processed quickly?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already given Senator Fisher an indication of the thrust of the bill, which deals with these issues. I again remind her that she is pressing the point in relation to a backlog of the coalition’s creation.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the government amend the bill to help employees in Australian workplaces and businesses across Australia who would otherwise be detrimentally affected by the backlog of workplace agreement processing?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there are workers and employees in Australia who are detrimentally affected by a backlog, I am sure that they will be aware that this backlog arose as a result of the Howard government’s workplace relations agenda and the introduction of the so-called fairness test, which created this backlog. I have already given the senator, in an effort to assist her, an indication of what aspects of this bill attempt to deal with the appropriate processing of agreements. I am not sure that I can assist her any further.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. The Prime Minister has indicated that the buck stops with the government. Minister, will the government be amending this bill to arrest the closure of Workplace Authority offices which I understand are planned to have effect from June this year?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fisher, preceding every question with ‘will the government amend the bill’ does not make the question relevant to the bill. You could at least try and disguise it a little better, if I may suggest. The government has made its position in relation to Fair Work Australia and the consequences associated with establishing that clear. That is in our policy commitments. We are keen to proceed in relation to this bill, implementing as it does a promise to the Australian people prior to the last election.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that the minister has refused to indicate that the government will amend the bill to assist businesses and workers across Australia. Minister, in respect of the dual award modernisation goals of not disadvantaging employees and not increasing costs for employers, do you agree with the comments made by your colleague Senator Marshall that these goals appear contradictory and are—in his words—an ‘impossible task’?

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We covered this earlier when the senator was not here.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question stands.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We covered this issue in quite a bit of detail earlier on. I am not sure if you were in the chamber.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the question again: does the minister—

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Temporary Chairman Watson. I am one of those who do not like the ‘get out of the way’ kind of rhetoric which says that the opposition should not pursue matters of accountability. But it is an irritant, frankly, when we have a tight timetable and senators who were not present when matters were fully explored in general questions ask about those same matters. My point of order is that it is tedious repetition. From my memory, about 10 to 15 minutes were devoted to that exact question prior to this.

John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Murray, it is not a point of order. It is a debating issue, but I suggest we try and proceed expeditiously with the committee stage of the bill.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that my questioning in relation to this legislation has, at most, taken one hour and the minister at the table has taken objection to us as an opposition asking what—if I might say—have been relatively concise, short questions which she then goes into a long tirade in giving a nonresponse to. I will give her one last question in the general question area: given her repeated statement that this legislation implements Labor’s election promises, pure and simple, can she remind the Senate—and, indeed, the Australian people—when, during that election campaign and long debate about the proposed changes, she or anybody else from the Australian Labor Party said to the Australian people ‘but, of course, some workers will be worse off’?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With all due respect—and I appreciate that Senator Abetz wants to continue to make a range of political points—I have responded on a number of occasions to this general issue. I have said on a number of occasions that we are delivering on our election commitments. I have said on a number of occasions that under Labor’s legislation we will ensure that there is a real no disadvantage test—not the so-called fairness test that existed under the previous government. We will remove from this system going forward the ability to enter into AWAs in which penalty rates, overtime and a range of other conditions are stripped away.

I have gone through some of the statistics which the previous government sought to hide from the Australian people that demonstrate the full extent of the unfairness of some of the AWAs which were put in place under the system that Senator Abetz championed. The bill before the chamber delivers on the government’s election commitments and we would like to proceed to vote on it. Senator Murray, I accept your point: I think oppositions and crossbenchers are absolutely entitled to probe legislation. The point we have made is we have an opposition which says it does not oppose this legislation and which, to my reading—and I was just checking again the Senate report—has not, in fact, proposed any amendments. That is the context of this: it is not a constructive discussion about accountability in this chamber; the opposition are seeking to play out a political process on a bill that they said they are not going to oppose. I was simply making that point, but I take the point you are making.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This will be my last question in the general question bracket, to give the minister the opportunity to tell us in this chamber, and the Australian people, when she, or any of her colleagues, admitted to the Australian people prior to 24 November—election day, that is, Minister Wong—that some workers would be worse off as a result of Labor’s proposed changes.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have answered this question and I will say again: what we did do before the election was to listen to the Australian people, to listen to working families about the effect that the then coalition government’s laws was having on their take-home pay and their conditions. What we did was listen to the Australian people; we listened to the fact that there was clear evidence—despite the then government’s best efforts to hide it—of Australian workplace agreements removing substantive rights such as penalty rates. This argument really is rich from an opposition that, when in government, promised conditions such as penalty rates and overtime would be protected by law but then allowed these conditions to be stripped away without any compensation. This line of argument is rich coming from a party that said workers would be protected by a so-called fairness test but then designed a test which did not provide full compensation for loss of important award conditions like overtime and had no protection for key award conditions such as redundancy.

Let’s be clear about the position from that side of the chamber, which was about removing those protections, and let’s be clear about the bill that is before the chamber which is about restoring a no-disadvantage test against the awards.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My only other topic for the general question section concerns the federal minimum wage. Minister, the minimum wage is not just a current topic in the media; it was raised as an issue during the committee inquiry by a number of witnesses, including the very longstanding senior union official Joe de Bruyn of the shoppies union. He essentially raised—and other witnesses commented on this—the concern that a minimum wage might not cover all Australian employees. So I had a look at subdivision (g) of the relevant section of the act, which covers federal minimum wages. Minister, I will not be asking you to respond to a specific question—I am going to be asking you to take a question on notice—but I need to describe the issue to you so that you understand what concerns Joe de Bruyn and others have and that they need a response from the government.

The minimum wage in popular understanding covers every Australian, but it is actually described in our federal law under the federal minimum wage provision as an FMW, not as an NMW or national minimum wage. The minimum wage does not apply to a number of people, such as junior employees, employees with a disability, employees to whom a training arrangement applies or APCS piece rate employees unless the Fair Pay Commission grants them. It may also not apply to some employees who fall under state provisions.

So my obvious question was: should there be a default provision in the law—and the minister would understand what that means—so that, to the extent that any employee is not covered under either state or federal law with respect to a minimum wage, a minimum wage would apply? Minister, can you take these questions on notice. Could you get departmental advice as to whether there are any Australian employees to whom a minimum wage does not apply? If that is the case, does the government propose to review that matter when it is looking at the substantive bill later this year?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Murray. I appreciate the opportunity to take that on notice. I will ask the department if they are able to provide that by the time we come back in committee on this issue. We will do our best, Senator Murray.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may, given the government’s anxiety to get on with the bill, I invite them to start moving their amendments. Let us deal with the specific amendments.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move government amendment (1) on sheet PA412:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 19), after subparagraph 326(2)(b)(i), insert:

                 (ia)    did not commence that employment more than 14 days before the day on which the ITEA was made, and had previously been employed by the employer (not being employment that had ceased for the reason that, or for reasons that included the reason that, the employer would re-employ the person under an ITEA); or

This amendment will amend section 326 to enable an employer to make an ITEA with a former employee, provided that the employee’s previous employment with that employer was not terminated in order to re-engage the employee on an ITEA. Proposed section 326 currently prevents an employer making an ITEA with a former employee. I am advised that the bill was originally drafted in this way because the government was concerned that employers would arrange for the employment of employees to be terminated in order for them to sign up to ITEAs.

In short, this amendment responds to concerns raised during the Senate inquiry about the difficulties that the current drafting could cause for workplaces and industries with high turnover and with a limited pool of employees on which to draw as they prepared for the transition to the government’s new workplace relations system. This is a particular feature of the building, construction and mining industries in Western Australia. The amendment is based on a suggestion put forward by the Australian Industry Group in its submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill. The government considers that the amendment gives employers and industries with high turnover and a limited pool of employees the flexibility that they need during the transition period whilst ensuring ITEAs are confined to limited use.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition supports this amendment because it seeks to in fact broaden the coverage of ITEAs. It is very interesting to observe that in circumstances where Senator Wong has been saying, ‘This legislation puts down our election commitments, pure and simple,’ the very first amendment that the Rudd Labor government has to move to its industrial relations legislation is in fact an amendment to broaden the coverage of these new—for want of a better term—Australian workplace agreements. They started off as narrow as possible, but reality finally mugged them. They came creeping in here only an hour ago with a raft of two dozen amendments and 15 pages of explanatory memorandum. The very first thing they do is expand the coverage of these now interim workplace agreements.

It is very interesting to see this minister, who was so vitriolic during general questioning on this legislation, come in here and move the very first amendment to in fact broaden the coverage and accept more and more of that which she sought to deny the Australian people. We hope—and this is why we as an opposition are supporting it—this will reduce the negative impact on Australian workers. The minister refused, time and again during general questioning, to give a guarantee that no worker would be worse off as a result of this legislation. It is now quite clear that many workers will be worse off as a result of Labor’s proposed legislation, but its very first amendment will ensure that that negative impact is in fact lessened. It is on that basis that we as the opposition support the amendment.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an excellent amendment. It allows for the re-engagement of former employees on ITEAs. I think the government has done well with it.

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

I understand the government says there are provisions that will prevent people from being effectively sacked in order to be put on ITEAs. I ask the government to outline how that is built into this amendment, given that this amendment has been given with relatively short notice. It is hard to work it out.

Progress reported.