Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I support the amendment moved by the member Wentworth, which is very reasonable and balanced. I refer to the minister's comments about there being an equal veto on both sides. I would put it that actually the agreement is between the employer and the employee. They are the two parties to the agreement. The only veto by a third party would be the intervention of an employee representative or union. It is not the same thing to say that the employer has a right to veto an agreement between the employer and the employees.

This amendment softens the requirements, so the employer can show that a bargaining representative has had a reasonable opportunity to communicate reasons for not providing written agreements to the employees, which seems like a very reasonable compromise because it is reasonably foreseeable that the interests of an employee representative, such as a union, could differ from the interests of an employee of an organisation. This requirement doesn't apply now, and there have been examples of agreements being put to employees and approved, despite the union not wanting it to go to a vote. Unions have played an important role in protecting workers' rights over the centuries, but it makes no sense to actually turn them into a barrier between employees and employers. I support that amendment.

See this speech in context