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

Unless, Senator, you are going to be different, I think we will continue to see the opposition ducking its head when it comes to inflation, productivity and interest rate increases.

I have listened to opposition claims that the absence of new statutory agreements from 2010 onwards will reduce labour market flexibility. This is clearly not the case. The focus for determining wages and conditions of employment under Labor’s system will remain at the enterprise level through collective enterprise bargaining. Bans on pattern bargaining remain. Indeed, on 19 February the Reserve Bank’s Assistant Governor said:

Over a period of 20 years or so, the labour market has become much more flexible than it used to be. I do not see that changing in any significant way. I think that we should expect to see that low unemployment can still be sustained without generating a significant lift in inflation.

The opposition is simply on its own in the scare campaign it is attempting to run when it comes to workplace relations.

The government welcomes the opposition’s statements apparently in support of the government’s genuine no disadvantage test. It is not clear to me, however, whether the opposition really supports the no disadvantage test or whether it merely does not oppose it and would be prepared to see it again eroded at some time in the future. After all, the opposition’s original plan, when it was in government, was for workplace agreements to not be tested at all. It was only after more than a year of this approach and the approach of an election that the former government was forced into considering the introduction of a test for agreements, but what they introduced was not a no disadvantage test. It could not be called a no disadvantage test because it still allowed employees to be disadvantaged under workplace agreements when compared with the award. Important award entitlements, such as long service leave, redundancy pay and rostering protections could simply vanish without employees receiving anything in return. The benchmark for Labor’s no disadvantage test will be the full range of entitlements in an earlier award, an ITEA or an earlier collective agreement, if there is one, not merely the handful of conditions that formed the benchmark of the previous government’s so-called fairness test.

The creation of modern awards was a key election commitment by the Rudd Labor government. Along with the new National Employment Standards, modern awards will form an integral part of a fair minimum safety net for employees in the new workplace relations system from 2010. This bill provides the means for the award modernisation process to commence by setting out the Australian Industrial Relations Commission’s award modernisation function and specifying requirements for modern awards. Unlike the former government’s provisions in its legislation, the provisions in this bill are actually going to be used to ensure that this important and significant reform takes place. The commission will undertake award modernisation in accordance with the terms of an award modernisation request. The explanatory memorandum to this bill contains the award modernisation request the Deputy Prime Minister proposes to make to the president of the commission upon passage of the bill. There is no secrecy here and there is no delay. Throughout the award modernisation process, the commission will publish quarterly progress reports. These will keep the public updated about how the process is developing.

Concerns were raised before the Senate inquiry into the bill about the requirement for the commission to ensure that modern awards do not contain state based differences. I would like to note that this does not prevent the commission including in awards terms and conditions that are appropriate and based on objectively ascertainable regional circumstances, based on the evidence of the parties that such a term or condition is necessary to ensure a fair minimum safety net. It is appropriate, though, that new modern awards operating in a national system should not replicate state based differences from old awards which exist merely as a matter of historical circumstance.

This bill will extend the end date for notional agreements preserving state awards, or NAPSAs, and transitionally registered associations to coincide with the commencement of modern awards. Under the current act, NAPSAs and transitionally registered associations would end on 26 March 2009—three years after the commencement of Work Choices. The former government seemed to be entirely unconcerned about the possibility of employees being left entirely without award protections from 27 March 2009. If this government had not moved to extend the operation of those instruments, the employees covered would have been entitled to the five minimum conditions under the previous government’s fair pay and conditions standard but nothing more. Such employees will be covered by a modern award from 1 January 2010 when modern awards will commence and the government’s new workplace relations system will be fully operational.

The government has set out a clear plan for workplace relations. We did so before the election. Nevertheless, we remain engaged in genuine consultation on the detail of our proposed legislation. In framing the bill, the government has sought the views of employer, union and state and territory representatives. The government’s preparedness to listen to and act on a range of views has resulted in better legislation and contrasts starkly with the way in which Work Choices was developed. The government has also listened carefully to the matters raised by stakeholders during the Senate inquiry and the very useful contributions made by senators during the inquiry hearing.

Before I conclude, I want to make some brief comments in relation to Senator Fielding’s second reading amendment. Can I note that one of the central aspects of this bill is to restore a full safety net to ensure that agreements are assessed against the totality of awards. In general, matters such as meal breaks and penalty rates are contained in the full safety net, including awards. The primary issue, therefore, covered by Senator Fielding’s amendment appears to be award-free employees. Can I say on this issue, as Senator Fielding would be aware, the National Employment Standards discussion paper invites comments on a range of issues, including how to best deal with these issues in respect of award-free employees. I would also draw the Senate’s attention to evidence by Professor Andrew Stewart which goes to the difficulty associated with setting into a national employment standard some of the issues raised by Senator Fielding—in particular, to have a single national standard for penalty rates. Given the way in which penalty rates are generally construed, that is obviously extremely difficult to define. For these reasons, the government is not intending to support Senator Fielding’s second reading amendment.

In conclusion, the blueprint for Labor’s new system was detailed before the election. It was endorsed by voters. It will be developed in an open, consultative and rigorous way and it will get the balance right between flexibility and fairness.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wong) adjourned.