Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The position that is now being put by the opposition about this clause is, frankly, quite extraordinary. If it meant what the opposition thought, then surely that was the main argument put by the employers in 1984, which was the redundancy test case. But, clearly, it did not persuade them to not deal with the redundancy test case, which recognised that consultation about major change is highly desirable and that representation in this process is appropriate. If there are laws which require things such as market sensitive information to be released at a particular time, then I have no doubt that the company or the corporation will abide by those. They may go to the employees at the same time, if the provision allows for it, or shortly thereafter, if the provision allows for it. It is common sense to allow it to really come to the fore, because to do otherwise would say that the employer would not be able to consult about major change because it could be market sensitive. I do not know what those circumstances may or may not be. I do know that it is important to consult. The corporation does have an overriding requirement to meet the relevant corporations legislation, and I have got no doubt they would not breach their Corporations Act requirements. But it does not mean that they should rule out, as a consequence, talking to their employees about the major change, especially where the major change is going to impact upon and have a significant effect on the employees. I think it is an unsurprising clause. I am sorry if the opposition have read more into it than is there.

It is about consultation. But then, when you look at the history of what the Liberals did in relation to these provisions about consultation, clearly what is at the heart of the Liberals is a born-to-rule mentality which says: we have a right to manage our business the way we want to manage it and we do not want to consult with anyone, even our employees, about our business. That seems to be what is at the very heart of the provisions. That seems to be why consultation was ripped from the Workplace Relations Act. It seems to be why the Liberals think consultation is such an anathema, especially when it comes to employees. It seems to underscore the view that they do not want to consult with employees at all, because, if that were the case that Senator Abetz was putting, then I would say to him: describe the circumstances where it is okay to consult—otherwise, is it that clear that you do not want consultation at all? What this clause does is allow for consultation to be included, and of course it is a term that must be included in an award so that it ‘requires an employer to whom the award applies to consult the employer’s employees to whom the award applies about major workplace changes’. I think it is unsurprising. I think what it means is reasonably plain, and it does allow for those employees to be represented. There is little more that I can add in respect of that other than to comment that it is not surprising to me that the Liberals on the other side are opposed to consultation.