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

I move opposition amendment (27) on sheet 5739 revised 2:

(27)  Clause 484, page 394 (lines 20 to 25), omit the clause, substitute:

484 Entry to hold discussions

        (1)    Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a permit holder may enter premises to hold discussions with one or more persons:

             (a)    who perform work on the premises; and

             (b)    whose industrial interests the permit holder’s organisation is entitled to represent; and

             (c)    who wish to participate in those discussions.

        (2)    If each person mentioned in subsection (1) is a member of the permit holder’s organisation—the requirements of this section are satisfied.

        (3)    If any of the persons mentioned in subsection (1) is not a member of the permit holder’s organisation, the permit holder must not enter the premises for the purpose of holding discussions with such persons, and must not hold discussions with such persons if otherwise authorised to enter the premises, unless:

             (a)    the occupier of the premises authorises the permit holder, in writing, to do so; or

             (b)    the majority of persons who perform work on the premises agree that the permit holder may do so, and that agreement is communicated to the permit holder, in writing, by the occupier of the premises; or

             (c)    the permit holder obtains a majority support entry determination.

484A Majority support entry determinations

        (1)    A permit holder may apply to FWA for a determination (a majority support entry determination) that a majority of persons who perform work on the premises support the entry of the permit holder to hold discussions.

        (2)    The application must:

             (a)    specify that the permit held by the applicant is valid; and

             (b)    specify that the permit holder’s organisation is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more persons with whom discussions are sought; and

             (c)    contain a declaration that the permit holder has requested, but not obtained, the express authorisation of the occupier of the premises; and

             (d)    be made in accordance with the regulations.

484B When FWA must make a majority support entry determination

        (1)    If a permit holder has applied for a majority entry support determination under section 484A, FWA must make the determination if it is satisfied that:

             (a)    a majority of persons who perform work on the premises genuinely authorise the permit holder to enter and hold discussions; and

             (b)    the permit holder’s organisation is entitled to represent the industrial interests of the employees with whom discussions are sought; and

             (c)    the historical coverage and representation by employee organisations of persons at the premises will not be disturbed.

        (2)    For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), FWA may work out whether a majority of employees authorise the permit holder to enter and hold discussions using any method that FWA considers appropriate.

        (3)    For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), FWA must have regard to:

             (a)    the industrial instrument or instruments covering the employees at the premises to which entry is sought; and

             (b)    the history of enterprise agreement making at the premises to which entry is sought; and

             (c)    the rules of the permit holder’s organisation.

In moving this amendment, the opposition believes that there should be some further provision in the right of entry in relation to holding discussions. Subclause (1) in our amended clause 484 is a mirror image of that which is in the bill, but we make it subject to subsections (2) and (3), which are the new parts of clause 484. We are saying that if each person mentioned in subsection 1 is a member of the permit holders’ organisation—in other words, if they are trade union members—the situation in subparagraph (1) is deemed to be satisfied. That puts that beyond doubt. We then say that if any of the persons mentioned in subparagraph (1) are not members of the permit holders’ organisation—in other words, if they are not a union member—the union official must not enter the premises for the purposes of holding discussions with such persons and must not hold discussions with such persons if otherwise authorised to enter the premises. This is unless they have the written permission of the occupier of the premises to do so, the majority of persons who perform work on the premises agree that the permit holder may do so or the permit holder obtains a majority support entry determination.

We then move on to go through how that majority support entry determination might be obtained. That would be by virtue of a determination by Fair Work Australia. If there is some dispute about what the majority of the workers want in that particular workplace, that matter could be resolved by Fair Work Australia. As I have been saying throughout this debate, the issue from our point of view is about excessive union power and how that might interact. We believe that there would be excessive union power if the clause as currently printed stands. We believe there should be a limit. We believe it is a modest limit. Basically, if the employer does not want the entry, or the majority of people who work on the premises agree that the union should not be on the premises, that should be the end of the matter. We believe that that is both fair to the employer and democratic for the workforce. If a majority of workers vote for it, they can have that visitation by the union official. I commend the amendment to the Senate.