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

If it is so commonsensical, the minister might explain to us why you have subparagraph (b), because subparagraph (e) refers to:

(e)

the consequences of not making the order for any employer, employees or organisation concerned …

I happen to agree with the minister that subparagraph (e) is a cover-all. It covers employers, employees and organisations concerned, which I assume could be either employer organisations or employee organisations, and covers the field quite neatly. But what is also in the clause is subclause (b), that Fair Work Australia ‘must have regard to the wishes of the members of the workplace group’, so why not the wishes of the employer? You cannot have this argument both ways. If the employer is sufficiently catered for in subclause (e), can you explain why the employee is not sufficiently covered in subclause (e)? Why do you need this—to use my own analogy—belt and braces approach for the purposes of employees but definitely not for employers?