Senate debates

Monday, 24 November 2014

Bills

Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Bill 2014, Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014; Second Reading

11:41 am

Photo of Claire MooreClaire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

There was an exemption; it was just not for the three years that the government asked for. We do support and we deeply acknowledge the announcement by Senator Fifield on 21 August of $173 million to support ADEs in the transition and the development of a new wages tool. That is the work that needs to be done. That is what the people in this area want and that is the only way that we will be able to move forward. So we welcome the announcement from the government of that allocation.

We, as I said, will be opposing the legislation in its current form. We will be moving amendments to leave intact people's rights to pursue legal redress whilst ensuring people cannot receive money from the government's payment scheme as well as any money awarded by the courts. We hope that the government and the crossbench will support Labor's amendments to the bill. In doing so, we urge the government to go ahead with the payment scheme but not by forcing people to forgo their legal rights. There is nothing stopping the government from sitting down with people with disability, employers and relevant parties. There are a number who are engaged, are knowledgeable and want to make sure that we come up with something that works. We believe that is in the best interests of workers with disabilities, their employers, their families and the community.

The government must get on with the very important job of putting in place a fair wage assessment process. The government must ensure wage-setting arrangements are non-discriminatory and fair for all people with disability. We know that the best way of doing that is by working very closely with the disability sector and also with the discrimination commission. If the discrimination commission actually identified that the previous scheme was discriminatory, it would seem fair to think that when developing a new tool we would work to see whether we could come up with a tool that is not discriminatory.

I want to put on record my appreciation of the people who came, again at extraordinary short notice, to talk with our committee about their concerns and also to look at putting in place something that will work into the future. Again, the thing that is most positive about this experience—as is most often the case in this area—is the general commitment of people to ensure that we do get a system that works, is non-discriminatory and will give people with disabilities options for employment.

Comments

No comments