Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Amendment (44) reads:

Schedule 1, item 629, page 216 (after line 25), at the end of paragraph 216DC(1)(b), add:

(v) if the requirements of subsection (3) are met—

Okay, tick—

the operations and business activities of the employer are reasonably comparable with those of the other employers who are covered by the agreement.

That's the reasonable comparability test that you say will be inserted into the act as a result of the representations from the mining industry. The question I put to you was: where two separate businesses in the mining industry operate different rostering schedules to create their own efficiencies which are fundamental to their operating models—you can see where this is going, because this is very, very serious in terms of 'reasonably comparable'—is this enough for them to be not considered reasonably comparable? The answer you gave was that this amendment had been made as a result of representations from the mining and resources industry, but then you also said it is actually a matter for the Fair Work Commission. Given that this amendment has been put in as a result of the conversations you had with the mining and resources industry, they are the ones saying they are more confused than ever now as a result of this and they desperately need the guidance. In relation to the conversations and the representations, again, I ask you: what further guidance can we give in terms of 'reasonably comparable' or 'not reasonably comparable'? I was part of the talks. The minister's office and the department were part of the talks. We've got an amendment that's been inserted, but there's nothing around the amendment. Or could you take me to the explanatory memorandum and take me through the guidance in relation to 'reasonably comparable'?