Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 15 June 2009. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (7), (9) to (15) and (17) to (20) on sheet BJ215 together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (7), (9) to (15) and (17) to (20) on sheet BJ215 together:

(1)    Clause 2, page 2 (table item 9, column 1), omit “and 2”, substitute “to 2E”.

(2)    Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 13), insert:

(3)    Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 15), insert:

(4)    Page 165 (before line 1), before Schedule 13, insert:

Schedule 12A—Unfair dismissal

1  Meanings of employee and employer

In this Schedule, employee and employer have their ordinary meanings.

2  Meaning of small business employer, for unfair dismissal purposes, prior to 1 January 2011

(1)    For the purposes of the application of Part 3-2 of the FW Act in relation to the dismissal of a person before 1 January 2011, a national system employer is a small business employer if, and only if, the employer’s number of full-time equivalent employees, worked out under this item, is less than 15 at the earlier of the following times (the notice or dismissal time):

             (a)    the time when the person is given notice of the dismissal;

             (b)    immediately before the dismissal.

(2)    The employer’s number of full-time equivalent employees at the notice or dismissal time is worked out as follows:

Method statement

                  Note:             Subitem (3) sets out what are a person’s ordinary hours.

                  Note:             The number 152 is based on the maximum number of hours that a full-time employee would work in 4 weeks (being 38 hours per week) excluding reasonable additional hours.

(3)    For the purposes of step 1 of the method statement in subitem (2), the ordinary hours of work of a person as the employer’s employee are:

             (a)    to the extent that a modern award, enterprise agreement or workplace determination applied to the person, and the person was not a casual employee—the ordinary hours of work specified or provided for in that award, agreement or determination; or

             (b)    to the extent that a transitional instrument applied to the person, and the person was not a casual employee—the person’s ordinary hours of work under item 33 of Schedule 3; or

             (c)    to the extent that:

                   (i)    a State industrial instrument applied to the person as a non-national system employee; and

                  (ii)    the instrument specified, or provided for the determination of, the person’s ordinary hours of work, and

                 (iii)    the person was not a casual employee;

                      the ordinary hours of work as specified in, or determined in accordance with, that instrument; or

             (d)    to the extent that no such award, agreement, determination or instrument applied to the person, and the person was not a casual employee:

                   (i)    if the person was a national system employee—the person’s ordinary hours of work under section 20 of the FW Act; or

                  (ii)    if the person was a non-national system employee—what would have been the person’s ordinary hours of work under that section if the person had been a national system employee; or

             (e)    to the extent that the person was a casual employee—the lesser of:

                   (i)    152 hours; and

                  (ii)    the number of hours actually worked by the person.

(4)    This subitem applies to leave, whether paid or unpaid, that the person took if:

             (a)    the person was entitled to the leave in connection with:

                   (i)    the birth of a child of the person or the person’s spouse or de facto partner; or

                  (ii)    the placement of a child with the person for adoption; and

             (b)    the duration of the period of leave has been at least 4 weeks;

        whether or not the person took any other kind of paid leave while taking that leave.

(5)    For the purposes of this item, a national system employer and the employer’s associated entities are taken to be one entity.

(6)    This item has effect despite section 23 of the FW Act.

(5)    Schedule 13, item 13, page 172 (line 16), omit “item 15”, substitute “items 14A and 15”.

(6)    Schedule 13, page 172 (after line 27), after item 14, insert:

14A  FWA may order that industrial action is taken to be authorised by a protected action ballot

        (1)    A person who is a bargaining representative for a proposed enterprise agreement may apply to FWA for an order under this item if, before the WR Act repeal day, the person was an applicant specified in an order for a protected action ballot in relation to a proposed collective agreement.

        (2)    The application must be made within 28 days after the WR Act repeal day.

        (3)    FWA may order that industrial action that was authorised under section 478 of the WR Act in relation to the proposed collective agreement is taken to be authorised, in relation to the proposed enterprise agreement, by a protected action ballot under subsection 459(1) of the FW Act, if FWA is satisfied that:

             (a)    on or after 1 March 2009, the person organised or engaged in industrial action, for the purpose of supporting or advancing claims in relation to the proposed collective agreement; and

             (b)    all such industrial action organised or engaged in by the person was:

                   (i)    authorised by a protected action ballot under section 478 of the WR Act; and

                  (ii)    protected action within the meaning of the WR Act; and

             (c)    the person did not first organise or engage in such industrial action on or after the WR Act repeal day; and

             (d)    no collective agreement covering the employees whose employment would have been subject to the proposed collective agreement was approved by those employees before the WR Act repeal day; and

             (e)    the proposed enterprise agreement will cover those employees; and

              (f)    the person is genuinely trying to reach agreement in relation to the proposed enterprise agreement; and

             (g)    it is reasonable in all the circumstances to make the order.

        (4)    Industrial action that is taken to be authorised because of the operation of subitem (3) is only taken to be authorised in relation to employees who:

             (a)    will be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement; and

             (b)    were relevant employees (within the meaning of section 450 of the WR Act) in relation to the proposed collective agreement.

        (5)    For the purposes of subsection 414(3) of the FW Act, the results of the protected action ballot under that Act are taken to have been declared on the day of the order.

(7)    Schedule 22, page 246 (after line 28), after item 62, insert:

62A  Subsection 158(1) of Schedule 1

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

        (1)    A change in the name of an organisation, or an alteration of the eligibility rules of an organisation, does not take effect unless:

             (a)    in the case of a change in the name of the organisation—FWA consents to the change under this section; or

             (b)    in the case of an alteration of the eligibility rules of the organisation:

                   (i)    FWA consents to the alteration under this section; or

                  (ii)    the General Manager consents to the alteration under section 158A.

(9)   Schedule 22, page 247 (before line 25), before item 64, insert:

63A  After section 158 of Schedule 1

Insert:

158A  Alteration of eligibility rules of organisation by General Manager

        (1)    The General Manager must, on application by an organisation in accordance with subsection (2), consent to an alteration of the eligibility rules of the organisation to extend them to apply to persons within the eligibility rules of an association of employers or employees that is registered under a State or Territory industrial law, if the General Manager is satisfied:

             (a)    that the alteration has been made under the rules of the organisation; and

             (b)    that the organisation is a federal counterpart of the association; and

             (c)    that the alteration will not extend the eligibility rules of the organisation beyond those of the association; and

             (d)    that the alteration will not apply outside the limits of the State or Territory for which the association is registered; and

             (e)    as to such other matters (if any) as are prescribed by the regulations.

Note:   If the General Manager consents to the alteration, FWA may make orders that reflect State representation orders (see section 137F).

        (2)    The application must not be made before 1 January 2011, or such later day as the Minister declares in writing.

        (3)    A declaration made under subsection (2) is a legislative instrument, but section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 does not apply to the declaration.

        (4)    If the General Manager consents, under subsection (1), to an alteration, the alteration takes effect on:

             (a)    if a day is specified in the consent—that day; or

             (b)    in any other case—the day of the consent.

(10)  Schedule 22, item 82, page 249 (lines 18 to 21), omit subparagraph 6(c)(i), substitute:

                   (i)    unless subparagraph (ii) or (iii) applies—the fifth anniversary of the earliest day on which an organisation can make an application in accordance with subsection 158A(2); or

(11)  Schedule 22, item 82, page 249 (line 25), omit “commencement”, substitute “day”.

(12)  Schedule 22, item 82, page 249 (line 28), omit “commencement”, substitute “day”.

(13)  Schedule 22, item 89, page 257 (line 23), omit “employee organisations”, substitute “organisations of employees”.

(14)  Schedule 22, item 89, page 258 (after line 12), at the end of section 137B, add:

        (3)    If:

             (a)    the eligibility rules of an organisation of employees have been altered with the consent of the General Manager under section 158A; and

             (b)    because of the alteration, members of an association of employees registered under a State or Territory industrial law have become eligible for membership of the organisation;

a reference in this section to the organisation includes a reference to the association referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection.

(15)  Schedule 22, item 89, page 258 (after line 30), after the heading to Part 4, insert:

137F  FWA may make orders reflecting State representation orders

        (1)    If:

             (a)    the eligibility rules of an organisation of employees have been altered with the consent of the General Manager under section 158A; and

             (b)    because of the alteration, members of an association of employees that is registered under a State or Territory industrial law (a State registered association) have become eligible for membership of the organisation; and

             (c)    immediately before the alteration took effect, an order (a State representation order) was in force that:

                   (i)    was made by a State industrial authority in relation to the State registered association; and

                  (ii)    was an order of the same kind as, or of a similar kind to, an order that FWA could make under this Chapter in relation to an organisation;

FWA may, on application by the organisation or by a party to the State representation order, make an order in relation to the organisation that is to the same effect, or substantially the same effect, as the State representation order.

        (2)    The order under subsection (1) applies to each organisation that is:

             (a)    a federal counterpart of the State registered association; or

             (b)    a federal counterpart of any other association of employees:

                   (i)    that is registered under a State or Territory industrial law; and

                  (ii)    to which the State representation order applied.

(17)  Schedule 22, page 286 (after line 9), after item 359, insert:

359A  Subsection 158(5) of Schedule 1

Omit “the Commission” (wherever occurring), substitute “FWA”.

(18)  Schedule 23, page 315 (after line 10), after item 2, insert:

2A  At the end of subsection 22(2)

Add:

           ; (c)    any other period of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

2B  After subsection 22(3)

Insert:

     (3A)    Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) may prescribe different kinds of periods for the purposes of different provisions of this Act (other than provisions to which subsection (4) applies). If they do so, subsection (3) applies accordingly.

2C  Paragraph 22(4)(a)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

             (a)    a period of service by a national system employee with his or her national system employer is a period during which the employee is employed by the employer, but does not include:

                   (i)    any period of unauthorised absence; or

                  (ii)    any other period of a kind prescribed by the regulations; and

2D  Paragraph 22(4)(b)

Omit “of unauthorised absence”, substitute “referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii)”.

2E  After subsection 22(4)

Insert:

     (4A)    Regulations made for the purposes of subparagraph (4)(a)(ii) may prescribe different kinds of periods for the purposes of different provisions to which subsection (4) applies. If they do so, paragraph (4)(b) applies accordingly.

(19)  Schedule 23, page 316 (after line 26), after item 9, insert:

9A  At the end of subsection 371(2)

Add “, or within such period as a court allows on an application made during or after those 14 days”.

9B  At the end of section 371

Add:

Note:   In Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298, the Industrial Relations Court of Australia set down principles relating to the exercise of its discretion under a similarly worded provision of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.

(20)  Schedule 23, page 319 (after line 29), after item 21, insert:

21A  Paragraph 722(a)

Omit “5 of Part 6-1”, substitute “3 of Part 6-4”.

21B  At the end of subsection 779(2)

Add “, or within such period as a court allows on an application made during or after those 14 days”.

21C  At the end of section 779

Add:

Note:   In Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298, the Industrial Relations Court of Australia set down principles relating to the exercise of its discretion under a similarly worded provision of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.

We also oppose schedule 22 in the following terms:

(8)    Schedule 22, item 63, page 246 (line 29) to page 247 (line 24), to be opposed.

(16)  Schedule 22, item 353, page 285 (lines 24 and 25), to be opposed.

These amendments were outlined in my speech yesterday.

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

As I understand it, the government are moving all their amendments in globo. I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we will not be opposing those amendments—suffice to observe that the government, not satisfied with having moved 120 amendments to their own legislation in the other place, are now in this place moving a further 20 amendments. One observation I will make—and I made comment about this in my speech on the second reading—is the shameless deal that was done at the end of the Fair Work Bill when the Senate had moved and agreed to a number of amendments and Ms Gillard refused to accept the Senate’s wish.

Unfortunately, Senator Fielding and Ms Gillard revisited the grave of Work Choices, re-dug the grave, threw in small business and jobs and then covered it over again. Senator Fielding and Ms Gillard at the time said, ‘What a wonderful deal we’ve done,’ and Senator Fielding said, ‘What a great deal we’ve done for small business.’ He had got out of the minister this cast-iron guarantee in relation to the definition of ‘small business’. So strong was the deal, so strong was the commitment of Ms Gillard, so in sync were Senator Fielding and Ms Gillard, that the definition of ‘small business’ for the purpose of unfair dismissal was not even thought about when they dealt with the transition bill in the House in the first draft and they did not think about it when they moved their 120 amendments in the House.

Then the transition bill finally finds its way into the Senate and they go: ‘Oopsie, we might need Senator Fielding’s vote again. Didn’t we make some deal with him on the night when we visited the graveyard and made that decision in the middle of the night?’ So all of a sudden, amongst all these amendments, is the amendment which will put into legislative form the deal that was undertaken with Senator Fielding. The fact that it has come at the eleventh hour into this place would suggest—and I would not want this to befall to anybody—that chances are, if Senator Fielding had a more serious injury than his crook ankle from playing soccer and was not able to get into this chamber at all, the Labor Party would not have even bothered to honour that agreement. That is the reality. That is the sort of contempt with which Family First and Senator Fielding have been treated.

The Senate is under time pressure. A lot of these amendments I in fact foreshadowed in my speech on the second reading as being vitally important for the government to move, and in fact the government have moved those amendments—a lot of them consequential. I just note that here, at this very late stage, allegedly with a very clear election policy et cetera, Labor are still bringing in amendments and explanatory memoranda on the run—and, of course, we now have a legislative framework that is bigger and more employment damaging than any other previous regime. Having made that comment in relation to one particular bracket of amendments, I will leave it at that and indicate that the coalition will not be opposing the amendments.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will not be opposing the amendments either, but I do want to comment and put on record concerns around three of those amendments. One, of course, relates to the issues around unfair dismissal, item 4—about which Senator Abetz has just been speaking and on which we have a completely contrary view, of course.

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

Of course you have; you are anti small business.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not even going to go there. The Greens have consistently held the position that small business employees should not have inferior unfair dismissal rights on the basis of who their employer is. As a matter of principle, the Greens believe there should be no distinction between workers in relation to their unfair dismissal rights.

Unfair dismissal rights are very important for job security and for being treated with respect and dignity. We did accept, in the debate on the Fair Work Bill, the government’s policy on unfair dismissal rights for employees of small businesses defined as 15 employees. It is a significant improvement on Work Choices, which exempted employees employed in businesses which employ up to 100 workers. The amendments moved today provide for the definition of a small business to be calculated as 15 full-time equivalent employees. It provides a complicated formula for determining whether a business is a small business, and it is likely to be difficult and time consuming for small business owners to apply the formula—not necessarily replacing what they think is one complication with another complication; it is also likely that the full-time equivalent formula will mean that businesses of significantly more than 15 employees will be considered small businesses—particularly businesses with high levels of part-time and casual work, which are, coincidentally, also workplaces with high levels of female employees. So once again we have an amendment which we believe will detrimentally affect more vulnerable workers. However, we note that the formula is in operation for only 18 months; at that time the definition reverts to the 15 determined by a simple headcount. As I said, we will not be opposing this amendment but it is obviously not our preferred position. We made that distinctly clear at the time of the previous debate. We also said that if there was to be a definition of ‘small business employees’—which we do not like anyway—then a simple headcount is preferred. As I said, we will not be opposing the amendment but we wanted to put on record our continuing concern around treating one set of workers differently from another.

The other issues that the Greens have some concerns about are items 5 and 6, around protected industrial action authorisations. This allows the FWA to authorise industrial action taken to be authorised by a protected action ballot after 1 July in an industrial action. The Australian Greens welcome this amendment from the government. The treatment of industrial action authorised by the bill was noticeably inconsistent and, as I said in my speech in the second reading debate, we did have concerns about that. We had concerns with the way that was being treated and we believed that it was inconsistent with other processes undertaken pursuant to the Workplace Relations Act. I addressed this in my speech and I urged the government to address the issue where employees would have to repeat the entire authorisation process, including secret ballots for taking industrial action again, even where current authorisation would be still valid and the parties are engaged in bargaining. We believe this amendment goes some way to addressing this issue, although there would still be a period after 1 July when employees will be unable to take protected industrial action. As I had raised in my speech on the second reading that we had concerns, this does go at least most of the way to addressing it, so I wanted to highlight that particular issue. As I said, we will be supporting the amendments but we have concerns around unfair dismissal.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contributions. In relation to something raised by Senator Abetz in relation to Senator Fielding, could I reaffirm. During the Senate debate on the Fair Work Act, the government made a commitment to Senator Fielding that until 1 January 2011 the threshold used to define a small business for the purpose of applying the unfair dismissal arrangements would be fewer than 15 full-time equivalent employees. Amendment (4) reflects that commitment. It provides that the number of full-time equivalent employees is calculated by dividing up the ordinary hours of all employees in a four-week period and dividing those hours by 152. Of course, the number 152 is based on the maximum number of ordinary hours of a full-time employee being 38 hours per week excluding reasonable additional hours.

Could I also say that we totally reject what Senator Abetz has claimed in relation to our dealings and negotiations with Senator Fielding.

Moore Sen Scott (the Temporary Chairman):

The question is that government amendments (1) to (7), (9) to (15) and (17) to (20) on sheet BJ215 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Moore Sen Scott (the Temporary Chairman):

The question is that items 63 and 353 of schedule 22 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5817:

(1)    Schedule 3, item 23, page 34 (lines 5 to 11), omit subitem (1) and note 1, substitute:

(1)    Where a transitional instrument deals with a matter that is dealt with under the National Employment Standards, the transitional instrument is of no effect to the extent that the overall entitlements of the transitional instrument in relation to the matter are detrimental to the employee when compared to the overall entitlements of the National Employment Standards in relation to the matter.

(2)    Schedule 3, item 23, page 34 (line 23), omit “in any respect”.

I do not seek to delay the Senate too long, but it is noteworthy that, whilst the minister rejected my assertions in relation to the previous matter, he did not deny that the deal with Senator Fielding was incorporated in the original legislation or that it was incorporated in all the amendments moved in the House that have only come in at this very late stage, which I think makes my point.

I move on to the two amendments that I have moved on behalf of the coalition dealing with the no detriment rule. These amendments seek to remove the line by line approach to the concept of detriment as it relates to the interaction of the National Employment Standards with transitional instruments. The amendments will ensure that the interaction between the National Employment Standards and transitional instruments is such that it is now assessed on an overall basis when a comparison occurs.

Those of us who were privileged to be part of the Senate inquiry into this heard some very compelling evidence from the WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They provided us with some examples of adopting a line by line approach in relation to the National Employment Standards. Here is a very good one. It involves, for example, one national employment standard, being the right to be absent on a public holiday, being traded off for an increased national employment standard in another area, being an additional two weeks annual leave. When compared overall to the National Employment Standards in their standard form—for example, an ability to not work on public holidays and only four weeks leave—the employees suffer no detriment. However, approaching the same situation with a line by line approach in the bill, the below situation would result in the employees still receiving the benefit of six weeks leave by also receiving the benefit of the public holiday national employment standard that would see them not obliged to work on public holidays. This means that the interaction of the national employment standard would retrospectively undo the agreement previously reached within that sector as approved by the courts and, very tellingly, by the unions and the employer.

These amendments only seek to deal—and I stress this—with the retrospective interaction of the National Employment Standards with existing instruments and do not have any application to any new or future instruments that may be made. They are merely to deal with the National Employment Standards interaction with existing settled arrangements. These amendments seek to ensure that the NES can apply universally in a manner that ensures no employees are worse off and that they enjoy the same conditions as the NES but on an overall basis that avoids unintended double-dipping. There is no doubt that double-dipping will occur with the excellent example supplied by the Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

I could talk at some length on the no detriment rule and its impact on annual leave and public holidays in the health industry. In fact, it might be worth while giving that as a quick example. The WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry submission states:

In the health industry, union and employee collective agreements often contain terms that provide an employee 6 weeks annual leave whereby 2 weeks constitute leave in lieu of public holidays.

It is interesting to note that those agreements were arrived at with the agreement of the trade union movement in the first place. That is a very important consideration to keep in mind here. The submission continues:

This provision is included because as a 24 hour operation it is necessary that staffing levels continue during public holidays and as such employees are expected as part of their contract of employment to be available to work on public holidays.

                  …              …              …

The following excerpts are taken from a union collective agreement made in 2008 and also replicate the provisions of the Private Hospital and Residential Aged Care (Nursing Homes) Award 2002 (clauses 26 and 27), which would have been used to determine whether the agreement passed the no-disadvantage test …

The Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have set that out in some detail in their submission. Given the time constraints, I will not read all the detail out. Suffice to say that the case was made exceptionally well. It runs counter to what the union movement agreed and consented to as a reasonable circumstance. All we are saying is that the NES should not be applied retrospectively in the circumstances that I have outlined. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will probably come as no surprise to the opposition that the Greens will not be supporting these amendments. We oppose these amendments because the National Employment Standards are a vital part of the safety net. We support the National Employment Standards applying to all employees from 1 January 2010, including employees on transitional instruments. We believe a global test, rather than a line by line test, weakens and undermines the application of the NES for employees employed on transitional instruments, so we will not be supporting these amendments.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is no surprise that we also will not be supporting these amendments. Can I just say briefly, because obviously there are time constraints, that the government are committed to ensuring that all employees have the full benefit of the National Employment Standards from 1 January 2010. These amendments are inconsistent with that commitment and would undermine the safety net. The NES contain the basic conditions that every Australian employee should have the benefit of—conditions like personal leave, annual leave, compassionate leave and parental leave.

A global approach to the implementation of the NES would deny many employees access to the full benefit of the NES, as this would allow the NES to be displaced by an existing instrument. It would allow an employer to raise arguments like this: that a pay rate that is 20c per hour above the award should allow them to not provide parental leave or the right for parents to request flexible work when they have young children. An employer could try and argue that a pay rate that is 20c per hour above the award means that they should not have to provide for leave to attend a funeral.

We say that the NES set out the most basic of employment conditions that should never be allowed to be stripped away or traded off. Unlike the Liberals, who only provided five basic conditions, the NES provide for 10. The NES were the subject of extensive consultation with employers, employees and the public. A public exposure draft process was provided. There was a committee on the industrial legislation process also. The balance in the NES is fair and it is right. Employers and employees have known the content of the NES since mid-2008 and have had a very long time to plan for their introduction on 1 January 2010.

The bill seeks to minimise the disruption of existing arrangements. Existing terms are able to continue, provided they are not detrimental in any respect. It is only in the case of detriment that the NES prevail. This is a simple rule. Where there is any doubt about how they apply in a particular case, Fair Work Australia will be able to resolve this difficulty. By comparison, the global approach proposed by the Liberals would be complex and disruptive to employers and employees. It would obviously create uncertainty. It would require, for example, a mechanism for third-party assessment of whether the global value of entitlements passes the test.

In relation to a number of Senator Abetz’s criticisms, can I raise the fact that, through subitem 26(1) of schedule 3, the bill already enables a person covered by a transitional instrument to apply to Fair Work Australia for a variation to resolve an uncertainty or difficulty relating to the interaction between the transitional instrument and the NES or to make the transitional instrument operate effectively with the NES.

One situation in which an application could be made to vary an agreement-based transitional instrument is where parties have agreed to an additional number of days of annual leave in substitution for public holidays, but where the agreement does not clearly state that the additional days reflect an agreement that the additional days are provided in substitution for the public holidays. An application could be made to Fair Work Australia to vary the instrument to make it clear that those additional days of leave are substituting for public holidays. This is already available in subitem 26(1).

Subitem 26(1) is intended to be a flexible power. In this case it would be open for Fair Work Australia to vary an agreement-based transitional instrument to reflect an agreement between the parties that additional days of leave are substituted for public holidays. Therefore we cannot support the amendments.

Question negatived.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move the amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5871:

(1)    Schedule 3, item 23, page 34 (after line 17), after subitem (1), insert:

(1A)         If there is a dispute about the application of this item which must be resolved by FWA in accordance with item 26, FWA may compare the entitlements which are in dispute:

             (a)    on a ‘line-by-line’ basis, comparing individual terms; or

             (b)    on a ‘like-by-like’ basis, comparing entitlements according to particular subject areas; or

             (c)    using any combination of the above approaches FWA sees fit.

(2)    Schedule 5, item 2, page 58 (after line 23), at the end of subitem (5), add:

   ; and (c)    the likely effects on the relevant industry or industry sector of any modern award that the Commission is considering, or is proposing to make, including on productivity, labour costs and the regulatory burden on businesses.

This is an alternative approach to the amendment moved by Senator Abetz in relation to the no detriment rule. I could not support that amendment because taking a global approach would seem to be too broad and could lead to consequences where workers would be worse off.

The first amendment is an approach giving Fair Work Australia the power to compare entitlements in dispute on a line-by-line basis—which compares individual terms, and is the approach of the government—or, alternatively, on a like-by-like basis, comparing entitlements according to particular subject areas or, thirdly, using any combination of the above approaches that Fair Work Australia sees fit. This amendment seeks to enable Fair Work Australia to use its discretion to ensure that the rights of both employers and employees are protected when entitlements are in dispute.

Whilst I do not support the coalition’s amendment, I believe that the coalition did highlight an area of uncertainty. I think the example given by Senator Abetz related to public holidays and situations like the instance given by Mr Keenan in a very useful briefing I had with him: there is a hospital in Perth where the nursing staff traded their public holiday entitlements for something like two weeks additional leave. That was something that the workforce in that particular workplace was quite happy with, and it gave a degree of flexibility for both the employer and the employees. So there is a concern in relation to the doubling up that may occur on a line-by-line approach.

This is a particular area of uncertainty in relation to leave. I believe that having a like-by-like approach gives that degree of flexibility to avoid those sorts of circumstances. As I understand it, the coalition has pointed to a Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia submission to the Senate inquiry which details how this situation could occur if a line-by-line approach were adopted by the Western Australian health sector. I believe the global approach is the wrong approach—it is simply too broad. A like-by-like approach, in essence, groups similar subjects, such as leave, and enables comparisons to be made to ensure that employees are either equal to or better off under the NES so that there is still a firm no detriment approach.

This would not undermine the foundation of the NES. There is flexibility to ensure that packages of conditions are maintained with a like-by-like approach. This adopts the legislation’s better off overall tests across the entirety of one’s entitlements, but applies it to ensure that someone is better off within a set of entitlements. Further, should there be any difficulty in taking this approach then Fair Work Australia is empowered to use the best approach for the particular situation. It has that flexibility and, far from telling the independent umpire how it should act, this amendment guides Fair Work Australia and provides it with greater flexibility to achieve outcomes that balance employer/employee entitlements without any detriment to the employees.

That is the essence of it. I am grateful for the discussions I have had with both the coalition and with the government this evening in relation to that. I look forward to the response of my colleagues, including my cross-bench colleagues, in relation to this. I hope my colleagues can understand the basis upon which I have moved this: I am concerned that there could be anomalies under the current line-by-line approach. Like-for-like gives a greater degree of flexibility without undermining the essence of what is intended in the legislation for a no detriment rule.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I am about to disappoint my cross-bench colleague. The Greens are not moved to support this amendment. I can understand where Senator Xenophon is coming from. It is another way of addressing supposed issues around the National Employment Standards as they are applied to transitional instruments. Admittedly, between the approach the opposition is taking, which is the global test, and the government’s approach, which is the line-by-line test, we are not convinced that there is a problem in the provisions in these bills as they relate to transitional instruments. The bill does provide a mechanism for resolving disputes and allows for regulations to be made in relation to comparing entitlements. Therefore, we are not inclined to support these amendments, because we do not actually see that there is a massive problem there that does need to be fixed. If there are issues, there are mechanisms to resolve those. So we will not support these amendments. I am sorry to disappoint Senator Xenophon.

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

There never seems to be that sort of regret by Senator Siewert when she opposes coalition amendments. I just wonder why. I am a sensitive character so I pick up on some of these things from time to time. Can I say to Senator Xenophon, with the greatest respect, what we are dealing with are the National Employment Standards. Under what we were suggesting, no worker could be worse off. They would have been in the same position, but we would have outlawed double dipping. We believe our initial amendments were better and more far reaching.

Just keep in mind that, as we debate this matter, there are employers right around the country—and let us not forget the reason they are called employers is that they actually employ people—and one of the considerations they have to take into account is the cost of employment. If in the circumstances I outlined where somebody has, with union approval, traded off public holidays for an extra two weeks annual leave then we believe that that should be allowed to continue only to the extent—and this is a very important point—that it deals with the retrospective interaction with the transition legislation. We are not talking about what will happen in the future. What we were suggesting would not have had application to any new or future instruments that may be made. It was merely to deal with the NES interaction with existing settled arrangements.

As this legislation gets passed and this particular aspect gets considered, the cost of employment increases. And we know what happens. You do not need a coalition senator to tell you this; it was a former Treasurer of this country, Mr Frank Crean, who said, ‘One man’s wage rise is another man’s job.’ It is possibly a bit of an extreme statement but it is still a Labor Treasurer who, at the time, had a grasp of the fundamental economic drivers. If you make the employment conditions worse, as in allowing somebody to not only get the benefit of six weeks annual leave but also no longer having to work public holidays and so double dip, then it will increase the cost of employment and it will mean fewer jobs.

As I said when we were discussing the Fair Work legislation, there were three criteria that we would judge the legislation and the amendments on: impact on small business, impact on jobs and impact on trade union power. In relation to this matter that we moved and that was defeated—and I accept the numbers in the Senate—Senator Xenophon’s inferior amendment and Labor Party and Greens opposition will mean that there will be flow-through consequences for small business and for jobseekers in this country at a time when unemployment is, unfortunately, heading north at an ever-accelerating rate. It is heading north not only because of the global financial situation but also because of the changes that this Labor government is now implementing in the industrial relations regime in this country.

I thought that Senator Xenophon might, from time to time, be able to recognise quality when it was put in front of him but, unfortunately, he did not see the quality of the opposition coalition amendments that were, unfortunately, defeated. However, I can tell Senator Xenophon that we recognise second best when we see it and his amendment is second-best. It is between the status quo of the government’s legislation and what we are recommending. Therefore, I can indicate reluctant support for Senator Xenophon’s position.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a TV program many years ago about ‘never mind the quality, feel the width’. It may not be quality, but Senator Abetz should recognise a bargain when he sees one from his point of view.

I ask Senator Abetz—and I appreciate the comments he made—about the example that he and the coalition gave with respect to leave. Does the coalition have any other concerns with the way that this would operate on the line-by-line approach? Where the coalition says there will be anomalies—I think that is what they are saying—in addition to the example given with respect to the issue of leave entitlements, I guess, similarly, there will be questions to the government about that particular issue of the leave example that was given by Senator Abetz and that was conveyed to me by the coalition.

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

Very briefly, in response to Senator Xenophon, I think the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia example is a very good example. But without knowing the full detail and minutiae of each individual agreement that might be existing around the country, it seemed to us that having that overall approach—overall no detriment—was the best approach during the transition period. We are only talking about the transition period; we are not talking about new fresh agreements as we move forward, but just the transition not having a retrospective impact, which will allow workers to potentially get a windfall. It is all very nice for workers to get the windfall and that is a great thing until you remember that former Labor Treasurer’s injunction that one person’s wage rise is usually another person’s job.

That is why we as a coalition are motivated to ensure that the economics of all this is not such that you make yourself a hero to somebody and, on the other side of the equation, somebody loses their job as a result of it. In these very tight economic times, the economics is pretty basic. Frank Crean was able to grasp it; I am sure that colleagues around the chamber are able to grasp it as well. So, without our knowing what all the minutiae and detail are in each agreement, it seemed to us that to have a generic approach that there be no detriment overall meant that workers clearly would not be worse off, but nor would employers, during the transition period.

I have to be careful. I was about to follow up on Senator Xenophon’s commentary early on, and I have decided against that. Suffice it to say that, rather than discussing width, ‘broader coverage’ might be a more delicate turn of phrase that we were suggesting. That is something that I would still remind Senator Xenophon of, but I dare say that no amount of advocacy this evening will allow Senator Xenophon to see the error of his ways on the previous motion, and therefore he will not be changing his mind on his own, and therefore, as I have indicated, we will reluctantly support his amendment.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to Senator Abetz that I do not think that the late Frank Crean was taken in context in the quote he just used, and certainly he would never have allowed it to be used that way, so I think it is probably best that we resist going any further there. I will just say, to try and allay some of the fears of Senator Xenophon, that subitem 26 is intended to be a flexible power. In this case, it would be open to Fair Work Australia to vary an agreement-based transitional instrument to reflect an agreement between the parties that additional days of leave are substituted for public holidays. We are obviously talking about the public holiday example here. Subitem 26 already enables a person covered by a transitional instrument to apply to Fair Work Australia for a variation to resolve an uncertainty or difficulty relating to the interaction between the transitional instrument and the NES or to make the transitional instrument operate effectively with the NES.

Coming to this situation, an application could be made to vary an agreement-based transitional instrument where parties have agreed to an additional number of days of annual leave in substitution for public holidays but where the agreement does not clearly state that the additional days reflect an agreement that the additional days are provided in substitution for the public holidays. An application could be made to Fair Work Australia to vary the instrument to make it clear that those additional days of leave are a substitute for public holidays. This is already available right now in 26(1).

Another example of where item 26(1) could be used to resolve a difficulty is that if an agreement provides for an extra number of personal leave days that can be used to undertake community service duties then Fair Work Australia could amend the agreement to make it clear that the two entitlements are not cumulative. Other NES conditions have an in-built flexibility. An example we talked about is that annual leave can be cashed out. Also, you can agree to substitute another day for a public holiday. Again, any difficulty can be resolved by Fair Work Australia.

So, Senator Xenophon, obviously we have tried to work cooperatively, and I thank you for the assistance you have given us with these amendments, but unfortunately we cannot agree to them tonight. We believe that we have the balance right in terms of the NES. We do not want to further complicate the system, which I believe your amendments do.

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

The minister just said he could not agree to the amendments tonight. If we came back tomorrow morning, would he change his mind?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don’t think so, Senator.

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

I just asked that rhetorically; I was anticipating the interjected answer. I simply say very briefly that section 26, to which the minister referred, is entitled ‘Resolving difficulties about application of this Division’, so the legislation itself foresees difficulties. What we are suggesting is that some of these problems can in fact be avoided up front without the need to go through Fair Work Australia to make a determination varying the transitional instrument for the purposes of ‘resolving difficulties’, whatever that might mean. We have repeated a number of times now that a worker could not and would not be worse off but it would stop the double dipping and retrospective application in circumstances where, for example, wage negotiations in an aged-care facility may have been undertaken on the basis of what the government is willing to pay per nursing home bed. If these things change, I am sure the government will not be increasing the funding per nursing home bed on the basis of some of the increased costs that will be visited upon health and aged-care facilities around the country because of these changes.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just make it very clear that one of the biggest criticisms that the industrial relations system of this country has faced over the past two decades has been about its complexity. It is very important that there be a clear and simple message to small business and employees about their rights and entitlements. Again, there has been plenty of time for both small business and large business employees to understand the changes, and we do not want to put in place amendments that make the system any more complex or confusing. Simplicity is the key, and that is what the government is aiming to do with its amendments. I apologise, Senator Xenophon, but that is why, again, we cannot support your amendments tonight.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no need for an apology. It is just a difference of opinion. I note what the minister says about complexity, but I think flexibility is also important and I maintain my position. I am happy to keep talking to the government about this overnight if this amendment succeeds. But I think that the like by like approach does actually give a degree of flexibility without undermining the NES. Therefore, I indicate I will be maintaining my position, and I hope the coalition can maintain their second best position and support this amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Xenophon’s) be agreed to.

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

I move amendment (3) on sheet 5817:

(3)    Schedule 5, item 2, page 58 (line 23), after “employment”, insert “, on business profitability”.

This amendment deals with the issue of award modernisation and the impact of award modernisation on business profitability. As we all know, business profitability is a very important factor in the capacity of businesses to employ people. Without profitable businesses they do not have the capacity to employ. This amendment seeks to provide an additional factor—the likely effects on business profitability—that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission must take into account when making a modern award. This amendment builds on the existing factors that were amended as part of the third reading in the House of Representatives. The AIRC would be able to hear submissions from industry about the likely effects on profitability for the sector to which a modern award will apply. After hearing submissions, the AIRC must have regard to any evidence on this factor in the same manner as the other factors in this section and then make a new award. This will ensure that certain sectors that have unique working conditions may have an opportunity to give evidence about profitability to the AIRC and will ensure that the AIRC has regard to such evidence when making a modern award.

There is no doubt that this matter has now finally mugged the government, as a result of which the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations wrote to the President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on 29 May 2009 and invited the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to consider the fact that data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that cafes, restaurants and catering services are characterised by comparatively low profit margins and high labour costs as a proportion of total expenses. My colleague Senator Fisher asked a very good question of the minister as to what was unique about restaurants and caterers as opposed to a number of other sectors in the economy. Other sectors in the economy that spring to mind that do not have a high profitability factor, such as aged care, horticulture et cetera, all fit into that category.

We now know that award modernisation will do untold damage to the restaurant and catering sector, and that is why the minister herself was finally moved to write to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. In the horticultural sector, to seek to place a 20 per cent to 30 per cent loading on those workers who pick fruit on a Saturday or a Sunday is, with respect, an indication that this government has no idea whatsoever how the rural and regional areas of this country operate. It has no idea about the needs and plight of the horticultural and agricultural sectors in this country. God determines when fruit ripens on trees and berry bushes, not Ms Gillard. If fruit has to be picked on a Sunday, it has to be picked, whether you like it or not, and imposing a 30 per cent loading for that upon the farmer, upon the horticulturalist, will make the enterprise unprofitable. There is overwhelming evidence from the stone fruit growers in my own home state and those all around Australia. The berry fruit growers in my home state have made similar representations, and I note Senator Colbeck, my colleague from Tasmania, acknowledging that by nodding his head. I hope he is not falling asleep but in fact agreeing with me. It is reassuring that he is agreeing with me, as I was sure that he would.

To be serious, this is an issue of great concern to our rural communities and all the small businesses that are part and parcel of the rural and regional fabric of Australia. You can keep on going with this approach of one size fits all. It is going to be imposed, whether we like it or not, but can I simply say that the impact of increased wages in this manner, completely unrelated to productivity, will have a huge impact on the farmers of this country, on the aged care facilities of this country and on the restaurants and caterers of this country.

It will also have an impact on the carers of this country. In my home state of Tasmania there is an organisation called CBS South. It looks after people in their homes. They had in their newsletter of February 2009 this comment:

The election of the Rudd Labor Government brought an effective end to Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). From April 2009 our support workers will mostly work under the Community Services Award.

They then outlined the problems that that would have. Here is a not-for-profit organisation delivering fantastic services, but guess who funds them. It is largely the Australian government. There are extra wages costs but—hello—has the Australian government come up with extra funding for them? No. As a result services will need to be cut, so those people who are reliant on those services will become the victims of award modernisation. Well done and congratulations. If that is what Labor thinks it is doing by way of social justice, so be it, but there are flow-on consequences.

I have already outlined the rural and regional communities and the horticulture sector, and the restaurants and caterers have already made their case exceptionally well—they have required Miss Gillard to change her position. We believe that it makes good sense, in particular in this period of increased unemployment courtesy of the Rudd Labor government, to seek to minimise the impact of the global financial crisis on the unemployment levels in this country. If business profitability is impacted as outlined by these various sectors, there is no doubt, as sure as night follows day, that the employment levels will drop in these sectors. There will be only one party to blame for that: the Australian Labor Party and those who do not support this amendment to award modernisation.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that I will not support this amendment. We will not get into a debate about quality again—although maybe Senator Abetz wishes to get into a debate—

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

Or something like that.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

or something like that! I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment that deals with this and that I think will in many respects be more comprehensive and fairer, and I am happy to speak to that when the time comes to move my amendment. In relation to the matters raised by Senator Abetz, it is clear that the Deputy Prime Minister has understood the circumstances and particular concerns that apply to the restaurant and catering industry. She deserves to be congratulated fulsomely for taking a pragmatic and sensible approach. I note I was contacted by a number of people who were concerned about their jobs in that sector. It would be fair to say that people within the labour movement were concerned about jobs being lost in the restaurant and catering sector, and what the Deputy Prime Minister did was absolutely the right thing to do.

I have indicated to the government that I have had a number of representations from the horticulture sector, particularly in the Riverland. As we all know, the Murray-Darling Basin is doing it very tough; it is in crisis because of a combination of drought, climate change, overallocation and other factors, and there is a concern in the horticulture sector that jobs could be needlessly lost. I would be grateful if the minister could indicate what the government says its approach to that will be. I am mindful of the discussions I have had with the government; I think they have been quite useful in terms of what the government has outlined, but some on-the-record assurances would be appreciated. I indicate that I will be moving my amendment and will not be able to support the coalition’s.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to Senator Xenophon I say that it is important to recognise that the overwhelming task of award modernisation has been a major success and has been managed by the commission with its usual professionalism and expertise. The small number of problems that have arisen will be considered and addressed on their merits. The department is examining other issues concerning award modernisation, including those which you have raised about the horticulture sector. Representatives of the horticulture industry met with the Deputy Prime Minister’s office and representatives of her department on 26 May. Attending were members of the Horticulture Advisory Leadership Council, AIG, the National Farmers Federation and Fruit Growers Tasmania. I assure you, Senator, that the department is working through the issues raised, the Deputy Prime Minister is awaiting detailed advice and we will continue our consultative and careful approach with the sector.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was remiss of me not to refer to the aged care sector and their concerns, but I note that with the aged care sector it is complicated by the regulatory structure there and by the fact that it receives government funding. Could the minister indicate whether the Deputy Prime Minister’s office has had representations from the aged care sector on their particular set of circumstances, which I think are complicated by virtue of their regulatory structure and by the level of government funding which many would say has kept wages down for nurses? I sympathise with their concerns about that.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the Deputy Prime Minister’s office has met with representatives from the aged care industry; in fact, they met the day prior to the horticulture meeting. It is being analysed and examined. This is a significant task and it will take time. It must be done in a careful and consultative way. Of course the Deputy Prime Minister will make a judgment in relation to aged care and horticulture on the merits of the cases.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I am sorry if I let you down sometimes with my opposition. Here I am feeling sorry for letting you down, the same as I did to Senator Nick Xenophon. However, having said that, the Greens will not be supporting this amendment. It amends the government’s amendment around the award modernisation process. We do not think it will add to the process. We think that it was already too skewed towards the interests of business and away from a robust safety net. We have previously articulated our concerns about the award modernisation process. We also think it is probably too far down the track in any case. Sorry, we will not be supporting it.

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

Can I assure Senator Siewert that I only get let down by people from whom I expect better. Senator Siewert’s position does not come as a matter of disappointment. Can I correct the record. Previously I indicated that the horticulture sector was in fact looking at 20 to 30 per cent increases. In fact, they are looking at the introduction of a 200 per cent Sunday penalty rate and an absurdly restricting Monday to Friday 6 am to 6 pm span of hours for packing house employees. Penalty rates of 150 per cent and 200 per cent must be paid to employees if they work outside that span of hours, even if part of the 38 ordinary hours per week. While loading on piecework rates has reduced from 20 per cent to 15 per cent, if an employer hires pieceworkers on a casual basis, they must pay both the new casual loading of 25 per cent and the piecework loading of 15 per cent. These are the real imposts that will be visited.

I say to Senator Xenophon, Senator Fielding and others in this place: what assurance have we got that the horticulture sector is going to be looked after, other than ‘the minister’s aware of it’ and ‘they are consulting’. The minister was aware of this for weeks and weeks. The consultations are still not over, yet we are expected to vote for this legislation without this amendment. Once this legislation is through, the consultations will mean nothing because the legislation will be through. I know that Senator Nick Xenophon, as is his wont, goes for second best. I do not know why he does not aim for the top. He has another second-rate amendment that I do acknowledge. And, in a cognate manner, I will indicate that if Senator Xenophon cannot bring himself to vote for ours, we will be magnanimous enough to vote for his.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Chair, I have a question of the minister in terms of his response to Senator Xenophon about consultation with the horticulture sector. No doubt the minister will be aware that the AIRC is proposing in respect of the wine grape sector to excise coverage of wine grape production from the horticulture award and instead lump it together with the processing, packing and retailing of wine grape in the wine industry award.

When the minister indicates that the government are consulting with the horticulture sector about their concerns about award modernisation, what is he saying about the government’s consultation with the wine grape sector? Are the government consulting with the wine grape sector? If so, who is doing it? With whom are they doing it? When have they been doing it? When will they continue to be doing it? What is the end point? In asking that, I have indications from wine grape producers in South Australia and Western Australia that wine grape production has not been conferred with by the government—for example, Mr Mark Mckenzie, Executive Director of the Wine Grape Growers Australia. Mr Neil Delroy, Managing Director of Agribusiness Research and Management, says he has not heard of any consultation with the industry whatsoever from the Deputy Prime Minister’s office. If the minister could reassure us that consultations have been happening—by whom, with whom, when, how and what—that may be some reassurance for the industry. I look forward to the answer.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don’t forget where, Mary Jo.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And where, yes, Senator Collins.

Progress reported.