Page 272 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Enterprise contracts which would let employers offer agreements with reduced conditions for new employees could lead to people working side by side doing the same work at different rates. This inequity has not been justified by the commission and cannot be supported by the ACT government.
The ACT government also opposes the commission’s proposal to change the Fair Work Act to split the Fair Work Commission by establishing two divisions. There is no evidence that the current system is not working. It is important that the Fair Work Commission members determining wage matters are not separate from those determining the industrial matters that otherwise are part of the workload of the tribunal. The current system enables a flow of knowledge of employer and employee concerns from the ordinary Fair Work Commission members to the specialist personnel on the minimum wage panel. Splitting the Fair Work Commission into separate divisions will greatly diminish this flow.
The government is also concerned about the commission’s recommendation of removing the emphasis on reinstatement as the primary goal of the unfair dismissal system of the Fair Work Act.
The commissioners also recommended that state and territory governments should not be able to unilaterally trigger costs for employers by creating new public holidays and that employees should be able to vote to swap some existing public holidays to times that suit them better. Under the modern awards, workers are currently able to swap or exchange public holidays through the provisions in either the industrial agreements or enterprise agreements, so the ACT does not see any benefit to this recommendation. However, a prohibition by the commonwealth government on the state and territory governments being able to determine their own public holidays is opposed.
I am also concerned about the commissioner’s new recommendations for transfers of business, in that existing arrangements under the current enterprise agreement would not move to new employees. The commission argues that the Fair Work Commission should have more discretion to order that an arrangement such as an enterprise agreement does not transfer where that improves the prospects of new employment.
The commonwealth government has stated that any industrial relations changes would need to be taken to the next federal election and that the employment minister would personally conduct direct public consultations, as I mentioned. Through the commonwealth, state and territory ministers for workplace relations forum, the ACT has already expressed its concerns to the commonwealth on a number of the commission’s recommendations. We remain actively focused on further developments in these areas and will provide continued input through the ministerial forum.
The government will always stand up for our workers, whether they are from the local or commonwealth public service, the community sector, the construction industry or hospitality and retail. We will also stand up for our community and families. That is why this government will always remain vigilant in the protection of workers’ rights. There is no doubt that these judgements, initially made over 100 years ago, are still relevant to this day. Whilst not a uniquely Canberran privilege, penalty rates have stood the test of time, reflecting the truly egalitarian nature of the Australian spirit.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video