Page 3762 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 24 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and administratively. And this undue burden will ultimately cost jobs, adversely impact our economy and erode confidence in the ACT. We should be reminded that these laws were born out of a government that, as a jurisdiction, continues to try to bypass federal workplace laws in the pursuit of their own political agenda. But I digress.
This bill before us today purports, amongst other things, to make the court system more accessible for people seeking to enforce their rights to wages and entitlements by enabling the industrial court, which sits inside the ACT Magistrates Court, to hear fair work matters. By all accounts this will have a positive impact on those seeking a resolution to a matter, workers and employers alike.
I have a few concerns with the bill and again reiterate my fear that the government’s use of workplace safety as a political tool to pursue its ideologically-driven agenda is again being borne out in this legislation. One red flag of course is the provision in this bill for parties in a fair work small claim to be represented by an official from an industrial association if the court grants the party leave. The most likely industrial party would be a trade union. But this of course can be interpreted as a benefit to both the worker and the employer: workers being represented by a relevant union and employers by an industry group.
However, we need to be certain that this process is not skewed more towards one party over the other and that any financial impost that this might place on an alternative party to ensure that they receive fair access to justice needs to be measured and monitored continuously. Once again, the addition of trade unions into any legislative process sends alarm bells for both me and my opposition colleagues.
I also highlight issues raised in scrutiny report No 34 around the inconsistencies of this provision and look forward to the government’s response on this matter.
There are some positive steps taken by way of this bill. One is to highlight the changes in the process of resolving fair work matters to include compulsory mediation, a solution that can often be much more cost efficient than a full court hearing. We agree that the early resolution of disputes can be much more efficient, not just in cost terms but also in easing the workload of the court processes, and any steps that reduce pressure on our court system should be encouraged.
The opposition will be supporting the bill before us today. But I note that something that should be included in these types of legislative changes by the government would be to adopt an approach in bills that would include a review clause. A review clause would be an opportunity to see how this legislative change is working at perhaps a two-year point and whether or not further adjustments or tweaks are required, particularly in an industrial relations landscape where the enforcement of both federal and territory laws is constantly being monitored and the landscape continues to change.
Again, we are all aware of the political agenda that often comes with bills such as this one. I reiterate that there needs to be a balanced access to justice and neither the employer nor the employee should be given favourable treatment in the process. But
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video