Fair Pay Agreements Bill

Members, we come now to clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on “Title” and “Commencement”. The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

This is the section of the legislation that I have been looking forward to this morning because I’ve got a pretty serious contribution to make in regards to the title of this bill. I don’t think it’s going to come as any surprise to the Minister, in terms of what my suggestion potentially might be for the title.

But before I give a hint of what that is, I want to just look at the title, which is the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. And, of course, the definition of “fair”, which is one of the significant words in the title of the bill in clause 1, is treating people equally. I think, as we have traversed over the past what is nearly three days, it is very clear from the conversation that the word “fair” in the title does not correlate with the definition of the word “fair”, and that is a great shame.

So on that basis, I wanted to make a suggestion to the Minister in regards to the title, and the suggestion that I wish to propose today, which I do hope that the Minister will seriously consider, is the title of “Mandatory Union Deal Bill”. I think that has quite a nice ring to it. As we’ve traversed before—[Interruption] As my colleague Erica Stanford has just said, it is an accurate description of what is actually included within the contents of this bill. I think is very important, from a legislative point of view, that we have a title that is reflective of the content of what the bill will actually deliver, and that is mandatory union deals. The detail behind that suggestion—I mean, I’m happy if the Minister wants to acronym that within brackets, so “mandatory union deal (MUD)”. So we can call that “MUD”, just for simplicity—because we like acronyms, don’t we, down here—and then, quite simply, we can just refer to this as the “MUD bill”.

So the reason why I think that title is very sensible and appropriate, if you may just let me go through it, is that, actually, the legislation that we’ve been reviewing is fundamentally unfair to employers and employees—bottom line. This legislation removes the choices and the rights of employees, particularly in regards to these agreement deals, and on that basis it is, in effect, forcing individuals in regards to undertaking a deal with the unions, hence the use of the words “mandatory union deal”, or “MUD” to keep it short. So that is pretty much my first suggestion.

I’ve actually a couple of other suggestions, if the Minister doesn’t think that that is appropriate, but I do think, to date, he’s shown a genuine interest in providing good contributions in terms of the questions that we have discussed. We have thought about this; it’s not something I’ve just come up with off the cuff. I think it has a nice ring to it, but, most importantly, it is actually descriptive of the legislation that this Government is ramming through this House in regards to agreements which are fundamentally not treating people equally, that are fundamentally unfair to employers and employees, and are removing choice for employers, particularly around their rights. That is completely mud, in my opinion, hence why it should be called the “Mandatory Union Deal Bill”.

Point of order. I was wondering if you could please explain or outline to the committee whether you believe that contribution was consistent with Speaker’s ruling 122/2.

Thank you. I’ll have a look at that. In the meantime we will carry on, and I’ll come back to the member.

I thank the member Simon Watts for a truly profound contribution to this committee stage debate about the Fair Pay Agreements Bill! If I can paraphrase a well-known quote from the early 2000s pop cultural phenomenon film Mean Girls, and I think there might be about three members on the opposite benches who will be familiar with this: stop trying to make mandatory union deals happen—it’s not going to happen. Despite the Hon Paul Goldsmith using that phrase with repetitive monotony about 794 times during the course of this debate, the only people who have been using it are members on that side of the Chamber.

This is a piece of legislation which is founded on basic principles of fairness. It is about the recognition that people who do enormously important work in our society deserve fair recognition for that through fair terms and conditions, and a cessation of the race to the bottom, which has meant that people like cleaners, security guards, supermarket workers, orderlies, aged-care workers, and others who we all rely on for the functioning of our economy and our society don’t have to live on poverty wages with insecure terms and conditions. So I think the title of the bill is a very accurate and appropriate one.

Before I take the next call, I’ll just reply to the member—I did say I’d get back to the member who raised a point of order with regards to Speakers’ ruling 122/2. I find that the contribution of the member was entirely within the scope of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just with the topic that’s going on at the moment, it would be appropriate to bring my Supplementary Order Paper into the mix. While I agree entirely with Simon Watts’ contribution, I won’t even attempt to be as verbose and just go through it. Fair pay agreements—they aren’t fair pay agreements. “Fair” is such a subjective term, and it denies all of the fantastic work going on at the moment with most—most, by far—businesses. Pay—it’s not about pay. It’s not just about pay; there are all of those other conditions. To call it “fair pay” is just a cynical use of words, and it brings out the emotion of people who are criticising it. If you disagree with it, you obviously disagree with fair pay, which is just a load of nonsense. “Agreement”—they aren’t agreements if one party can decide what the outcome is. It’s not an agreement.

So my amendment would replace “fair pay agreements” with “industrial awards”, because that’s what they are. Thank you.

There was one comment that the Minister made in his previous contribution that I wholeheartedly agree with, and that is that mandatory union deals will not be taking place. But we might have a different reason for agreeing with that statement, and that is because this bill will be thrown out at its first opportunity by the incoming National-led Government because it’s not fair. It’s not fair to workers. It’s certainly not fair to the 80 percent of small businesses that make up our productive economy. And it’s not fair to be wasting this House’s time with a very complicated piece of legislation.

It’s in the commencement of that, that I wonder if the Minister could explain the complex correlation between the three commencement dates. I’ve looked—so the power to make regulations and approve forms comes into existence on the day after Royal assent. The rest of the bill comes in in a month’s time, with the exception of sections 32A(3) and (4), which comes into effect seven months after the date of Royal assent. But part of those sections expires six months after the bill becomes law. So it kind of almost extinguishes itself at the time that it comes into being. So I wonder if the Minister could explain to the committee what the logic is behind the staggered commencement dates and, in particular, clauses 32A(3) and (4)?

The question is that Chris Baillie’s tabled amendment to clause 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 265 be agreed to.

The question is that Paul Goldsmith’s tabled amendment to clause 1, changing the title of the bill to “Mandatory Union Deals Bill”, be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Fair Pay Agreements Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.