Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to our final debate, which is on clauses 1 and 2, the debate on the title and commencement.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m so glad we got through that voting. I’ve got a number of proposed alternative titles, which I would like to put to the member for suggestion. Let’s just be clear, to begin with: the title currently is the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. Now, a couple of alternatives that I want to put to the member for her consideration would be the “Employment Relations (Pay Transparency) Amendment Bill”. I wonder whether the member would potentially be open to considering that as a change of title to it.

What about the “Employment Relations (Wage Transparency Protection) Amendment Bill”? What about the “Employment Relations (Salary Disclosure Protection) Amendment Bill”? I could go all night. I’m going to keep going; I’m only one-fifth of the way through my call. This has got—

Francisco Hernandez: Please do. Can you guys fill five minutes?

TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh, Francisco Hernandez says this is a waste of five minutes. Well, this is how I feel. This is how I feel when he speaks many of the times. I was missing Scott Willis during the voting because that man takes an ice age to get up to cast the Green Party vote and then an ice age to sit down. Somehow, Francisco Hernandez has found some rocket fuel and is getting to his feet.

There are other alternative titles, if I come back to what I was actually talking about in the title and commencement. What about the “Employment Relations (Pay Secrecy Prohibition) Amendment Bill”? Would the member be open to considering that as an alternative title? What about “Employment Relations (Anti - Pay Secrecy) Amendment Bill” or the “Employment Relations (Wage Discussion Protection) Amendment Bill”? There’s plenty here—“Employment Relations (Employee Pay Discussion Protection) Amendment Bill”.

Francisco Hernandez: We’ll vote for all of those.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, you can only have one, Francisco. You can only have one, unless you’re prepared to give many, many titles to the legislation. It would take longer to get the title of the bill out than it would for people to actually disclose what their remuneration is to their colleagues. You’ve got to be careful what you wish for—careful what you wish for.

Now, what about the “Employment Relations (Anti-retaliation for Pay Disclosure) Amendment Bill”? Would the member in charge potentially consider that as an alternative for the title to the legislation? What about the “Employment Relations (Employee Wage Discussion Rights) Amendment Bill”? I’ve done plenty of research. I’ve had plenty of time here. We’ve been spending plenty of time in the committee of the whole House, so I’ve created a list here.

What about the “Employment Relations (Pay Equity Transparency) Amendment Bill”? What about the “Employment Relations (Fair Pay Disclosures) Amendment Bill”? There’s also the “Employment Relations (Workplace Pay Fairness) Amendment Bill”. I’m looking at the member for some reassurance. Are you picking up anything and putting it down? Are you picking anything up? Are you picking anything up?

I’ll start again. There could also be the “Employment Relations (Right to Discuss Pay) Amendment Bill”. What about the “Employment Relations (Protection from Pay Secrecy Clause) Amendment Bill”? We could have the “Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Discussion Rights) Amendment Bill”. I’ve given plenty of suggestions to the member in charge. I’d welcome hearing her views on it.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Dr Parmjeet Parmar’s tabled amendment replacing clause 2 be agreed to.