Page 1097 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 16 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It might be of some comfort to Mr Gentleman to remember that the AWAs were adopted by the Senate when the government did not have the numbers. It still does not have them but it will shortly. This shows that most members and senators, not just those of the coalition, saw the logic of freeing up workplace arrangements. Since that time Australian workplace agreements have become increasingly popular. In fact, their popularity is such that the number of AWAs approved per month increased from 5,000 in March 2002 to 22,500 by the end of 2004—a more than fourfold increase.
This is an increase in a concept that is apparently appalling, is likely to lead to the disruption of families, is opposed by people and is being imposed on them by government. I do not think so; I do not think that is the fact. I think the fact of the matter is that this is what happens when you give people choice. This model and the work of the Office of the Employment Advocate is an example of successful modernisation of workplace practices in this country, which is what we need to be globally competitive.
It is interesting that 86 per cent of Australian workplace agreements have been taken up in the private sector. Those outside the heavily regulated environments are embracing these concepts because it gives them the opportunity to develop attractive mechanisms to retain their employees and also ensures that employees have a more attractive working environment. The main purpose of these AWAs is flexibility; that is, arrangements that best suit the needs of individual employees—not the unions but the individuals. What is really behind this motion is the contest between the primacy of the union movement and the primacy of the individual. That is the big difference at the end of the day in the philosophical positions of each side of this Assembly. I am for the individual and their associated family and community needs. That is why I favour AWAs.
I understand that Mr Gentleman is for the union and that that is where he wants to pin his colours. The agreements that are there were established under the Workplace Relations Act in 1996. There are many safeguards in there that aim to ensure that employees are not disadvantaged when they enter into AWAs. As I said, there is the “no disadvantage test”, and there are procedural requirements that must be satisfied before an AWA can be approved, including that an employee receives a copy of the AWA at least the required number of days before signing, which is 14 days for existing employees and five days for new employees.
The employer has to explain the effect of the AWA to the employee and, most importantly, the employee genuinely has to consent to the making of the AWA. The employment advocate’s consideration of employee preference in relation to voluntary overtime, which has been mentioned in this motion, takes into account the full range of monetary and non-monetary benefits that accrue to an employee under an AWA and the relevant award. Interestingly, there are changes coming down the track, as I am sure my colleagues opposite know, through simplification of the agreement-making process. This new measure will in fact enhance employee protections by providing an express power for the employment advocate to revoke AWAs and to recover shortfalls of entitlements on behalf of employees. It will also strengthen the employment advocate’s role in relation to compliance.
I can talk at length on this issue because it is one in which I have a particularly keen interest and one on which there is an abundance of supporting material. But in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .