Senator MARGETTS(5.33 p.m.) —We propose a series of amendments which can be moved in four parts. The Greens (WA) amendments relate to the functions of the Employment Advocate, the independence of the Employment Advocate, the delegation of the advice role to the community based advice centres and, finally, equity and access issues to do with the authorised officers of the Employment Advocate. I seek leave to move amendments 3, 4, 5 and 7 be moved together.

Leave granted.

Senator MARGETTS —I move:

(3)   Schedule 3, item 2, page 7 (after line 26), after paragraph (c), insert:

(ca)   investigating the particular needs of women, persons whose first language is not English, young persons, disabled persons, part-time and casual employees and others who may be disadvantaged in the labour market, and providing assistance and advice;

(4)   Schedule 3, item 2, page 8 (lines 7 to 10), omit paragraph (g), substitute:

(g)   providing free legal representation to an employee in a proceeding under Part VID or Part XA, unless the Employment Advocate determines that the employee's case is without merit.

(5)   Schedule 3, item 2, page 8 (after line 14), at the end of section 83BB, add:

(2)   An appeal lies to the Commission against a determination of the Employment Advocate under paragraph (1)(g).

(7)   Schedule 3, item 2, page 8 (line 28), after "functions", insert ", other than the Employment Advocate's powers and functions in relation to prosecution, inspection and assessment of breaches of AWAs or contraventions of Part VID or Part XA,".

These amendments relate to the functions of the Employment Advocate. Amendment 3 requires the Employment Advocate to investigate the particular needs of women, persons whose first language is not English, young persons, disabled persons, part-time and casual employees and others who may be disadvantaged in the workplace and then to provide advice and assistance to these workers. The reality is that many of the people who fall into the categories listed in the amendment are going to become increasingly vulnerable in the move to individual contracts, which would be, unfortunately, such a fundamental part of this bill if it becomes law.

Amendment 4 includes a clause that requires the Employment Advocate to provide free legal representation under part VID, the Australian workplace agreement section of the act, or part XA, the freedom of association section of the act, unless the Employment Advocate determines that the employee's case is without merit. Amendment 5 provides for an appeal to the commission in relation to the determination by the Employment Advocate on free legal representation. Amendment 7 prevents the Employment Advocate from delegating its powers and functions in relation to prosecution, inspection and assessment of breaches of AWAs or contraventions of part VID or part XA.

On amendments 4 and 5, as I have said on a number of occasions, it is really quite important that, if you have agreements—and they really are agreements—and there is no bargaining that is actually part of the bill, and those so-called agreements are broken by the employer, the employees have at least the ability to access a remedy.

If companies have the ability to use their wealth to use the law against or intimidate employees, then it is hardly a fair contest. We think that, if people have a case that needs to be answered, they do need to have access to legal representation. If that is not available, then I guess it has to be admitted that are not dealing in any way, shape or form with anything like a level playing field. Both the ALP and the Greens have admitted that we do not see that this is any way, shape or form a level playing field. But if there is no access to legal assistance, then what we have is a farce.

Amendment 7, as I have mentioned, prevents the Employment Advocate from delegating its powers and functions in relation to prosecution, inspection and assessment of breaches of Australian workplace agreements. What on earth is going to happen if we have this precedent set, perhaps again and again, of delegating out prosecution? Who eventually is accountable for administering a law in that sense, to the point of prosecution, if those powers can be delegated out? I do not think it is appropriate that we have an Employment Advocate delegating those powers.

The perception of bias or the perception of corruption cannot be far from the surface when such important powers are delegated out. We believe it should also not include the delegation of powers of inspection, assessment of breaches of AWAs or contraventions of part VID or part XA because, basically, you can certainly delegate out advice functions. We look at that in our amendments. There are, I believe, not enough people around within the Employment Advocate to actually provide the full advice that we think is going to be necessary for all of the people who are going to need assistance with Australian workplace agreements. The assessment of breaches as a delegated function, I think, is not appropriate.

Therefore, I would urge the Senate to support Greens' amendments 3, 4, 5 and 7 because, if there is any semblance of access to remedy, at least we have to see whether or not there is any support for providing the resources for that. If the argument is that we have only provided $2.9 million for staffing for the Employment Advocate, you will have to ask: how will that assistance be available? If that Employment Advocate is, as has been mentioned, an employer advocate, how do you divide $2.9 million worth of staffing resources so that you really do provide—

Senator Sherry —It's $12 million, isn't it?

Senator MARGETTS —It is $2.9 million for staffing. The $12 million is mostly for the buildings and everything else—the overall cost. My understanding is that the actual amount available for staffing the Employment Advocate is $2.9 million per annum. That really is not going to go very far. We did estimate that, even at $50,000 per staff member, you are looking at between 50 and 60 staff—and in Western Australia maybe five or six. If the minister has different ideas from that, perhaps he can let me know. Perhaps they are intending to pay their staff less, and that might mean there might be more. However, it is hardly going to be enough to deal with all of the kinds of issues that are going to arise as a result of concerns people have about Australian workplace agreements. So I do urge support for our amendments 3, 4, 5 and 7.