Senator JACINTA COLLINS (5:40 PM) —I will attempt to run through these amendments very quickly also. I think I will go back to amendment No. 14. Senator Murray, I think I will call that your GIO amendment. Presumably, the motivation behind this one is to prevent the GIO circumstances ever being maintained, which is to require the commission to review, I presume, of its own motion. It is an interesting idea. Unfortunately, it is too little too late. As I said, having received these late yesterday, I have not been in a position to apply a comprehensive analysis of how it sits in the total schema of the act. I do not think the department really has been either, in that context.

To require the commission to review these awards of its own motion is an argument that has some merit but, in the context of the commission's own decision that we need to proceed on a case by case basis, which will in some sense establish some of the principles that the commission will use to guide it in consideration of matters on a case by case basis, I do not really see how bringing in this requirement at July 2000 is, in terms of the commission's processes, even achievable. As I recall, in the decision itself the commission implied that a task of that nature it itself would not regard as a priority. The Democrats might argue with that position—and they could probably run a fairly good argument—but that is what the report says, and I have already indicated that Labor's position is to accept the decision of the independent umpire. We are not completely happy with everything in that decision either, but again we have accepted the decision it has come down with, and that is what this bill seeks to implement.

Moving on to amendment No. 15, I think that is a case of `ditto' where it was argued earlier in your amendments. In amendment No. 17 you seek that the full bench establish principles. Well, the commission's decision already tells us the framework and the approach that it thinks is appropriate. Again, that is what this bill is doing and that is what Labor is supporting. I can understand why the Democrats might like another full bench inquiry to revisit the areas where you do not think you have been successful in the commission's decision, but again I have indicated that Labor's position is to support the framework that the commission has recommended should be established.

With amendment No. 19, you have indicated that Mr Combet made various comments. As you were going through them, I was thinking, `Gee, it sounds very similar to the description that the commission has given of the field as well: the inconsistencies et cetera that exist.' Indeed, the commission has described difficulties associated with junior rates and discrimination. I think the ACTU and the commission are at one on some of those problems, but again their solution to those problems is different, and Labor have indicated that we support this bill in establishing the framework to implement the commission's decision, the decision of that independent umpire.

Again we are dealing with a full bench consideration to establish principles. That is going to occur through the case by case process in the current scheme. Much of what is drawn on here draws on existing wording in the act or attempts to introduce the presumption that I have argued is still within the act. To highlight that point look at point (e), the structural efficiency principle. Commission principles apply to the structural efficiency principle already. That is a case of repetition and draws on much of what I have already said about how the commission deals with classification structures and work value issues, et cetera.

I highlight one issue that Senator Murray referred to, and that is consistency. I agree with your concerns about consistency; I wish we could go back to prior to 1996 in terms of how the act was framed with respect to the issue of consistency. That comment on its own makes exactly the point I am making: there are many areas of inconsistency that have developed under the government's schema since 1996—quite deliberately, because it is Minister Reith's intention that there should be more inconsistency as workers bargain on, or in many cases bargain away, many of their entitlements at a workplace level because they simply do not have the same bargaining position as the employers that they are dealing with. Minister Reith is quite happy for that to occur and he wants to further extend the schema of this legislation to enable more of that to occur. I look forward, Senator Murray, to more from you on the issue of consistency because we will obviously draw on those principles over the next month or so.

Moving to the last two amendments: the comments I made about amendment (19) apply to amendment (20); ditto my comments on various amendments going back to (1) for amendments (17) and (21). So I have nothing further to say on the amendments as they stand. Labor will be opposing them because they are not consistent with our support of this bill as implementing the framework that the commission sought to implement arising from its decision on the junior rates inquiry—the inquiry which was commissioned as a result of the deal done between the government and the Democrats back in 1996.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert) —The question is that Democrat amendments (14), (15), (17), (19), (20) and (21) be agreed to.

Question resolved in the negative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The question is that schedule 1, item 6 stand as printed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The question now is that schedule 1, item 8 stand as printed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.