Senator ABETZ (Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) (7:38 PM) —The government opposes these amendments put forward by the opposition. I stress this again: the authority is not a tribunal and I think the Labor Party and the Greens—I do not know what the Democrats will be saying about this—are stuck in a situation where they think arguments will be conducted backwards and forwards in relation to a particular award. This is, in fact, an agreement between two parties. I think there is only concern from the employee’s point of view—that is all that the government in its legislation is concerned about in relation to the fairness test; that it is fair to the employee. Even if the Workplace Authority were to think that it is unfair to the employer, as I understand it, it is not something that the authority is to take into account. But the circumstances are that the employee has signed an agreement, that gets submitted to the authority and the request is that the authority accept it as a fair agreement. The employee is notified throughout the process. If the authority has found it to be fair, the parties will receive notification and it therefore comes into lawful effect. If it is deemed by the authority to be unfair, then the authority goes back to the parties and indicates to them why it believes the agreement is unfair and how that might be remedied.

The authority is not like a tribunal; it is like a safety valve or a safety net for the employee. The employee might have signed up saying, ‘This is a fair agreement to me; I like this agreement so therefore it can go forward to the Workplace Authority.’ However, the Workplace Authority, in putting its ruler of fairness over the document, may come to a different determination. To ask for reasoned decisions would introduce a layer of bureaucracy, work and unnecessary red tape. This is an extra security, a safety net measure for the employee after he or she has determined for themselves that the agreement is a fair one and they want it to go forward. I just do not understand how it could be said that there is a lack of transparency. It is not as though a judge is sitting on a case hearing arguments from both sides. In fact, the test is only applied from the employee’s point of view, as I understand the situation. The Workplace Authority will publish guidance material on the operation of the test and pre-lodgement advice will be available so the parties can have agreements checked in advance. Once an agreement is lodged, the parties will be notified at various stages of the process. This is set out explicitly in the legislation. In assessing an agreement, the Workplace Authority may contact the parties to discuss aspects of the agreement or obtain further information. If an agreement does not pass the fairness test, parties are notified and provided with advice about how the agreement can be varied to make it fair. The authority will also have the administrative capacity to reconsider its decisions when errors are drawn to its attention. So, with great respect to those opposite, I do not think any argument has been made out in support of the proposed amendments.