Senator ABETZ —If I can respond firstly to Senator Murray, I think the Australian Democrats were very keen on a no disadvantage test.

Senator Murray —That’s right.

Senator ABETZ —How did that no disadvantage test take place? If it were deemed that there was no disadvantage, no reasons were given. Nobody suggested at the time that that was vital or an important part of natural justice et cetera. Yet here this evening, all of a sudden, with a different but very similar test, if it is deemed to be fair we now want all the reasons articulated as to why it is fair, albeit the parties have voluntarily entered into the agreement in the first place. So, with great respect to Senator Murray, he seems to be taking a different view to that which was previously taken.

The parties are genuinely and generally deemed to be able to come to an agreement between themselves which they deem to be fair and reasonable in all their particular and peculiar circumstances. To protect the employees, we have said certain things will not be permitted to be traded away. In fact, on personal leave we said that that was going to be a minimum of 10 days, whereas in some awards it used to be eight days. So that was going to be imported into certain contracts, which raised a higher standard than existed in some awards negotiated by the trade union movement. But, if the parties believe that it is a fair and reasonable agreement, then all that we are doing is requiring the Workplace Authority to check the agreement to ensure that it is in fact a fair and reasonable document.

This is in fact special protection for workers. When workers voluntarily sign up to a hire purchase agreement or a house purchase they think it is a fair and reasonable agreement and it is binding on them. In relation to their employment contract, we are saying that this is a special contract and we are going to provide them with a special and, if you like, extra consumer protection where an independent body looks over the agreement to ensure that it is fair. If it is fair then they are notified that it was deemed to be fair.

In relation to Senator Wong’s quite convoluted submission, if the agreement is deemed to be unfair then the Workplace Authority need to go back to the parties and indicate to them how that perceived unfairness might be remedied. One would have thought that that might expose that which is in the Workplace Authority’s mind as to what was unfair in the first place. Also, and more importantly, the Workplace Authority have to make a finding that it is a fair agreement. If there is some doubt, they have to be satisfied—I think that is the term—that it is a fair agreement. That is why, in clause 346M(6), the Workplace Authority Director is given the power to:

So if there are residual doubts they can then be followed up by the Workplace Authority in an appropriate way. This is a robust system. It is an extra layer of protection, an extra part of a safety net for the workers of this country. To have this bureaucratic requirement is something that we as a government simply do not accept. We believe that there is very real and robust protection here for Australian workers. What Senator Murray has argued—and I find it strange—would be a different system to that which was in place under the no disadvantage test.