Senator ABETZ (9:10 PM) —I would be quite amenable to such an amendment. Throughout the bill I think there is an emphasis on ‘enterprise-level bargaining’. However, bargaining at the workplace level, whilst lip-service was given to it in Forward with Fairness, did not really find its way either into the objects or further through the bill. It may come to the point of Fair Work Australia having to make a determination as to what ‘enterprise’ might mean in a particular circumstance. That is why we wanted to make it clear that the smallest level would be the workplace level and then you would build up to enterprise level et cetera. However, if Senator Fielding were to be comforted by the insertion of the words that he suggested, I would be amenable to that. That would make it quite clear that workplace-level bargaining is acceptable.

Can I say in response to Senator Xenophon: yes, I can see scenarios where, if you did not specifically allow for workplace-level bargaining, you could have huge prejudice towards both the employee and the employer. In the starkest situation you could find that nobody had a job and the business was not able to undertake its enterprise at all. A hypothetical example might be if you had a mine way out in the middle of nowhere and one right next to a city—hardly likely, I know. The chances are that to attract workers to the one way out in the outback you would have to have a workplace agreement which would pay higher wages than were received by those who might be able to drive to the work site from their home within five minutes each day. So if you had a big mining company with two mine sites, to say that they have to have the same employment arrangements for vastly different circumstances because they are an enterprise could well prejudice the enterprise’s capacity to undertake another operation.

Of course, keep in mind that at all times workers will be protected by the safety net. I understand that casual workers in the hospitality sector get paid substantially more if they live and work in Sydney, given the cost of living et cetera, than they do in rural and regional towns not only in Tasmania but all around Australia. If somebody were to have a number of restaurants around Australia, one in Sydney and one somewhere else where the cost of living was cheaper, the wages that could be commanded in the middle of Sydney would have to be translated into the rural or regional area, making that business unsustainable. That would mean that the worker would not have a job and the enterprise would not be able to operate.

So I think it does make sense to try to allow for separate workplace agreements, if that is necessary, and split up an enterprise for that purpose. I think Senator Fielding has provided us with a very good opportunity to get the best of both worlds. Of course, we as a coalition have no problem with enterprise bargaining at the enterprise level if that is relevant, but we also want to make absolutely sure that, when Fair Work Australia comes to interpret this, there is a recognition of the need to also consider the workplace situation. If I might invite Senator Fielding to move his proposed amendment to my amendment, I can indicate our agreement.