Goldsmith Paul; Wood MichaelPart 4 FPA meetings and union access to workplacesHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It's my pleasure to speak on this part and also in relation to an amendment that I have proposed around clauses 86 and 87. Here I am proposing to replace without the employer's consent" with "with the employer's consent". So if we go to clause 86 in the legislation what we're talking about here is the ability of union organisers and agreers to come in and to visit workplaces without consent—just rock up and talk to workers. We think it's not unreasonable for employers—and this is a longstanding issue—to have some ability to give consent to that.The other broad issue I suppose that I want to make in relation to this part and the rules in relation to fair pay agreement (FPA) meetings—and I'm sure the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will bat it off and say "Well there's nothing to worry about here." What you have is that employers will have to pay for workers to attend meetings on the fair pay agreement and then additional meetings on the fair pay agreement if things need to go through different steps. It's just I don't know another few hours that employers will have to pay for. I'm sure the Minister will say "Well that's nothing they'll just cope with that and swallow that. It's just a couple of hours away from the workforce. What's there to worry about?"The point I would put to him is: does he not recognise that this is not the first imposition the Government has made on businesses large and small and that every month this Government passes fresh legislation adding costs and requiring businesses to do this; fill out this information; fill out that; report on this; report on that; give in the last few months an extra week of sick leave; give sick leave in different requirements; give bereavement leave in different requirements; have another public holiday every year; etc.—the list goes on.This bill this legislation requires businesses first to engage in a process that they may or may not want to engage with; then it involves them trying to deal with setting up employer agencies and so forth; then it involves them having to have union reps coming in visiting the workplace; and then it has to involve extra meetings to discuss these things and to consider it all. Again I remember the Green MP standing up and saying that we were claiming that this is going to be the end of the world and it's going to destroy businesses. We're not claiming that; we're not saying that for a moment.Dr Duncan Webb: Which clause are you talking about?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I'm talking about clauses 85 86 and 87 quite clearly in relation to the requirements to access workplaces and clause 84 about entitlement to attend additional FPA meetings. What I'm saying is it's just another layer of cost of time of difficulty that this whole process adds on top of businesses that have got a lot to do as it is at the moment. I'd just like to get some thoughts I suppose—some observations—from the Minister as to whether he acknowledges that at all. I presume he will argue that the cost is worth it for whatever ideological goals he has in mind but I'd ask him to consider just that impact on workers. Ultimately if we want to have sustainably higher incomes which I think is the purpose that the Minister has in mind for all this the best way to get higher incomes is to have more productive and more competitive workplaces so that they can thrive as a business. Then the opportunity is there to deliver higher incomes and higher wages.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I'm very happy to briefly respond to the member Paul Goldsmith's questions there. Part 4 for people familiar with our employment relations framework will seem very familiar. Most of the clauses in this part relate very clearly and strongly to corresponding clauses in the Employment Relations Act (ERA). In respect of the access provisions there's nothing here that's particularly new or all that different from the access provisions in the Employment Relations Act so I don't especially see that there's really any additional cost compliance or big issues there. It's just about the basic right that most countries have—and it was accepted in fact under the previous Government under the ERA that they oversaw for union representatives to be able to speak to workers about activities which are relevant to them. In this particular case the access provisions in the Fair Pay Agreements Bill simply ensure that the union in question is able to talk with employees who might be covered an FPA about those matters. I don't see that as being in any way particularly inconsistent new or burdensome over and above the general access requirements that are in place.Now in respect of the union meetings that are in here I do accept that to a small degree there will be some additional cost that is associated with them but we do need to keep things very strongly in proportion here. I think what we need to remember is that FPAs will have terms of between three and five years. So once every three to five years when an FPA is negotiating it will be possible for a union to be able to set up meetings to meet with people who are within the coverage of that FPA to ensure that those workers can genuinely feed in their views and be reported back to on the progress of that process. But for that to happen once every three to five years I do not think is a significant additional burden on anyone."