Roche DeniseDENISE ROCHE (Green): I am rising to take the first call for the Greens on this very poorly thought-out bill the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill in the name of the member Scott Simpson. I have to feel sorry for that member because he inherited it from the Hon Paul Goldsmith who had originally drafted it. As many of us who have spent time with Mr Goldsmith know he has a very strong ideological stance which takes him as far right as you can possibly get.This bill allows employees who earn over $150000 gross to voluntarily opt out of being able to take a personal grievance. We are opposed to this bill because not only is it badly thought-out not only is it badly drafted and not only does it breach the human rights of anybody who opts in to doing this but actually it is also a very slippery slope in terms of what is natural justice and how natural justice is implied in the employment relations system.This bill allows a worker who is on $150000 or more to agree with their employer at the start of their employment that they will not be able to take a personal grievance. What that means is that they then have to get independent legal advice to do that. Then they have to sign away the right to take a personal grievance. I would like to remind the House that a personal grievance is not just for an unjustified dismissal; a personal grievance is a grievance where an employee has been sexually harassed in the workplace has been racially harassed in the workplace has been subject to duress about joining or not joining a union or has had their health and safety breached by the employer. These are reasons for taking a personal grievance. The worker on $150000 or more—if they are earning that—can opt out of that but they do have to get independent legal advice first.I do not know if the rest of this side of the House actually understands what happens when you apply for a job and get a job and negotiate an employment contract but the power does not rest with the employee. The power rests with the employer. This is why it says in the actual purpose of the original Employment Relations Act that that is why we have it—because of the power imbalance between employer and employee. So I believe that this opt-out provision will be one of those things where it is just basically said Yeah you can do this and we want you do this." but it will become in a situation where the employer wants it part of the general provisions of the agreement as it is. This whole idea that there will be no compulsion is a rort—it is unlikely to happen.The sponsor of this bill Mr Simpson has already signalled that there needs to be some amendments made to it which highlights the fact that this bill is badly drafted and badly thought-out. I do not believe that it can actually stand the scrutiny that it needs to have during the select committee process. I believe that it is an incredible waste of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee's time to present this bill to it when in fact there are not that many people who will actually be affected by this bill.My understanding—and we have looked at the research—is that there are about 48000 people to whom this bill will apply. That is around about 1 percent—or less than 1 percent—of the workforce that this bill will apply to. And I am just wondering: is it worth the House's time? Is it worth the time of the select committee to actually create a bill that needs work—admittedly; the sponsor says it needs to be amended—and actually only applies to 1 percent of the working population and breaches basic human rights. I think it is a complete waste of time and should be thrown out of the House immediately. We will be opposing it."