Salesa JennyPart 3 Collective bargainingCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 21 to 55 on Collective bargaining". The question is that Part 3 stand part.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you kindly Madam Chair. I'm happy to say a few words at the beginning of this part. Part 3 primarily deals with collective bargaining matters. As we've traversed over the course of the debate this is a substantial part of the legislation that's before the committee this evening. The bill and the entire working group process that preceded it was established to deal with this fundamental problem that collective bargaining had effectively been taken away by a targeted piece of legislation under the previous Government and we did not believe that that was a fair equitable or appropriate situation to have. As I've said specifically before that was by dint of workers in the sector being classified by legislation as "contractors" rather than "employees" and having their ability to test that right in the courts was taken away by that legislation—Hon Michael Woodhouse: They classified themselves.Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —that was put through under urgency Mr Woodhouse. So the grand bargain as I said at the beginning effectively under this legislation is that the contracting arrangement is kept in place but the workers concerned are able to access collective bargaining mechanisms. There are two collective-bargaining processes that can take place: occupational-level collective bargaining and enterprise-level collective bargaining depending on how worker engagers wish to engage with those processes.There are a number of changes which are worth noting. The Education and Workforce Committee has proposed a number of changes to streamline the bargaining process in particular the process around variations to collective contracts. In Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 234 the things which I would draw to the attention of the committee are that there has been a change to put in place in terms of ratification of collective contracts that they need to be done by a majority of those who vote rather than a majority of those who are covered by the contract. Secondly that there is a simpler process around replacement signatories in the event that that is necessary given the passage of time. And thirdly in terms of the fact—and we discussed this in the Part 2 debate—that there is effectively a cascading situation whereby occupational-level contracts form base terms and conditions; enterprise collective contracts need to be as good as or better than the underlying occupational contract than the individual agreements more so. There's been a change here whereas previously it was proposed that there would be sort of an overall test as to whether an enterprise-level contract was better than the occupational contract; that will now be done on a term-by-term basis. That was as a result of feedback and ongoing engagement with both sides—unions guilds and producers—as to what would be a more simple and streamlined and clearer way of making that assessment.So those are some of the changes both through the ministerial SOP and from the select committee that are proposed to Part 3. I'm happy to take any questions that do relate to Part 3. Thank you."