Kuriger Barbara; Menéndez March Ricardo; van Velden BrookeNew clause 6 New section 67BA inserted (Review of operation of section 67A) CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to the debate on new clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 8. This is an amendment proposed by Ricardo Menéndez March requiring a review of the operation of section 67A three years after the bill's commencement. Just before we start taking calls on this I just want to note that it's a very narrow clause just like the last one so we don't want to see anything repetitive; we just want to stick to the point of the clause.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. So again I don't mean to sound repetitive; it's just that we haven't had the select committee process. But I think what this seeks to add in this amendment under my name is the ability for the House—and I make the difference compared to my previous call and I talk about the House because this amendment does have a requirement to report to the House as opposed to just kind of publish the ongoing review each financial year. So there are those differences about the reporting mechanisms that are being presented in this amendment that I'm proposing.This is a three-year proposed review and particularly when it comes to any effects on outcomes for workers when it comes to employment—so it could be quite broad and it does then allow for some discretion about the scope of what we would be looking for. It's a bit less prescriptive—well it's quite a lot less prescriptive than the previous amendment that I put previously. Then it also gives the Minister discretion while requiring the Minister to ensure that the persons and organisations"—including representatives of employees and employers—"that the Minister thinks appropriate are consulted during the preparation of the report" about the matters to be considered in the report. That should in my view allow the Minister to freely canvas what she has previously spoken about in terms of the needs of employers and that flexibility that she seeks to embed in the bill that she's put forward. But it also then allows that worker's voice to be present right which we didn't have because there was no select committee report and the Minister has been unable to present that worker voice.Then lastly there's a requirement for the Minister to present a copy of the report to the House of Representatives so then this allows for us to have that more substantive debate on the issue. No matter what the make-up of Parliament is it just allows those debates to continue to be carried and then it allows that report to then be used by the public as well. And it gives the public confidence that when we are introducing something that has such a big material impact that they can use the report that is being presented to the House for research and for that public discourse. I think that's again really important. In my view it also addresses some of the previous things that we've debated around the lack of awareness that was identified on any policy that changes employment law. Because by having an amendment that requires that public discussion in the House you are also kind of lifting the awareness constantly each three years for it to be then debated in the public.So I think this again reinforces what the coalition set out to do which is to make decisions based on facts. This allows for evidence gathering and those facts to be out in the public rather than making decisions without that information being available prior. So I think it in my view should be considered by the Minister and I think in fact it's in line with the goals of the coalition despite myself not agreeing with the intent of this bill.Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to respond and thank the member for his contribution also noting that I responded to this in clause 4 clause 5 and in the previous amended attempt at clause 6—and will repeat it again—that I will work to consider my research and evaluation plans in the context of my wider work programme in further months. However I do not believe that there is an appropriate need for a review provision in this bill."