not want to run their business under an EBA, they are forced to engage in negotiation. Given that an enterprise can’t opt out from this, then, surely it’s incumbent upon government to create a regulatory system that at least provides for options, options for both the worker and the employer. We ask: what is the justification for forcing an enterprise to engage in negotiation to develop an agreement but not allow options as to the form of that agreement? We believe that the rejection of individual contracts is ideological. That ideology is clear in the legislation itself. The object of the Act states: ensuring that the guaranteed safety net of fair, relevant and enforceable minimum wages and conditions can no longer be undermined by the making of statutory individual employment agreements of any kind, given that such agreements can never be part of a fair workplace relations system This, in our view, is not public policy; it is ideology. This review is an opportunity to move the workplace relations system away from that ideology. To do that, ideology must be removed from the legislation. Not allowing individual contracts to be an option because they are inherently unfair, or supposedly inherently unfair, in our view, is ideological. Just to wrap up, this, in our view, is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform workplace relations. Our workplaces are to be key to our future productivity growth. We need a system that encourages, rather than stifles, innovation and productivity. As you know, labour productivity growth has accounted for more than 80 per cent of growth in hourly real wages over the past two decades and it will account most of our productivity growth in the future. Innovation happens at the enterprise level. It’s people in an organisation who change and it’s people in organisations who drive productivity. It’s managers and their teams working together to solve problems that supports risktaking and leads to success. We need to make sure our workplace relations system encourages this, it needs to encourage collaboration, rather than conflict. It needs to find the right balance between creating a safety net for workers and having sufficient flexibility so that enterprises and people can innovate. Innovation benefits everyone, enterprises and workers. The draft report has built in the safety net and we support that very strongly but it needs to go further to provide the flexibility enterprises need. To return again to Glenn Stevens’ point, the system needs to minimise adverse effects and it needs to be able to adapt to the challenges our
not want to run their business under an EBA, they are forced to engage in negotiation. Given that an enterprise can’t opt out from this, then, surely it’s incumbent upon government to create a regulatory system that at least provides for options, options for both the worker and the employer. We ask: what is the justification for forcing an enterprise to engage in negotiation to develop an agreement but not allow options as to the form of that agreement? We believe that the rejection of individual contracts is ideological. That ideology is clear in the legislation itself. The object of the Act states: ensuring that the guaranteed safety net of fair, relevant and enforceable minimum wages and conditions can no longer be undermined by the making of statutory individual employment agreements of any kind, given that such agreements can never be part of a fair workplace relations system This, in our view, is not public policy; it is ideology. This review is an opportunity to move the workplace relations system away from that ideology. To do that, ideology must be removed from the legislation. Not allowing individual contracts to be an option because they are inherently unfair, or supposedly inherently unfair, in our view, is ideological. Just to wrap up, this, in our view, is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform workplace relations. Our workplaces are to be key to our future productivity growth. We need a system that encourages, rather than stifles, innovation and productivity. As you know, labour productivity growth has accounted for more than 80 per cent of growth in hourly real wages over the past two decades and it will account most of our productivity growth in the future. Innovation happens at the enterprise level. It’s people in an organisation who change and it’s people in organisations who drive productivity. It’s managers and their teams working together to solve problems that supports risktaking and leads to success. We need to make sure our workplace relations system encourages this, it needs to encourage collaboration, rather than conflict. It needs to find the right balance between creating a safety net for workers and having sufficient flexibility so that enterprises and people can innovate. Innovation benefits everyone, enterprises and workers. The draft report has built in the safety net and we support that very strongly but it needs to go further to provide the flexibility enterprises need. To return again to Glenn Stevens’ point, the system needs to minimise adverse effects and it needs to be able to adapt to the challenges our