Joe O'Toole (Independent)

While the amendment is well motivated and the manner in which Senator Terry has phrased it is understandable, I have considered this section deeply and have difficulty in supporting the amendment. The issues involved go far beyond what is contained in the amendment. One of the objectives of successive Governments has been to bring the percentage of people with disabilities in the workplace up to3%. The only areas where that has been achieved are in parts of the public service, which is a harsh reality that reflects the way the world is. In my previous life, wearing my ICTU hat, I pushed and tried through various national agreements to make the employment of people with disabilities easier. I met with great resistance from employers, not in the sense of employers being anti-people with disabilities but in terms of how they would operate in the workplace.

I ask Senator Terry to give consideration to this point. While the section reflects the principle of equal pay for equal work, the amendment turns that on its head. The harsh reality of life means that in a situation where two workers were being paid the same amount and one was only doing three quarters of the work the other person was, notwithstanding that the person doing the three quarters work was a person with disability, the other person could put in a claim for equal pay. In other words, the worker doing more work could seek an additional 33% pay and would have a perfectly stateable case in that situation. Therefore, much as I dislike the thinking behind the fact that employers could make such a rule, if we accept this amendment, we would effectively slam the door on employers appointing people with disability.

This is the reality I have experienced in negotiations. While employers have said they have nothing against people with disabilities and that they would try to work them into their systems, and some have, that has always been on the basis of equal pay for equal work, or some such arrangement. Despite my criticisms of employers over the years, on this issue they tend to give the balance towards people with disabilities and to make adjustments for them in that sense.

I completely understand Senator Terry's point. I feel equally uncomfortable that the Bill states that it is lawful to do this. However, I support the Bill in this regard because there is a better chance of more people with disabilities being brought into the workforce under this system than if it were not in place. That is the reality I have faced all along, although I cannot disagree with any of the points in the argument made by Senator Terry, or the clear motivation that drives her to put down the amendment, with which I have sympathy and fully identify.

Nonetheless, in practical terms, it is impossible to have the concept of equal pay for equal work and then to have factors in work situations which go against that, even if this favours some employees. The concept of equal pay for equal work means exactly that: if there is equal pay for equal work, the balance lies with all employees but, if there is not, once one side or another is favoured, any number of cases for demands for equal pay for other people will be opened up, and nobody will make concessions on grounds of disability. It is a complex and complicated situation and one with which we must be careful.