Little rattus is lying when he says that his new AWA fairness test is 'no different' from the old no disadvantage test.

The deceit of the prime rodent is evidenced by his assertion that it is 'silly' for workers to go to the High Court to appeal against the loss of penalty rates or other conditions under an AWA individual contract, whilst he refuses to give workers any alternative means of appealing a 'fairness test' ruling.

The fairness test is inferior in four key ways:

1. No role for independent umpire (AIRC)

The new 'fairness test' provides no role for the independent umpire to scrutinise workplace agreements. Under the old system, the AIRC was required to scrutinise all collective agreements in an open hearing & AWA individual contracts could be referred to the AIRC if there was uncertainty about whether it passed the 'no disadvantage test'.

Under the new system, individual workers who are dissatisfied with the compensation they receive for losing their penalty rates, overtime & other award conditions, are forced to go to the High Court to assert their rights.

2. Fewer workers are protected

Around 2.5 million workers are not covered by the new 'fairness test' & receive no protection.

Unlike the 'no disadvantage test', workers are not covered if they are on already-registered AWAs & agreements, earn more than $75,000 a year, or are award-free.

3. A limited set of award conditions are taken into account

The new 'fairness test' does not take into account the full list of protected award conditions when determining the amount of compensation for the loss of award conditions.

Redundancy pay, paid maternity leave & a say on rosters for workers were previously taken into account in the 'no disadvantage test' but are now not protected & can be abolished with no compensation to employees.

4. AWAs are not checked before they apply to workers wages & conditions

Under the new system, AWAs are checked only after they start to apply. This means that workers lose their award conditions first & then the 'fairness test' might be applied later.

With the 'no disadvantage test', workers were protected from the start & only lost award conditions after the test had ensured they would not be disadvantaged.

The fact is that the rattus IR model does not give workers adequate protection from losing penalty rates, shift allowances, overtime loadings or other award conditions & the only way a worker can question a ruling on their AWA individual contract under the government's new 'fairness test' will be to cough-up a lazy $25,000 & mount an expensive appeal to the High Court.'

The concept of fair compensation for the removal of protected award conditions is not defined in the bill. There is no guidance as to how non-monetary compensation is to be assessed & there is no method for determining whether a particular benefit is of value to the employee.

Of course, the government's new fairness test legislation contains no guidance on how non-monetary compensation is to be assessed & no method for determining whether such a benefit is of value to an employee. Instead, it will be left up to “uncle joe” to 'direct' how the fairness test will be applied.

The new bill builds on the 'autocratic power' the Federal Minister will have in determining workplace arrangements.

This latest cynical attempt at window dressing by rattus will not ensure fair compensation for the removal of most protected award conditions, is unbelievably complex in its terms, is subjective, indeterminate and uncertain in its application, & lacks transparency & a capacity for reviewing decisions by a neutral or independent party.

The "tweaking" of the Workplace Relations Act, as the 2nd rate TV personality & rattus sidekick, “uncle joe” hockey calls it, will come at a cost of $370m to taxpayers over the next four years, through the employment of 600 new bureaucrats to check the Australian workplace agreements, burying under an even bigger mountain of complexity & red tape.

Of course, the States & Territories were not consulted over the fairness test changes - comprising 144 pages of disjointed amendments & explanatory notes.

Little wonder rattus & his gang screwed-up the now discredited “Workchoices”, given the serial nature of their arrogant, deceptive, secret & dishonest behaviour.