The term “rewards that serve as a safety net” is used in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (WR Act) under section 88A and refers to the “government procurement safety net” in the subject matter of the WR Act. But the price security network is also of familiar importance. This is the amount of wages and conditions to which a worker must have access without any other “superior” instrument, for example. B a collective agreement, a certified contract or an individual contract. The prize`s security network includes federal and national distinctions. By May 2004, the ESAs had reached a coverage of about 2.4% of the workforce.  Mining companies have advanced the agreements with some success and offered substantial wage increases to workers who chose to sign an AWA. The wage-setting system has moved from the centralised rule of national wages to a bargaining framework for companies, in which national provisions are part of the backstop and apply only to (mainly low-paid) workers who are unable to obtain wage increases in company negotiations. To most observers, the “system” seems to make the most of company agreements and centralized wage setting and at this point seems to be a very Australian solution for wage policy.
The question of constitutional authority for federal law is at the heart of the government`s work agenda. On the eve of the 2004 Australian federal election, the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations presented a proposal to extend federal jurisdiction using the power of the Australian Constitution (i.e. the constitutional power for the Commonwealth to regulate the business activities of companies; see previous discussion papers on this proposal), while the AIRC retains the power to carry out backstop checks, this function could be replaced by a regulation in which Parliament would set these conditions or Parliament could decide that a hybrid system would be used instead of the AIRC. The government has previously considered a review of the implementation of the backstop inspection files in order to complement the AIRC Full Bench with the creation of a new “body” (letter to the Prime Minister). The role of the revision of the backstop in its current form should not be expected to emerge. Indeed, the Prime Minister`s statement of May 2005 anticipated legislation to end the provisions of the AIRC relating to the allocation of safety nets. . . .