Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to thank all of the members for their contributions to the debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. The government obviously takes the view that this bill is a sensible and balanced package that lays the foundations for a fair and efficient industrial relations framework for all Australians. The government recognises that, to rebuild jobs in the economy in a way that best supports everyone's recovery, we need to give businesses the confidence to hire and invest. We need to step out of the way of employees agreeing to higher wages and agreeing to more hours, and we need to ensure the integrity of this system and help businesses to pay their employees correctly. Above all, we need to continue with the co-operative spirit that has been exhibited by employers and employees across the country throughout the pandemic, not the divisive us-versus-them mentality that has been a feature of the industrial relations debate in the past.

After approximately 120 hours of meetings with unions, employer associations, experts, employees and businesses, this bill represents a sensible, composite package of changes aimed at achieving these goals. Still, these are modest changes, and even in their modest form they've been derided and subjected to an abundance of falsehoods during the second reading debate and, unfortunately, elsewhere, and I think it's important to take the time just to clarify some of these issues.

It has been said—I think the shadow minister for industrial relations put this point, which we would not agree with, last week—that the proposed statutory definition of a casual employee would let an employer engage workers on a permanent basis just by saying that they are casual on the first day of their employment. That is not correct. Under our changes, a casual employee must not have a firm advance commitment to continuing in indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work. Whether this firm advance commitment is present or not is assessed against the key features specified in the statutory definition and canvassed by the courts: such an ability to elect to accept and reject work, whether the person will work only as required, what the parties agreed to in the employment contract and any entitlement to casual loading that is provided for.

To say that the definition gives an employer some unbridled right to simply call an employee a casual is very misleading and totally incorrect. And of course the casual definition is best assessed together with the proposal to give all casual employees a statutory pathway to casual conversion. The shadow minister last criticised that new casual conversion mechanism on the grounds that employers have the right to not offer permanent employment if there are reasonable grounds. These provisions, however, are based on the Fair Work Commission's own casual conversion model clause. The Fair Work Commission spent four years hearing parties' views to develop that clause.

What the shadow minister did not mention is that we are proposing a universal and even stronger casual conversion entitlement to be included in the National Employment Standards in the Fair Work Act. Unlike before, all casual employees will have access to this right, rather than only those under certain awards. And, importantly, our casual conversion mechanism contained within this bill will place an obligation on employers to offer employees casual conversion. Under the Fair Work Commission's model clause, employees only have the ability to ask their employer to convert. Our proposed mechanism is clearly an improvement to the present system.

It has also been claimed that our proposed changes to allow part-time flexibility in distressed industries is somehow an attack on job security. This is also, if I might say so respectfully, incorrect. It is a fact that over 100,000 part-time employees in the retail and hospitality sectors would prefer to work more hours and are available to work more hours but are not getting those hours. Under the current system, those additional hours are likely to be going to casual employees or, indeed, not going to anyone, and our proposed part-time flexibility provisions make permanent employment more attractive for employers and employees alike by allowing those part-time employees to work more hours—being, of course, hours that they want but are not getting under the current settings. How these reforms to address underemployment and encourage permanent employment can somehow be characterised as an attack on job security is very puzzling.

In relation to enterprise bargaining, we are proposing pragmatic and procedural changes to make bargaining faster, simpler and easier. As it stands, the making of enterprise agreements has been in freefall, due mainly to drawn-out approval processes and risks of agreements failing on narrow and technical grounds. Contrary to what some in this chamber have said, the bill makes no changes to existing employee rights to be represented by a union in bargaining. Unions continue, as they should, as the default bargaining representative for employees who are union members, and unions can still apply to be covered by an agreement for which they were a bargaining representative. The bill also does not change the fact that employees must genuinely agree to an agreement.

The changes simplify procedural requirements to ensure that genuine agreement requirements continue to be met and also avoid unnecessary delays and complexity in delivering pay rises. The government has listened to the concerns of the crossbench and agreed to remove the temporary changes that would have adapted Labor's existing public interest exception that allows for the Fair Work Commission to approve an agreement that did not meet the better off overall test. Instead, Labor's existing good exception will remain. Enterprise agreements encourage job creation, wage increases and productivity growth. Those opposite have admitted that the current system is simply not working. So it is astounding that there is still opposition to sensible changes to encourage agreement making designed to drive jobs growth, higher wages and higher productivity.

There have also been claims that the changes to greenfield agreements will mandate eight-year agreements that do not allow for minimum pay rises. Again, this is completely false. The reforms do not mandate an eight-year nominal expiry date for greenfield agreements. The changes simply give employers and unions the capacity to agree to a term of up to that length of time where construction of the major project covered by the agreement will last that long. Under the changes, a greenfield agreement with a nominal expiry date of more than four years must contain a term providing for annual increases for the nominal life of the agreement—that is to say, wage increases. The bill does not affect an employee's rights to raise issues during the nominal life of the agreement, particularly work health and safety matters. What these changes will do is provide certainty about greenfield agreements to attract global investment, with the potential to secure thousands of Australian jobs.

Finally, there have been some claims that our reforms designed to protect workers from the underpayment of wages will make it easier for people to underpay their employees in Victoria and Queensland. Again, this is false. For one thing, the laws in place in Victoria and Queensland are already inoperative to the extent they are inconsistent with the existing Fair Work Act, which establishes the national system both these states voluntarily entered into. Through this bill, the government is introducing tough laws that will protect all underpaid employees covered by the Fair Work Act, not just those in Victoria and Queensland. The proposed criminal offence in the bill, the first ever Commonwealth criminal offence for serious wage underpayments, has been drafted to ensure that unintentional mistakes will not be captured. However, serious consequences will attach to a criminal conviction under this new offence, including automatic disqualification from managing corporations, under the Corporations Law, and the possibility of imprisonment. We are also introducing further reforms to strengthen the compliance and enforcement system, including changes to increase civil penalties to deter underpayments and changes to make it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages.

The majority of Australians want an industrial relations system that simply works for them—one that is simple to use, creates opportunities and supports employers and employees working together in the same cooperative and constructive manner that has characterised our entire nation's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We are delivering on our commitment to industrial relations reform and we are making the necessary changes to ensure our economy recovers from the pandemic. This bill supports Australians having access to more jobs, to better jobs, to higher-paying jobs and to more productive jobs. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context