House debates
Wednesday, 20 June 2007
Workplace Relations Amendment (a Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
7. Schedule 6 | The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
8. Schedule 7, Parts 1 and 2 | The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
9. Schedule 7, Part 3 | Immediately after the commencement of Schedule 1. |
(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 10), before the definition of designated award in subsection 346B(1), insert:
business being transferred has the same meaning as in Part 11.
(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 27), after the definition of industrial instrument in subsection 346B(1), insert:
new employer has the same meaning as in Part 11.
old employer has the same meaning as in Part 11.
(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 24), after the definition of salary in subsection 346B(1) (after the note), insert:
time of transmission,in relation to a business being transferred, has the same meaning as in Part 11.
transferring employee has the same meaning as in Part 11.
transmission period,in relation to a business being transferred, has the same meaning as in Part 11.
(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (after line 20), after section 346C, insert:
346CA Industry or occupation usually regulated by State award before the reform commencement—extended operation of certain provisions
(1) For the purposes of a provision mentioned in subsection (2), an industry or occupation in which the terms and conditions of the kind of work performed or to be performed by an employee are usually regulated by an award is taken to include an industry or occupation in which the terms and conditions of the kind of work performed or to be performed by the employee:
(a) were, immediately before the reform commencement, usually regulated by a State award; or
(b) would, but for an industrial instrument or a State employment agreement, usually have been regulated by a State award immediately before the reform commencement.
(2) The provisions are as follows:
(a) subparagraph 346E(1)(b)(ii);
(b) subparagraph 346E(2)(b)(ii);
(c) subparagraph 346F(1)(b)(ii);
(d) subparagraph 346F(2)(b)(ii);
(e) paragraph 346K(2)(a);
(f) a provision referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d), as referred to in section 346L.
(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (after line 6), at the end of Subdivision A, add:
346DA Transmission of business—where no decision under section 346M at time of transmission
(1) This section applies if:
(a) the Workplace Authority Director is required to decide under section 346M whether a workplace agreement passes the fairness test; and
(b) before the Workplace Authority Director makes the decision, the workplace agreement becomes binding upon a new employer and a transferring employee or transferring employees because of the operation of section 583 or 585.
(2) Subject to subsection (4), for the purposes of deciding under section 346M whether the workplace agreement passes the fairness test, references to the employer in section 346M and in the definition of relevant award are taken to be references to the old employer.
(3) If:
(a) the Workplace Authority Director has been notified that the workplace agreement is binding on the new employer and the transferring employee or transferring employees; and
(b) the Workplace Authority Director is required to give a notice under section 346J, 346P or 346U to the employer in relation to the workplace agreement;
the Workplace Authority Director must give the notice to both the old employer and the new employer.
(4) If the Workplace Authority Director decides under section 346M that the workplace agreement does not pass the fairness test:
(a) references in section 346R to the employer bound by the workplace agreement are taken to be references to the new employer; and
(b) to avoid doubt, if the new employer subsequently lodges a variation of the workplace agreement under section 346R then, for the purposes of deciding under section 346U whether the workplace agreement as varied passes the fairness test, references in section 346M to the employer are taken to be references to the old employer.
Note 1: The employment arrangements that have effect in relation to the new employer and the transferring employee or transferring employees are as set out in section 346YA.
Note 2: The compensation payable to the transferring employees under section 346ZD by both the old employer and the new employer is as specified in subsections 346ZD(2), (2A) and (2B).
346DB Transmission of business—where no decision on a varied agreement under section 346U at time of transmission
(1) This section applies if:
(a) the Workplace Authority Director is required to decide under section 346U whether a workplace agreement as varied passes the fairness test; and
(b) before the Workplace Authority Director makes the decision, the workplace agreement becomes binding upon a new employer and a transferring employee or transferring employees because of the operation of section 583 or 585.
(2) For the purposes of deciding under section 346U whether the workplace agreement as varied passes the fairness test, references in section 346M to the employer are taken to be references to the old employer.
(3) If:
(a) the Workplace Authority Director has been notified that the workplace agreement is binding upon the new employer and a transferring employee or transferring employees; and
(b) the Workplace Authority Director is required to give a notice under section 346U to the employer in relation to the workplace agreement;
the Workplace Authority Director must give the notice to both the old employer and the new employer.
346DC Transmission of business—employees still employed by old employer
To avoid doubt, if a workplace agreement becomes binding upon a new employer and a transferring employee or transferring employees because of the operation of section 583 or 585, this Division has effect, to the extent that the workplace agreement continues to bind the old employer, and an employee or employees who are not transferring employees, according to its terms.
(8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (lines 14 to 21), omit paragraph 346E(1)(b), substitute:
(b) on the date of lodgment:
(i) the employer bound by the AWA is bound by an award in respect of the terms and conditions of the kind of work performed or to be performed by the employee; or
(ii) the employee whose employment is subject to the AWA is employed in an industry or occupation in which the terms and conditions of the kind of work performed or to be performed by the employee are usually regulated by an award, or would, but for a workplace agreement or another industrial instrument, usually be regulated by an award; and
(9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 11 to 19), omit paragraph 346E(2)(b), substitute:
(b) on the date of lodgment:
(i) the employer bound by the collective agreement is bound by an award in respect of the terms and conditions of the kind of work performed or to be performed by the one or more of the employees; or
(ii) one or more of the employees whose employment is subject to the collective agreement is employed in an industry or occupation in which the terms and conditions of the kind of work performed or to be performed by the employees are usually regulated by an award, or would, but for a workplace agreement or another industrial instrument, usually be regulated by an award; and
(10) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 33) to page 9 (line 3), omit paragraph 346F(1)(b), substitute:
(b) on the date of lodgment of the variation:
(i) the employer bound by the AWA as varied is bound by an award in respect of the terms and conditions of the kind of work performed or to be performed by the employee; or
(ii) the employee whose employment is subject to the AWA as varied is employed in an industry or occupation in which the terms and conditions of the kind of work performed or to be performed by the employee are usually regulated by an award, or would, but for a workplace agreement or another industrial instrument, usually be regulated by an award; and
(11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (lines 28 to 36), omit paragraph 346F(2)(b), substitute:
(b) on the date of lodgment of the variation:
(i) the employer bound by the collective agreement as varied is bound by an award in respect of the terms and conditions of the kind of work performed or to be performed by the one or more of the employees; or
(ii) one or more of the employees whose employment is subject to the collective agreement as varied is employed in an industry or occupation in which the terms and conditions of the kind of work performed or to be performed by the employees are usually regulated by an award, or would, but for a workplace agreement or another industrial instrument, usually be regulated by an award; and
(12) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (lines 9 to 15), omit the note.
(13) Schedule 1, item 1, page 15 (lines 7 to 13), omit the note.
(14) Schedule 1, item 1, page 22 (line 27), omit paragraph 346U(4)(b), substitute:
(b) if the workplace agreement as varied passes the fairness test:
(i) that the workplace agreement continues in operation; and
(ii) that the workplace agreement was varied by way of a variation or a written undertaking, as the case may be; and
(iii) that the employee or employees whose employment is, or was at any time, subject to the workplace agreement are, on and from the date of issue of the notice, entitled to any compensation payable to the employee or employees under section 346ZD; and
(c) if the workplace agreement as varied does not pass the fairness test:
(i) that, if the workplace agreement was in operation immediately before the date of issue of the notice—the agreement ceases to operate on the date of issue of the notice; and
(ii) that the employee or employees whose employment was at any time subject to the workplace agreement are, on and from the date of issue of the notice, entitled to any compensation payable to the employee or employees under section 346ZD.
(15) Schedule 1, item 1, page 24 (after line 38), after subsection 346Y(4), insert:
(4A) Despite subsection (2), if the original agreement is a workplace agreement that, after lodgment, becomes binding upon a new employer and a transferring employee or transferring employees because of the operation of section 583 or 585, this section does not have the effect of binding the new employer and the transferring employee or transferring employees to an instrument or to a designated award.
Note: The employment arrangements that have effect in relation to the new employer and the transferring employee or transferring employees are as set out in section 346YA.
(16) Schedule 1, item 1, page 25 (after line 16), after section 346Y, insert:
346YA Employment arrangements if a workplace agreement ceases to operate because it does not pass fairness test—transmission of business
(1) This section applies if:
(a) on a particular day (the cessation day), a workplace agreement (the original agreement) ceases to operate under section 346R or 346W because the original agreement does not pass the fairness test; and
(b) during the period beginning when the original agreement was lodged and ending on the cessation day, the original agreement became binding upon a new employer and a transferring employee or transferring employees because of the operation of section 583 or 585 in relation to a business being transferred; and
(c) the cessation day occurs during the transmission period in relation to the business being transferred.
Note: If the cessation day occurs after the transmission period ends, the rules in Part 11 will have effect according to their terms.
(2) The new employer and the transferring employee or transferring employees who were bound by the original agreement immediately before the cessation day are taken, on and from the cessation day, to be bound by:
(a) the instrument:
(i) that, but for the original agreement having come into operation, would have bound the old employer and the transferring employee or transferring employees immediately before the time of transmission; and
(ii) that was capable of binding the new employer after the time of transmission under Part 11, Schedule 6 or Schedule 9; or
(b) if there is no instrument of a kind referred to in paragraph (a) in relation to the old employer and one or more of the transferring employees—the designated award in relation to that employee or those employees, to the extent that the designated award contains protected award conditions.
(3) If, but for the original agreement having come into operation, the old employer would have been bound, immediately before the time of transmission, under a designated provision by a redundancy provision in relation to a transferring employee or transferring employees whose employment was subject to the original agreement, the new employer is taken:
(a) to be bound under section 598A or clause 27A of Schedule 9, as the case requires, on and from the cessation day, by the redundancy provision in relation to the transferring employee or transferring employees; and
(b) to continue to be so bound until the earliest of the following:
(i) the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the first day on which the old employer became bound under a designated provision by the redundancy provision;
(ii) the time when the employee ceases to be employed by the new employer;
(iii) the time when another workplace agreement comes into operation in relation to the transferring employee or the transferring employees and the new employer.
(4) If the original agreement is a workplace agreement as varied under Division 8, the workplace agreement as in force before the variation was lodged is, despite section 346ZB, capable of being an instrument described in paragraph (2)(a).
(5) In this section:
designated provision has the same meaning as in section 346ZA.
instrument means any of the following:
(a) a workplace agreement;
(b) an award;
(c) a pre-reform certified agreement (within the meaning of Schedule 7);
(d) a pre-reform AWA.
Note: Preserved State agreements and notional agreements preserving State awards are dealt with in Schedule 8.
(17) Schedule 1, item 1, page 25 (line 17), omit “section 346Y”, substitute “sections 346Y and 346YA”.
(18) Schedule 1, item 1, page 25 (line 18), before “If”, insert “(1)”.
(19) Schedule 1, item 1, page 26 (after line 4), at the end of section 346Z (after the note), add:
(2) If, because of the operation of section 346YA, a new employer and a transferring employee or transferring employees are taken to be bound by an instrument, the instrument is taken, despite any other provision of this Act, to have effect in relation to the new employer and the transferring employee or employees throughout the period:
(a) beginning on the cessation day; and
(b) ending at the end of the transmission period in relation to the business being transferred;
as if the new employer and the transferring employee or transferring employees had become bound by the instrument under Part 11, Schedule 6 or Schedule 9, as the case requires.
(20) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (line 16), omit “section 346Y”, substitute “section 346Y or 346YA”.
(21) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (line 34), omit “became entitled under the workplace agreement”, substitute “was entitled, under the workplace agreement, and under any other applicable law, agreement or arrangement that operated in conjunction with the workplace agreement,”.
(22) Schedule 1, item 1, page 28 (lines 6 to 13), omit all the words after “period,”, substitute “worked out in accordance with the assumptions set out in subsection (2A)”.
(23) Schedule 1, item 1, page 28 (after line 13), after subsection 346ZD(2), insert:
(2A) For the purposes of working out the total value of the entitlements to which the employee would have been entitled, in respect of one or more periods of employment of the employee during the fairness test period, it is to be assumed that, during that period or those periods of employment:
(a) the employee’s employment was subject to:
(i) the instrument or instruments that, but for the workplace agreement, would have bound the employer in relation to that period or those periods of employment of the employee; or
(ii) if there is no such instrument—the designated award in relation to the employee, to the extent that it contains protected award conditions; and
(b) the employer was bound, under a designated provision, by any redundancy provision that, but for the workplace agreement having come into operation, would have bound the employer in relation to the employee; and
(c) the employer was bound under section 394 by any undertaking that, but for the workplace agreement having come into operation, would have bound the employer in relation to the employee; and
(d) the employee’s employment was subject to any other applicable law, agreement or arrangement that would have operated in conjunction with the instrument or instruments referred to in subparagraph (a)(i), or the designated award referred to in subparagraph (a)(ii), as the case requires.
(24) Schedule 1, item 1, page 28, after subsection 346ZD(2), insert:
(2B) If, because of the operation of section 583 or 585, the workplace agreement bound an old employer and a new employer in relation to the employment of a transferring employee during the fairness test period:
(a) the transferring employee is entitled to be paid compensation by the old employer in respect of the period or periods during which the employee was employed by the old employer, worked out in accordance with the assumptions set out in subsection (2A); and
(b) the transferring employee is entitled to be paid compensation by the new employer in respect of the period or periods during which the employee was employed by the new employer, worked out in accordance with the assumptions set out in subsection (2A), subject to the following modifications:
(i) subparagraph (2A)(a)(i) is taken to refer to the instrument described in paragraph 346YA(2)(a); and
(ii) a reference in paragraph (2A)(b) to a designated provision is taken to be a reference to section 598A or clause 27A of Schedule 9, as the case requires.
(25) Schedule 1, item 1, page 28 (after line 35), before the definition of fairness test period, insert:
designated provision has the same meaning as in section 346ZA.
(26) Schedule 1, item 1, page 29 (after line 25), after section 346ZE, insert:
346ZEA Notice requirements in relation to transmission of business
(1) This section applies if:
(a) a new employer is bound by a workplace agreement (the transmitted workplace agreement) in relation to a transferring employee because of section 583 or 585; and
(b) before the time of transmission in relation to the business being transferred, the Workplace Authority Director gave notice to the old employer under section 346J that the Workplace Authority Director must decide under section 346M or 346U whether the transmitted workplace agreement passes the fairness test; and
(c) as at the time of transmission, the Workplace Authority Director has not yet decided whether the transmitted workplace agreement passes the fairness test under whichever of those sections is applicable.
(2) The old employer must take reasonable steps to give a written notice to the Workplace Authority Director that:
(a) identifies the transmitted workplace agreement; and
(b) states whether or not the old employer remains bound by the transmitted workplace agreement in relation to the employment of any employees; and
(c) specifies the date on which the transmission period in relation to the business being transferred ends; and
(d) specifies the name and address of the new employer.
(3) Subsection (2) is a civil remedy provision.
Note: See Division 11 for provisions on enforcement.
(27) Schedule 1, item 5, page 32 (line 31), after “346Y”, insert “, 346YA”.
(28) Schedule 1, item 6, page 33 (line 9), after “346Y”, insert “, 346YA”.
(29) Schedule 1, item 7, page 33 (line 21), after “346Y”, insert “, 346YA”.
Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I understand that it may not be the wish of the House to consider the amendments together. I seek some clarification.
5:09 pm
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Hopefully I can assist. The opposition wishes that amendment (44), which commences on page 11 and is an amendment to division 3A and entitled ‘Workplace Relations Fact Sheet’, be considered separately and that other amendments be considered together.
5:10 pm
Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the amendments being considered together.
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The opposition are opposed to the suspension motion and we will divide on it. If the government thought that this was a short route home, they should think again. What the government are trying to cover up here is apparent. They are trying to cover up the fact that this bill was brought to this parliament as part of a poll-driven cover-up. It is about polling they gave to Mark Textor, and they know it.
5:11 pm
Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has called for a division on my motion to suspend standing orders. I expect you to go straight to that. Now is not the time to debate the actual amendment.
Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am willing to rule on the point of order. I have a motion before me which has not been put to a vote. We are proceeding as a debate of that suspension of standing orders, under standing order 47. The question is that the suspension of standing orders be agreed to.
5:12 pm
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Of course you are entitled to debate this motion. In their arrogance, the Howard government have forgotten that parliament is a place for debate. The government wants to cover up the fact that it gave polling to Mark Textor. We saw all this during question time, with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations dancing around. What we know about the amendments before this parliament and the amendment we seek to vote on separately is this: it is all about propaganda; this bill before the parliament is all about polling and advertising—a shabby excuse for a taxpayer funded advertising campaign—
Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. Minister.
Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move:
That the question be now put.
Question put.
Original question put:
That the motion (Dr Stone’s) be agreed to.
5:27 pm
Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
I would like to thank the honourable members of the House and the Senate for their input in the debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007. For the information of the opposition, all of the government is 100 per cent behind this bill, and any one of us would stand here and pass these amendments. I am pleased to note that this bill as amended in the Senate was returned to the House today for this place’s approval. In addition to parliamentary debates, this bill was the subject of a Senate standing committee inquiry, and the final report was handed down last week. I also thank the committee for their work. During the debates we have heard a range of views about a matter that is at the heart of Australian work values: fairness.
The members of the opposition whom we have heard from cannot accept that workers and their bosses can make agreements themselves without union involvement. We happen to think that they can. We have heard much comment that fairness is obtuse and too hard to understand. Quite obviously we do not agree. We have heard that, without reams of prescriptive detail, workers and their bosses will find it impossible to inject fairness into their own agreements. Quite obviously that is patent nonsense. And yet, when the government moved amendments to strengthen the information requirements so that the Workplace Authority Director must gazette a fact sheet about such things as the standard and protected award conditions, the opposition voted against them.
This government is serious about providing genuine protections and ensuring that everybody knows where they stand. Therefore, the bill leaves no doubt about what constitutes fairness and that the overriding consideration in determining fairness is the value of compensation provided to employees. Importantly, it does so in a way that maintains the flexibility for workers and businesses to reach agreements that suit their particular needs. Flexibility in the workplace is going to see our participation rise and allow all Australians to have their family-work balance needs met.
This bill reflects the fact that the government is listening to the community. We have responded to concerns about the treatment of award conditions in agreement making. We have also been prepared to address technical issues raised during the Senate inquiry. The government moved amendments in the Senate to clarify that employees in industries or occupations that were traditionally covered by state awards also have the benefit of the fairness test. The amendments also clarify what must be taken into account when calculating compensation where agreements fail the fairness test. Government amendments made in the Senate also set out how the fairness test operates when there is a transmission of a business. This means that if a workplace agreement has been lodged and has commenced then the Workplace Authority Director must still apply the fairness test, regardless of a subsequent transmission of business.
The government also accepted amendments moved by Senator Fielding. These amendments extend the length of the period of preservation of redundancy entitlements where an agreement is unilaterally terminated by the employer from 12 months to 24 months. I would like to remind the House that we amended the legislation late last year to ensure that redundancy provisions in agreements were preserved for a period of 12 months after such agreements were unilaterally terminated by employers. These amendments were not supported by the Labor Party. This bill provides important protections for employees in agreement making while ensuring that the fundamentals of the government’s workplace relations reforms remain in place.
Before finishing, I would just like to return once more to the fact sheets, which have caused Labor so much excitement and interest. When you consider ALP policy, you can see that the statements made by the opposition are in fact completely hypocritical. Under Labor’s national employment standards—in fact, on page 8, under ‘Forward and fairness’—employers will be obliged to provide all new employees with a fair work information statement, which contains prescribed information about the employee’s rights and entitlements at work, including the right of the employee to choose whether to be or not to be a member of a union and where to go for information and assistance. It is quite explicit. It is one of the minimum legislative standards that they would put in place if they were in government. The idea is that employers must supply their employees with an information statement. Our concern about that, though, is that it is in fact a disguised effort to make sure that employees end up with a lot of information about how to join a union. We would be concerned about the pressure that would go along with all of that if it was once again a union dominated workplace. I strongly recommend these amendments to the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007. I commend the amendments to the House. (Time expired)
5:32 pm
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I would have to say that, in the handling of the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007, now I have seen everything. This was a bill conceived out of polling. It is only in this parliament because of polling. It is a crisis about taxpayer funded polling that is no doubt keeping the minister from being in parliament today to handle this bill. How laughable: the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations not only is not here to handle his bill but was not here to vote on the divisions in relation to his bill. Since question time today, no doubt he has been spinning in crisis about his inability to rule out that taxpayer funded research has been given to Liberal Party operatives. The minister is not here competently dealing with these amendments; instead, we have—
Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I rise on a point of order, Deputy Speaker Jenkins. We are debating amendments to a bill. The commentary from the member for Lalor is totally irrelevant to this bill.
Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question before the chair is that the amendments be agreed to. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition realises that she has to be relevant.
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Absolutely—I do realise that. The relevant point is: where is the minister? Moving on from that point, now I have seen everything. The government, desperate for a defence for its workplace propaganda sheets is now saying, ‘We’ve pinched something out of Labor’s policy.’ Did you think that you would ever see that in industrial relations—a minister of the Howard government saying, ‘Don’t blame me; I got it out of Labor’s policy’? If you are so bereft of ideas, so stupid, so silly that you cannot think up things yourself and have to take them out of Labor’s policy then get to the dispatch box and say that.
The government has pulled a stunt here to stop Labor voting against its propaganda sheets. Let me explain to the minister why we object to these propaganda sheets when our policy includes the provision of information to people. These are propaganda sheets. If they were not propaganda sheets then the format of them would have been supplied with the legislation. But of course the government has not done that; the government has made sure that it can draft these sheets afterwards. No doubt Mark Textor will have a very big hand in that; no doubt it will all be about the polling. Why does an employer have to get these sheets into the hands of employees within three months? Why not six months? Why not 12 months? Why not two years? Why aren’t these sheets for newly starting employees? Why aren’t these sheets for employees who may be being asked to sign an Australian workplace agreement? The reason for the three-month timetable—and let us be honest; the Australian people are not mugs—is that you want these propaganda fact sheets in the hands of Australian workers before the election. That is why you picked three months; there is no other rationale for picking three months.
Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You want to see what is in them before the election.
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Table it now. If you reckon Labor’s view can be changed by what is in it, put it on the dispatch box now. Move amendments to the legislation that say that this legislation—
Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You will see what is in them soon enough.
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We will—when you finish with the pollsters, we will see them. But you do not want this parliament to see them before dealing with the legislation. That is too smart by half, Minister. If they are genuinely information fact sheets then why were they not provided with the legislation? The fact that you have left it, to enable you to draft them afterwards, is because you want them to be propaganda, and the three-month time frame is all about pushing propaganda into the hands of workers before the election.
But the real vice in these fact sheets—apart from them being more propaganda from the government—is that the government are going to fine employers for not doing it. If you run a small business today, unless you hand out the Howard government’s propaganda within the three-month time period, you will get a $110 penalty for every employee you fail to get it to. If you are running a small business—a cafe, a drycleaner—and you do not get out the sheets out to your employees in time, the Howard government will come and fine you. This is the Howard government attacking business, and small business in particular. This is regulation gone mad in the interests of political propaganda, and the Howard government did not want Labor members to have a vote on this in this parliament because they knew it was something to be ashamed of and they were hoping to cover it up. This is an absolutely ridiculous approach from the Howard government. We could have dealt with this amendment and had one division. Instead, we have had more because they want to cover up— (Time expired)
5:37 pm
Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What a rant from the member for Lalor! The Labor Party policy has a fair work information statement. We have a document which we are going to call a Workplace Authority workplace relations fact sheet. It seems to me that you can become quite desperate about the fact that employees would know what was in our new legislation within three months of them becoming employed—
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms Gillard interjecting
Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
If you have a problem with people getting information, you really do have a problem with democracy at work. Proposed section 154A states that it will require the Workplace Authority Director to gazette a workplace relations fact sheet setting out information about the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard, protected award conditions, the fairness test and the roles of the Workplace Authority Director and the Workplace Ombudsman. We think that is information that any employee—and employer—should know.
Apparently, if you are a union boss driven outfit, you do not want people to know that. We believe that every person employed in Australia does need to know that information. So proposed section 154A(3) would allow regulations to prescribe other matters relating to the content, form or manner of providing the workplace relations fact sheet. Proposed section 154B would require an employer to take reasonable steps to provide each employee with a copy of the fact sheet within seven days of commencing employment.
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms Gillard interjecting
Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You can lie all you like—
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms Gillard interjecting
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! The minister is entitled to be heard.
Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As a transitional measure, proposed section 154C would also require employers to take reasonable steps to provide each existing employee with a copy of the fact sheet within three months of it first being gazetted.
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms Gillard interjecting
Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
No, I am sorry. The member for Lalor was suggesting that we were not trying to get new employees information. I have just explained that she is being very selective, but we are not surprised by that. Proposed section 154D would also allow a workplace inspector or an affected employee to apply to the Federal Court to impose a penalty on an employer for failing to provide a copy of the fact sheet to the employee. We think that is reasonable because information is power. If you do not know what your rights are then it is possible for you to be exploited or indeed heavied by a union which is hell-bent on making sure that you are bullied into a circumstance that should not otherwise be.
Requiring employers to provide employees with a workplace relations fact sheet prepared by the Workplace Authority will not be a heavy burden for business, large or small, to bear. The Workplace Authority will gazette the workplace relations fact sheet. The fact sheet will set out information about the minimum employment standards, protected award conditions and so on that I have described. I therefore want to say that I think that all of the amendments in the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007 are extremely important for the future prosperity of this country because we have to have a workplace which is flexible and which allows businesses to respond to the environment or the context within which they operate.
We have to have a situation where, if a mother with young children wants part-time work, if a semi-retired person wants job sharing or if someone wants to work from home if the industry is suitable for that, that flexibility is possible in our workplace. That is why, with the flexibility already introduced by our industrial relations reforms, we are seeing more jobs created every week than we have ever seen created in this economy before. We are seeing unemployment rates down to a 33-year low—down to about 4.2 per cent. We are seeing Labor’s peaks of long-term unemployed drop down by 75 per cent. This is an extraordinary outcome for this economy, which, of course, we have managed so effectively. We are also making sure that we can sustain the prosperity of our economy through industrial relations reforms which allow future generations to benefit from employment and the wealth of this nation. I wholeheartedly commend this amendment to the House.
5:42 pm
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I thank the minister at the dispatch box for proving my case for me. What she has just said to the businesses in this country is that if you do not hand out the propaganda sheet within three months, you can get dragged through the Federal Court and fined. Let us not hear any more nonsense from this government about being pro-business or pro-small business. This government are so desperate to get propaganda out to workers which will use the word ‘fairness’ and the word ‘test’ in a sentence that they are going to bully employers into handing out the sheet within three months, at pain of being dragged through the Federal Court and being fined. The minister at the dispatch box has talked about bullies. Let us be very clear about who the bullies are. The bullies in this situation are the Howard government bullying business to hand out their propaganda. We know this legislation was conceived in polling. We know it has been an excuse for an advertising campaign. Now it is an excuse for a propaganda fact sheet and employers will be bullied, dragged through the Federal Court and fined if they do not hand out the Howard government’s propaganda. There is no other way of reading this legislation. It is a disgrace. It is an attack on Australian business, and there is no other way of reading it.
Of course, this afternoon the government has engaged in a procedural manoeuvre so that Labor cannot vote against this amendment without voting against the other amendments. Labor supported the other amendments. Why did we support the other amendments? There was one from Senator Steve Fielding which, while it would not fix things like the Tristar case and the fact that under the Howard government’s laws you can have your redundancy entitlements stripped off you without a cent of compensation, seeks to protect redundancy entitlements after they have been terminated or on transmission of a business for 24 months instead of 12 months, and we are prepared to support that.
The other amendments are here because of the Howard government’s incompetence, because when it drew up this bill it was spending more time with the pollsters and the advertisers than it was with parliamentary counsel. Apart from sheer incompetence, what could explain a government bringing a bill into this parliament which needed to be amended in this House the day after it was introduced? Minister Hockey introduced it on a Monday and amended it on a Tuesday. Then it went to the Senate, and there were so many defects in it that the government had to move another tranche of amendments. What could explain that sheer incompetence? Why is it that this government is incapable of competently writing a piece of legislation? Clearly it is not. Why is it that within 24 hours of moving a bill it has been amended once, and here we are, after the Senate has voted, and it is being amended again? There are technical defects, including defects about awards, littered throughout it. It is laughably bad.
This is a government that beats its chest in question time about its industrial relations record. Let no-one be in any doubt about what the industrial relations record of this government is: incompetently drafted legislation and hitherto unknown levels of industrial relations bureaucracy. This government is going to spend $1.8 billion on bureaucracy over the forward estimates—complexity, regulation and red tape for employers, to which the government is adding today. Hand out a fact sheet, a propaganda sheet, or get dragged through the Federal Court. And then, of course, there is the gross unfairness to workers which we have seen time after time, as people have lost basic conditions and not got one cent of compensation.
Labor will not oppose these amendments, because of the way the government has bundled them together, but they will stand on the parliamentary record for all time as a testament to this government’s appetite for propaganda and its sheer incompetence in being able to legislate on industrial relations.
5:47 pm
Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I repeat: I find it quite extraordinary that it is seen as propaganda when a government aims to get facts about workplace rights into the hands of the employee. Perhaps it is a reflection of the philosophy of a party that is dominated by union bosses—and will be even more dominated by union bosses after the next election. I think that is quite extraordinary. Let me say to the member for Lalor, who talks about incompetent policy: as the architect of Medicare Gold, you would know that was the most incompetent, laughable policy, and it died before the ink was dry. I do not think she has much form when it comes to talking about some of the most important legislation that has been passed since Federation in terms of guaranteeing workers a flexible, fair workplace that is going to match the new era of an ageing population, more women entering the workplace, balancing families with employment and older Australians wanting to remain in the workforce long past the usual age of retirement, which was once, say, 65 for men and 62 for women. Therefore, this amendment bill is important.
Question agreed to.