Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

We do not have deadlocked conferences here, Senator Hurley, unlike the place you were at previously, the South Australian parliament. I think there has been a lot of good faith in terms of discussing issues with the government and I am looking forward to further discussions in relation to these concerns.

In relation to union right of entry to explore breaches, I am still concerned about privacy for non-union-member records. While I understand the need on occasions to compare union and non-union-member records to check things such as wage parity, I remain concerned about a third party having access to the records of the approximately 80 per cent of the workforce who are not union members. The minister made it clear to me that employers will still be able to contest an alleged breach and stop entry until FWA makes a ruling. While this is an important safeguard, I signal that I will be looking very closely at the government’s amendments in relation to privacy protection. Also, I am concerned with the need for 24-hours notice to be given to employers before entering workplaces to explore outworker breaches. This is something perhaps from the other side of the fence, if you like. This much notice can result in backyard sweatshop operators packing up their operations so that, when the investigators arrive, there is nothing to see and unfair work practices can continue in another location.

In relation to unfair dismissal provisions, I am concerned that the 15-person threshold for small businesses to qualify for the small business unfair dismissal regime is too low. I am worried that a corner shop, snack bar or cafe with two or three full-time employees and a large turnover of casuals could too easily be burdened with these provisions, which could be a disincentive to employing people. I understand the practical problems—though they are not insurmountable—with suggestions such as having 15 full-time equivalent employees where an employer would have to calculate their staffing equivalent on the day of dismissal, but I signal that I am open to considering better ways to handle this issue.

Also in relation to unfair dismissals, I have concerns about the number of days in which a person can make a claim. I note that it is proposed to change it to seven days from the current 21 days. I think that, as was mentioned in the committee report, there is a real risk that a change to seven days may encourage people to make a claim before they have had a chance to consider whether they ought to claim or not or to get appropriate advice. The committee suggested 14 days; I suggest that even 21 days is more than reasonable and that we should not change the status quo.

Further, I wish to raise what appears to be an inconsistency where employees of particular organisations can appear before Fair Work Australia without the need to seek permission, but legal practitioners and agents are required to seek permission. I think that is unfair. Despite what Shakespeare said about lawyers, I think that lawyers do have a very valuable role in giving people the right to representation. As a lawyer, I think it is important that that right be acknowledged and that people not be disadvantaged if they want to exercise their right to representation for whatever reason.

Finally, I would like to explore better protections for work-life and family-life balance. Although I know these things were not ALP policy commitments, the inclusion of flexible working arrangements for parents of school-age children and children with disabilities and the capacity for some recourse if employers refuse flexible parenting arrangements out of hand are also areas of interest to me. I note from the committee report and from the Hansard that coalition senators raised this as an issue. It is certainly a live issue that is of concern, I believe, to both sides of the house, particularly where working parents have children with disabilities.

I am quietly confident that these concerns can be further dealt with and further advanced towards resolution. I have been impressed with the way that the Deputy Prime Minister and her office have handled negotiations with my office over this bill. Our dealings have been open, frank, cordial and practical. I want to also acknowledge the coalition. Michael Keenan and his office similarly have been very helpful. My discussions with him on the coalition’s concerns and the legislation generally have been open, frank, cordial and practical.

My office has spent something like 10 hours in briefings with the minister and her staff painstakingly working through our concerns. They may well find me and my office a pain, but they have done so with good grace to enable me and my staff to understand the complexities and intricacies of this legislation. It is because of that level of detail that I am able to stand here and offer such a short list of matters for further consideration. My many other concerns and questions have been considered outside of this chamber and I have been reassured in many respects by the information provided. And, again, I express my gratitude to the coalition spokesperson, Michael Keenan, and his office for the work that they have done and their assistance in giving me a better understanding of this legislation and our areas of difference. I believe that all of these negotiations have been modelled on the spirit of the good-faith bargaining that is detailed in this bill and should be the norm, I think, in dealing with complex legislation.

In summary, I believe that ‘work choices’ need to be genuine choices for workers and ‘fair work’ needs to be fair to employers as well. I reiterate my ongoing interest in relation to privacy for employees, protection for small businesses and provisions for work-life balance. I will be looking forward to the committee stage to seek reassurance on these areas. Consequently, I indicate my support for the second reading of this bill, but I reserve my position in relation to the third reading.