Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I have a number of general matters that I seek to raise in relation to this bill. The Senate is now finally commencing discussion of the Fair Work Bill 2008 in the committee stage and, depending on some of the answers that I may or may not get in relation to the matters that I raise, I foreshadow potential further amendments. I will go through a number of questions for the minister to answer. The first and most important one for all Australians is whether or not the government is willing to provide the assurance that no worker will be worse off as a result of the changes being made to the industrial relations regime by this legislation.

I then ask whether the government are willing to provide similar assurances that no employer, community organisation or, indeed, consumer will be worse off as a result of these changes. Of course, just to contextualise it, it was the Australian Labor Party that demanded a similar guarantee from the previous government. They made a big song and dance about that, and I think it appropriate for this government now to indicate whether they are able to give the sort of assurance that they were demanding of the previous government.

Can I also invite the minister to confirm that in the bill that is before us, which is some 570 pages, about 10 per cent of it or more is now to be amended by government amendments, with 52 pages of amendments—albeit that we have just had circulated some further and revised government amendments: one of eight pages and this one, QW366, which is of some nine pages. We are now having revisions of amendments being put by the government. I would like to know how many separate changes there now are. I understood there were 218, but we now have more. There are 14 separate documents outlining all of these amendments—if I am correct, 52-plus pages of amendments and, of course, 50 pages of an additional explanatory memorandum. I just think it is important that we know the full extent.

I believe it is also incumbent on the minister to advise the Senate what deals, if any, have been done with the minor parties in relation to a whole range of issues. For example, has the government indicated it is willing to support an amendment by Senator Fielding to provide that a union permit holder exercising right of entry for the purpose of investigating an alleged breach may only inspect documents relating to employees who are not members of the permit-holder’s union if that employee gives written consent or if Fair Work Australia determines that it should be permitted to do so?

I would also be interested to know whether the government has agreed to support an amendment by Senator Xenophon to include an additional explanatory note to the provision regarding representation as a further guide to Fair Work Australia that small businesses and employees without expertise in or who have difficulties with English should be able to be represented before Fair Work Australia. If these sorts of agreements have been reached, when are we going to be seeing the amendments that relate to them? Has the government indicated it will support an amendment moved by Senator Xenophon which waives the requirement to provide 24 hours notice of intention to enter for the outworker sector? If that is the case, I am not sure at this stage whether any amendments have, in fact, been circulated in the name of Senator Xenophon. If the government is agreeing to these things behind the scenes—and they may well be good amendments—when will the party that has the most seats in this place be given the courtesy of an indication as to what those amendments might be?

I am also inquiring as to whether the government has agreed to support an amendment by the Greens in relation to the National Employment Standards for carers of disabled children under 18 years of age regarding a right to request flexible working arrangements—an issue, might I add, that I pursued throughout the committee hearings and was expecting the government to move an amendment about. It did not, but the Greens did and I congratulate them on that. But if an agreement has been reached, I think it would be appropriate for us to be told at the commencement. Indeed, there are a number of other hunches that I have in relation to the agreements reached by the government with crossbench senators. From that perspective, I think we are entitled to be given a full explanation. Indeed, I just note that there is now a revised running sheet with further amendments and proposals.

Can I just also ask the minister—possibly in his role as Minister for Human Services; in a bizarre way, it does apply to this legislation—about community organisations. There is one in my home state of Tasmania called Community Based Support—South Inc; they provide great support to people in need in their homes. In their February 2009 newsletter, they write:

The election of the Rudd Labor Government brought an effective end to Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). From April 2009 our support workers will mostly work under the Community Services Award.

Will this spell the end of consumer choice of worker and time of services? The answer for many is “unfortunately, probably yes”, mainly due to the enormous cost of continuing current work patterns under the Award (costs would at least double).

Now, that is just one of the practical implications of the government’s legislation. I am wondering whether the government is making any provision to ensure that organisations such as Community Based Support—South Inc. will be given the extra funding needed so that they are able to continue with the excellent and vital service deliveries that they undertake.

Having raised that list of introductory questions, I indicate, before I sit down and wait for the answers, that from the opposition’s point of view there are a number of amendments that we will be supporting, government amendments that we believe are technical and make sense. We can also indicate that we have only one matter of concern to us, and that is that we have a practical piece of legislation that will not prejudice jobs and small business and that does not deliver excessive power to the trade union movement. Those are basically the three benchmarks on which we will be judging the proposed amendments as we proceed. If the minister could commence by addressing some of the issues that I have raised, I would be much obliged.