Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

These are in relation to requests for flexible working arrangements. This is always a tricky area. I suppose it comes home a bit for me. I have a sister who is intellectually disabled. Obviously the strains and stresses on any family with a disabled child are quite extreme; most families in that situation do it tough. I have more than strong sympathy for them and I believe that we can go further than what is in Labor’s current bill.

I was hoping that Labor would agree with some of the amendments, in particular amendment (1) and amendment (3). Amendment (2) is very onerous in my eyes. It is a bit more than Family First would like to see. But (1) and (3) are very important additions. They help bring home some of the issues. I am hoping that even the coalition might think about amendments (1) and (3) separately to amendment (2). Amendment (2) would still keep the other clause, so (1) and (3) could still work with the existing clause about how the employer must give the employee a written response to the request within 21 days stating whether the employer grants or refuses the request.

We think the Greens amendment (1) strengthens clause 65(1) in the bill. At the moment, it just reads, ‘An employee who is a parent or has a responsibility for the care of a child under school age may request the employer for a change in working arrangements to assist the employee to care for the child.’ The Greens go a bit further and strengthen that clause. I believe that amendment (1) is a sensible amendment. Amendment (3) alters clause 65 to allow Fair Work Australia to review refusals of requests. The chamber should have a rethink on whether they could live with (1) and (3), but not (2). Perhaps we should put the question separately. I will take the lead of the two major parties on that.