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

I have a number of questions to ask of Senator Cameron in relation to this, and also perhaps the minister as well. It seems that the nub of this is the concern of the opposition that simply having carte blanche, in terms of powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman, would somehow be some Trojan Horse in relation to somehow being some backdoor ABCC-type powers. I don't think that's what the intention of this legislation is. The fact that the Franchise Council has been so vehemently opposed to this legislation, including some key business groups, indicates that this legislation will do a lot of beneficial work in terms of assisting vulnerable workers, and I commend the minister for that. So I think it's unfair to say that this is somehow some Trojan Horse.

I've had useful discussions with the minister's office and Senator Cameron's office in relation to this. I thought that the amendments proposed by Senator Cameron in relation to confining the coercive powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman to the matters set out in the amendment for the new proposed section 712AA subsections (1) to (7)—including the issue of coercion of an employee by an employer, underpayment of wages, unreasonable deductions, unreasonable requirements of employees, unfair dismissal, bullying, unlawful discrimination, contravention of provisions of the national employment standards—would cover the matters that I think the government is proposing. But I understand that the government's point is that there may be difficulties in relation to other matters such as adverse action, record-keeping failings, false records, undue influence—which I suppose could be covered by coercion—misrepresentation of workplace rights and industrial activities, and sham contracting. My understanding of the government's position is that these are the sorts of things, the kind of conduct, that we saw in the 7-Eleven scandal, where vulnerable workers were threatened if they complained about wages and conditions and about the systemic false record keeping.

So there are two aspects to it. I guess the first question to Senator Cameron would be, is he concerned in any way that the sorts of matters that I've raised in terms of adverse action could mean that the Fair Work Ombudsman is constrained? By the same token, in terms of what the minister's concerns have been, will the minister be of the view, should this amendment pass, to have a review of issues of the operation of this act generally and, in particular, in respect to coercive powers? So I guess the first line of questions to Senator Cameron is: I've discussed this issue with you in good faith; I am relatively comfortable about these sorts of matters that have been included; the government has raised some points which I don't see as being a Trojan Horse; but in terms of issues of adverse action, false records, misrepresentation of workplace rights and industrial activities, why do you think that those sorts of matters should not be included? Can we have that on the record?