Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

Sure. As I say, I will come to the Western Australia point. I did think at the beginning of your contribution, Senator Cash, that you were raising a concern that the right might be abused. All I was going to do was point out that clause 333P(4) does allow the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application made by a worker if it's frivolous or vexatious. So there is some protection there for employers, whether it's Western Australia otherwise, against frivolous or vexatious claims.

In relation to the point about Western Australian businesses that I have seen ventilated in some of the media, particularly in Western Australia media over the last few days, the first point to make—and Senator Cash acknowledged this—is that none other than the West Australian newspaper's own enterprise agreement already provides a right to disconnect for its workers. So, if the West Australian newspaper has been able to make this right to disconnect work prior to the right being implemented by legislation, then I am confident that other Western Australian businesses are quite capable of managing this as well. The West Australian newspaper is obviously an example of a business that operates across a number of different time zones. They've got journalists and other staff working in this very building, yet they were able to come to an arrangement with their staff that would make this right to disconnect work, notwithstanding the difference in time zones. Again, I've got every confidence that other Western Australian businesses will be able to do so as well.

Senator Cash, as for Western Australian businesses more broadly, again, I'd refer you to clause 333M(3), which sets out the factors that the Fair Work Commission needs to take into account in determining whether an employee's refusal to be contacted after hours is unreasonable. They include: the reason for the contact or attempted contact; how the contact or attempted contact is made; the level of disruption the contact or attempted contact causes the employee; the extent to which the employee is compensated for working and for being available in additional hours; and the nature of the employee's role, the employee's level of responsibility and the employee's personal circumstances.

Again, I think it's dangerous to get into hypothetical situations when this is something that will be left to the Fair Work Commission. But the Fair Work Commission is being required, under what we're proposing, to take into account the nature of the employee's role and the employee's level of responsibility. I dare say that the Fair Work Commission would distinguish between a highly paid executive in a Western Australian based company, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a low-paid aged-care worker, hospitality worker or office worker when it comes to whether they could be contacted after hours and whether it's reasonable for a person in that position to be repeatedly contacted after hours. I have confidence that the Fair Work Commission can get this right, especially when the legislation requires them to take into account, amongst other things, the nature of the employee's role and the employee's level of responsibility.