Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments on sheets 7560 and 7554:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2 to 9), omit the items, substitute:

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 1) to page 28 (line 24), omit the Schedule, substitute:

Schedule 1—Amendments

Fair Work Act 2009

1 After paragraph 5(8)(a)

  Insert:

     (aa) provided by a secure employment order (see Part 2-7A); and

2 Section 12

  Insert:

     rolling contract basis: see section 21A.

3 Section 12

  Insert:

     rolling contract employee: see section 21A.

4 Section 12

  Insert:

     secure employment arrangement means ongoing employment on a part-time or full-time basis.

5 Section 12

  Insert:

     secure employment order: see subsection 306E(1).

6 Section 12

  Insert:

     small business exempt casual employee: a casual employee is a small business exempt casual employee if:

        (a) the employer is a small business employer; and

        (b) the employee is not a long term casual employee.

7 After section 21

  Insert:

21A Meaning of rolling contract employee and rolling contract basis

  (1) An employee who is employed on a rolling contract basis is a rolling contract employee.

  (2) An employee is employed by an employer on a rolling contract basis if:

     (a) the contract of employment ends on a specified date or at the end of a specified period; and

     (b) the employee has previously been employed by the employer under such a contract; and

     (c) the current and previous contracts relate to the same kind of work.

  (3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), a contract may end on a specified date or at the end of a specified period even if a term of the contract has the effect that the contract might be terminated before that date or before the end of that period.

8 After subparagraph 43(2)(a)(i)

  Insert:

     (ia) a secure employment order (see Part 2-7A); or

9 After paragraph 172(1)(c)

  Insert:

     (ca) matters pertaining to secure employment arrangements, including moving from casual employment, or from employment on a rolling contract basis, to secure employment arrangements;

10 After Part 2 -7

  Insert:

Part 2 -7A—Secure employment arrangements

Division 1—Introduction

306A Guide to this Part

This Part provides for transition to, and maintenance of, secure employment arrangements.

Division 1 deals with preliminary matters.

Division 2 deals with requests for secure employment arrangements. These include the following:

  (a) requests to change from casual employment to secure employment arrangements;

  (b) requests to change from employment on a rolling contract basis to secure employment arrangements.

Division 3 provides for the making of secure employment orders by FWC for employees or prospective employees.

306B Meanings of employee and employer

  In this Part, employee means a national system employee, and employer means a national system employer.

Division 2—Requests for secure employment arrangements

306C Requests to change from casual employment to secure employment arrangements

  (1) A casual employee may request the employer, in writing, for a secure employment arrangement.

  (2) An employee organisation that is entitled to represent casual employees may, if asked to do so by one or more of the employees, request the employer, in writing, for a secure employment arrangement for that employee or those employees.

  (3) The employer must give the employee or organisation a written response to the request within 21 days, stating whether the employer grants or refuses the request.

  (4) If the employer refuses the request, the employer's written response must include details of the reasons for the refusal.

  (5) This section does not apply in relation to a small business exempt casual employee.

306D Requests to change from employment on rolling contract basis to secure employment arrangements

  (1) A rolling contract employee may request the employer, in writing, for a secure employment arrangement.

  (2) An employee organisation that is entitled to represent rolling contract employees may, if asked to do so by one or more of the employees, request the employer, in writing, for a secure employment arrangement for that employee or those employees.

  (3) The employer must give the employee or organisation a written response to the request within 21 days, stating whether the employer grants or refuses the request.

  (4) If the employer refuses the request, the employer's written response must include details of the reasons for the refusal.

Division 3—Secure employment orders

306E FWC may make secure employment order

  (1) FWC may, on application in accordance with section 306F, make any order (a secure employment order) it considers appropriate to provide, or to maintain, secure employment arrangements for the person or persons to whom the order will apply.

  (2) A secure employment order may apply to:

     (a) any one of the following persons (a relevant person):

        (i) a casual employee;

        (ii) a rolling contract employee;

        (iii) a prospective employee who, if employed at the time the application for the order was made, would be a casual employee or rolling contract employee;

        (iv) an employee who already has a secure employment arrangement;

        (v) a prospective employee who, if employed at the time the application for the order was made, would have a secure employment arrangement; or

     (b) two or more relevant persons; or

     (c) a class of relevant persons.

  (3) Without limiting paragraph (2)(c), the class may be described by reference to one or more of the following:

     (a) a particular industry or part of an industry;

     (b) a particular kind of work;

     (c) a particular type of employment;

     (d) a particular employer.

  (4) A secure employment order must specify the employer or employers who are required to comply with the order, being the employer or employers of the relevant person, relevant persons or class of relevant persons to whom the order applies.

  (5) Despite subsection (2), a secure employment order cannot apply to a small business exempt casual employee.

306F Application for secure employment order

  (1) Application for a secure employment order in relation to a request refused under section 306C or 306D may be made by:

     (a) if the employee made the request—any of the following:

        (i) the employee;

        (ii) an organisation that is entitled to represent the interests of the employee, if asked by the employee to make the application;

        (iii) the Age Discrimination Commissioner, the Disability Discrimination Commissioner or the Sex Discrimination Commissioner; or

     (b) if an organisation made the request—the organisation.

  (2) Application for a secure employment order otherwise than in relation to a request refused under section 306C or 306D may be made by:

     (a) an organisation that is (or, for prospective employees, that would be) entitled to represent the interests of the relevant person, relevant persons or class of relevant persons to whom the order will apply; or

     (b) an employer organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of an employer of a relevant person, relevant persons or class of relevant persons to whom the order will apply.

306G Matters for FWC to consider

  In deciding whether, or the terms on which, to make a secure employment order, FWC must have regard to the following:

     (a) the needs of employees to have secure jobs and stable employment;

     (b) an employer's capacity to use arrangements that are not secure employment arrangements in cases where this is genuinely appropriate having regard to the needs of the business;

     (c) the size of the employer or employers to whom the order will apply;

     (d) if the application was made under subsection 306F(2)—whether the order should apply to the same employees and prospective employees, and require the same employers to comply with it, as are covered by a relevant modern award;

     (e) any other matter FWC considers relevant.

306H Content of orders affecting more than one person

  (1) Orders providing or maintaining secure employment arrangements for more than one relevant person may include one or more of the following:

     (a) an order requiring that all the relevant persons who are long term casual employees be offered a secure employment arrangement;

     (b) an order providing for a process by which all the relevant persons who have been employed by the employer for a certain period of time can elect to have a secure employment arrangement;

     (c) an order specifying the terms of secure employment arrangements under which casual loadings would be phased out over a period of time so as to avoid a sharp drop in employee remuneration;

     (d) an order implementing secure employment arrangements in such stages (as provided in the order) as FWC thinks appropriate;

     (e) an order requiring the employer to provide information to FWC for the purposes of monitoring the staged implementation of secure employment arrangements;

     (f) an order regulating the engagement of prospective employees on a casual basis, a rolling contract basis or a secure employment basis;

     (g) an order regulating the employer's use of arrangements that are not secure work arrangements in circumstances in which secure work arrangements could be used.

  (2) Subsection (1) does not limit the orders that FWC may make under this section.

306J Implementation of secure employment order in stages

  A secure employment order may provide for secure employment arrangements in such stages as FWC thinks appropriate.

306K Contravening a secure employment order

  An employer must not contravene a secure employment order.

Note: This section is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1).

306L Inconsistency with modern awards and enterprise agreements

  A term of a modern award or an enterprise agreement has no effect in relation to an employee to the extent that it is less beneficial to the employee than a term of a secure employment order that applies to the employee.

11 Subsection 539(2) (after table item 9)

  Insert:

12 After paragraph 557(2)(f)

  Insert:

     (fa) section 306K (which deals with contraventions of working arrangements orders);

13 After paragraph 576(1)(f)

  Insert:

     (fa) secure employment arrangements (Part 2-7A);

14 After paragraph 653(1)(c)

  Insert:

     (ca) conduct research into the operation of Part 2-7A in relation to requests for secure employment arrangements; and

15 Subparagraph 653(1)(d)(i)

  Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:

     (i) the circumstances in which such requests are made; and

16 After paragraph 675(2)(e)

  Insert:

     (ea) a secure employment order;

17 At the end of subsection 716(1)

  Add:

     ; (g) a term of a secure employment order.

  (3) Schedule 2, page 29 (line 1) to page 32 (line 18), to be opposed.

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 32 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3—Better work/life balance

Fair Work Act 2009

1 Before paragraph 5(8)(b)

  Insert:

     (ba) provided by a flexible working arrangementsorder (see Part 2-7B); and

2 Section 12

  Insert:

     flexible working arrangements order: see subsection 306S(1).

3 Before subparagraph 43(2)(a)(ii)

  Insert:

     (ib) a flexible working arrangements order (see Part 2-7B); or

4 Subsection 44(2)

  Omit "65(5) or".

5 Subsection 44(2) (note 1)

  Repeal the note, substitute:

     Note 1: Subsection 76(4) states that an employer may refuse an application to extend unpaid parental leave only on reasonable business grounds.

6 Subsection 44(2) (note 2)

  Omit "65(5) or".

7 Division 4 of Part 2 -2

  Repeal the Division.

8 Section 146 (note)

  Omit "65(5) or".

9 Before paragraph 172(1)(d)

  Insert:

     (cb) matters pertaining to flexible working arrangements;

10 Subsection 186(6) (notes 1 and 2)

  Omit "65(5) or".

11 Before Part 2 -8

  Insert:

Part 2 -7B—Flexible working arrangements

Division 1—Introduction

306M Guide to this Part

This Part provides processes for changing working arrangements.

Division 1 deals with preliminary matters.

Division 2 deals with requests for flexible working arrangements, including flexible working arrangements for employees who are carers.

Division 3 provides for the making of flexible working arrangements orders by FWC to ensure that employers comply with this Part.

306N Meanings of employee and employer

  In this Part, employee means a national system employee, and employer means a national system employer.

306P State and Territory laws that are not excluded

  (1) This Act is not intended to apply to the exclusion of laws of a State or Territory that provide employee entitlements in relation to flexible working arrangements, to the extent that those entitlements are more beneficial to employees than the entitlements under this Part.

  (2) However, a law of a State or Territory has no effect in relation to an employee to the extent that it provides an employee entitlement in relation to flexible working arrangements that is inconsistent with a term of an enterprise agreement that applies to the employee.

Division 2—Requests for flexible working arrangements

306Q Requests for flexible working arrangements

Employee or organisation may request change

  (1) An employee, or an employee organisation that is entitled to represent the employee, may request the employer to change the employee's working arrangements.

     Note: Examples of changes in working arrangements include changes in hours of work, changes in patterns of work and changes in location of work.

  (2) Neither the employee, nor the organisation, is entitled to make the request unless:

     (a) for an employee other than a casual employee—the employee has completed at least 12 months of continuous service with the employer immediately before making the request; or

     (b) for a casual employee—the employee:

        (i) is a long term casual employee of the employer immediately before making the request; and

        (ii) has a reasonable expectation of continuing employment by the employer on a regular and systematic basis.

Formal requirements

  (3) The request must:

     (a) be in writing; and

     (b) set out details of the change sought and of the reasons for the change.

Responding to the request

  (4) The employer must give the employee, or the employee organisation (as the case requires), a written response to the request within 21 days, stating whether the employer grants or refuses the request.

  (5) The employer may refuse the request only on reasonable business grounds.

  (6) If the employer refuses the request, the written response under subsection (4) must include details of the reasons for the refusal.

306R Requests for flexible working arrangements—carers

Request for change for employee who is a carer

  (1) An employee who has responsibility for the care of another person, or an employee organisation that is entitled to represent the employee, may request the employer to change the employee's working arrangements to assist the employee to care for the other person.

Note: Examples of changes in working arrangements include changes in hours of work, changes in patterns of work and changes in location of work.

  (2) Neither the employee, nor the organisation, is entitled to make the request unless:

     (a) for an employee other than a casual employee—the employee has completed at least 12 months of continuous service with the employer immediately before making the request; or

     (b) for a casual employee—the employee:

        (i) is a long term casual employee of the employer immediately before making the request; and

        (ii) has a reasonable expectation of continuing employment by the employer on a regular and systematic basis.

Formal requirements

  (3) The request must:

     (a) be in writing; and

     (b) set out details of the change sought and of the reasons for the change.

Responding to the request

  (4) The employer must give the employee, or the employee organisation (as the case requires), a written response to the request within 21 days, stating whether the employer grants or refuses the request.

  (5) The employer may refuse the request only on serious countervailing business grounds.

  (6) If the employer refuses the request, the written response under subsection (4) must include details of the reasons for the refusal.

Division 3—Flexible working arrangements orders

306S FWC may make flexible working arrangements order

Power to make flexible working arrangements order

  (1) FWC may make any order (the flexible working arrangements order) it considers appropriate to ensure that an employer complies with section 306Q or 306R.

Who may apply for flexible working arrangements order

  (2) FWC may make a flexible working arrangements orderonly on application by any of the following:

     (a) an employee or organisation whose request under subsection 306Q(1) or 306R(1) for a change in working arrangements has been refused;

     (b) an employee organisation that is entitled to represent an employee covered by paragraph (a);

     (c) the Age Discrimination Commissioner, the Disability Discrimination Commissioner or the Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

306T Implementation of flexible working arrangements in stages

  A flexible working arrangements order may provide for changed working arrangements in such stages as FWC thinks appropriate.

306U Contravening a working arrangements order

  An employer must not contravene a term of a flexible working arrangements order.

     Note: This section is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1).

306V Inconsistency with modern awards and enterprise agreements

  (1) A term of a modern award has no effect in relation to an employee to the extent that it is less beneficial to the employee than a term of a flexible working arrangements order that applies to the employee.

  (2) A term of a flexible working arrangements order has no effect in relation to an employee to the extent that it is inconsistent with a term of an enterprise agreement that applies to the employee.

12 Subsection 539(2) (before table item 10)

  Insert:

13 Subsection 545(1) (note 4)

  Omit "65(5),".

14 Before paragraph 557(2)(g)

  Insert:

     (fb) section 306U (which deals with contraventions of flexible working arrangements orders);

15 Before paragraph 576(1)(g)

  Insert:

     (fb) flexible working arrangements (Part 2-7B);

16 Paragraph 653(1)(c)

  Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

     (c) conduct research into the operation of the provisions of the National Employment Standards relating to requests for extensions of unpaid parental leave under subsection 76(1); and

17 Before paragraph 653(1)(d)

  Insert:

     (cb) conduct research into the operation of Part 2-7B in relation to requests for changed working arrangements; and

18 Before paragraph 675(2)(f)

  Insert:

     (eb) a flexible working arrangements order;

19 At the end of subsection 716(1)

  Add:

     ; (h) a term of a flexible working arrangements order.

20 Subsection 739(2)

  Omit "65(5) or".

21 Subsection 739(2) (note)

  Omit "65(5) or".

22 Subsection 740(2)

  Omit "65(5) or".

23 Subsection 740(2) (note)

  Omit "65(5) or".

The Greens amendments are designed to turn what is called a fair work bill into a true fair work bill. Much of what has been put up in this Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 actually is making work less fair for ordinary Australian workers. Although it seems that there have been negotiations going on between the government and the crossbench to remove some of the worst parts of the bill, it looks like we will end up having as legislation something that is vastly unfair to workers. We are tinkering around the edges, making modifications with relation to greenfield sites, getting rid of the appalling proposal that workers would not get all of the dollars they were owed if they were leaving work and being paid out and where unions are allowed to access workplaces but leaving in parts of this legislation that really are still vastly unfair to workers.

The Greens amendments will scrap the schedule that includes these provisions and instead insert provisions that are aimed at making our employment legislation truly fair. There are two particular areas we have focused on. If you talk to workers around the country, these are the sorts of measures that they want in order to make their work truly fair and to make the relationship with their employer much fairer than it is at the moment.

The first one is in the area of secure employment. We know that there are a growing number of Australian workers finding themselves in insecure employment such as long-term casual employment or rolling contracts, where they have got no job security. They cannot commit themselves to paying a mortgage and they cannot commit themselves to any long-term financial investment because they do not know whether they are going to have a job next week, next month, or even tomorrow. They are at the whim of their employer as to whether they are going to get work on a day-to-day basis. They have got little economic security and little control over their working lives, so it really does make it hard for them to plan their lives. It is a particular problem for women, who are much more likely to find themselves in insecure employment.

The rate of temporary work in Australia is staggering and it is increasing, with over one-quarter of employees having no paid leave entitlements. Our amendment seeks to provide a process for workers employed on an insecure basis to be moved to ongoing employment on a part-time or full-time basis. What it would mean is that an employee who is on a casual or a rolling contract can ask their employer to move them onto a secure contract—that is, ongoing part time or full time. If an employer refused this request for ongoing employment, then our amendment would enable an employee to make an application to Fair Work Australia, who could issue a secure employment order. Fair Work Australia would have to consider the needs for employees to have secure jobs and stable employment and the genuine needs of businesses to use arrangements for not secure employment arrangements. It would actually be a fair arbitration of the needs of the employee and the needs of the employer. By having that arbitration, it makes sure that the needs of employees to have some job security is fully taken into account. At the moment the unfairness of our current working system, with the increasing casualisation of the workforce, means that if you are working—you may be working as a nurse, you may be working as a childcare worker, you may be working in a shop—then you do not know from day to day, from week to week or from month to month whether you are going to have work and you cannot plan your life around it.

The other amendment that we are moving today is on the issue of work-life balance. This amendment would give workers more job security and allow workers to have flexibility that works for them so that they can have time off to do things, like picking up the kids or being there for any number of responsibilities that people have when they are looking after family members, such as looking after a sick, elderly parent. By doing so, these amendments would be creating a bill that really was a fair work bill, that really would provide for flexibility. At the moment in Australia we have got the work-life balance wrong. We need to ensure that people have adequate time for family commitments, community commitments and doing activities that are good for our health, including exercising and sleeping. As I noted in my second reading contribution, our amendments would help to drive positive cultural change in relation to f

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will be opposing these amendments. Labor do acknowledge the rising incidence of insecure work and we are, as a party, carefully considering our options to address these issues. We understand that with insecure work comes financial and emotional instability as people do not know where their next shift will come from, but we do not believe that by standing up in the Senate and putting forward a raft of amendments to this bill that deals with some specific issues that it will be a silver bullet, or a magic bullet, that changes work-life balance or changes job security for Australian workers. We take the view that to ensure job security and to ensure work-life balance you need a whole raft of complementary measures. You need a whole raft of sophisticated policy measures that come into effect to ensure that not only are there changes in industrial relations policy but also there are changes in other policy areas that support those changes in the industrial relations area.

We all know that insecure work can have an adverse effect on superannuation balances, for instance. So superannuation is another area that we have been very concerned about, to make sure that lower paid workers can have access to superannuation that give them a quality of retirement—that provides them with security in retirement. These are other issues that have to be addressed.

To address insecure work you require a multitude of policy responses, including investing in skills and training. I know, early in my career when I was a union official, the whole approach of employers was to simply deskill, was to simply seek to get the lowest pay you could for an individual skill. But over the period many employers have matured in their approach to this. They have adopted sophisticated skills approaches and sophisticated training approaches. I must say, over a period of time government has dropped the ball in that area, yet skills and training are absolutely essential to ensure that we do deal with job security and work-life balance. They focused on only one response to addressing insecure work. It is too simplistic and will not achieve better results for Australian workers.

Fairness in the workplace is fundamental to Labor values. Adapting to change must never be an excuse to erode hard-won working conditions. Insecure work is a particular threat to those conditions. Protecting the rights of working people to ensure every worker has access to decent wages and working conditions will always be an essential purpose for the Labor Party. Working people have to be able to join together, to bargain collectively to improve their working lives. Labor will ensure that the workplace relations system reduces the incidence of under employment and insecure work. Labor will strengthen the laws that prohibit sham contracting. Labor will set an objective test for determining when a worker is a casual. Labor will protect labour-hire workers.

Labor recognises the deleterious impact of poor quality and insecure employment on the immediate health and safety of workers and the overall negative effects on their health, including the mental health of the community. Labor is committed to making job quality an essential social policy objective, including improvements in Labor market control and social protections and services. Unlike the Greens, Labor will work with all stakeholders, including employers and unions, on the best overall way to combat the challenges of insecure work.

If the Greens were genuinely interested in reforms of this nature, they would have consulted with Labor or they would have briefed us on this proposal. Simply coming forward with these amendments without proper consultation, without creating a basis for some kind of unanimity at least on the opposition benches and on the cross benches is a recipe for disaster. Determining policy in isolation, determining policy on the basis of not consulting, determining policy and amendments to bills without dealing with the broader issues in our view is not sufficient to protect workers' entitlements, to protect their job security and to protect them in a range of other ways.

We would say to the Greens that we are genuine about dealing with job insecurity and we are genuine about dealing with work-life balance. We simply do not believe you can do it through the amendments the Greens have put forward because they go to a narrow aspect of these two issues and do not cover the wide range of issues that a properly-thought-through policy requires.

We do want to deal with these issues. We would agree with many of the comments Senator Rice has made but we do not agree with the specific policy issues she has put forward this morning. We call on the Greens—and I have done this many times in this chamber—when looking for support for amendments in this place, to at least consult with the Labor Party, to at least consult with us and to go through the process of trying to maximise the capacity to get bills through this Senate.

Labor will oppose these amendments. We certainly agree with some of the rhetorical issues that Senator Rice has raised. We certainly agree about the problems workers face in this country. We just do not believe that what Senator Rice has put forward is the way to deal with them at the moment and that is why we oppose the amendments.

While I am on my feet, I congratulate you, Senator Cash, for your elevation up that slippery poll of the coalition hierarchy. I do not know that congratulating you is going to be a great thing for working people in this country, given that your hero is Margaret Thatcher. There are going to be some good ideological debates in this place. If the ideology you bring forward goes back to the Thatcher era, we are going to have some crackers because Thatcher was not good for Britain, Thatcher was not good for industrial relations, Thatcher was not good for the economy and Thatcher was not a very good politician in the end. So do not base yourself on Margaret Thatcher. Do not base yourself on the 'Iron Lady'. Let us get some decency back into politics in this country. You can sit down with the opposition. You can talk about the issues that are important in terms of industrial relations. You can negotiate with us when it comes to improving workers' lives in this country, but definitely do not talk to us about Thatcherite policies because we are not interested.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing the Green amendments. I turn to the amendments on sheet 7554. The government does not support these amendments. They would remove the capacity to request flexible working arrangements from the National Employment Standards and that is not consistent with the intended operation of the Fair Work Act. The existing entitlement 'requests flexible working arrangements' is designed to support families and others in balancing work and their responsibilities outside of work. They are also designed to promote discussion between employers and employees about the issue of flexible working arrangements and the government believes this is an appropriate balance.

The current provisions recognise that there are certain groups that face difficulties in engaging with employment and provide legislative support for these employees to access flexibility. While the provisions work to support eligible employees manage work and other responsibilities, they are also drafted to ensure that the competitiveness and viability of businesses will not be impeded. The government will not be supporting those amendments.

I will now turn to the amendments on sheet 7560. Again, the government will not be supporting these amendments. We believe that they would have the effect of predetermining the employment relationship between an employee and an employer irrespective of the parties' wishes. It is the government's clear position that individual employees and employers are the people who are best placed to determine what employment arrangements suit them. It also must be noted that not all casual or contract employees wish to become permanent employees. Casual employees have the flexibility to refuse work at any particular time, for example, to accommodate study or family responsibilities. They may also prefer to receive additional remuneration through the casual loading rather than the benefits that apply to permanent employment—for example, annual leave. The proposed amendments, as I said, allow someone other than the affected employer and employee to determine the employment relationship, and that is not a position that the government support.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to respond. In supporting these amendments, the Greens are very serious. In contrast to the accusation of Senator Cameron that the Greens are not serious about the issue of fair work, the Greens are incredibly serious about the issue of fair work. We see these two lots of amendments as the beginning. They are two areas very critical to ensuring that we can get genuinely fair work conditions into our labour force as opposed to what is being proposed by the government, which is going to be making work unfairer.

I also wish to correct the record on the issue of consultation. The Greens have been open to consultation on these amendments. The amendments have been out there. This debate on the Fair Work Amendment Bill has been going for many months now. I have had a number of conversations with Senator Cameron about the existence of these amendments, and my colleague in the other place, Adam Bandt, who is our Greens industrial relations spokesperson, has taken carriage of our position on these amendments. These amendments have been out there. We have been open to discussion and negotiation. If the Labor Party had really been interested in discussing these amendments with us, I am sure those discussions would have occurred.

The other issues which have been raised which are required to improve the fairness of work for employees, such as superannuation are issues that we will be very pleased to continue to work on with anyone in this place who wants to—whether it is Labor, the government or the crossbench—because they are critical issues of importance in getting the balance right and getting working conditions that make people feel they are in control of their lives, that they can go off to work and know their work place is going to be fair and that they are going to be treated well and that they will have some job security to make some financial investments into the future.

In relation to the issue of secure employment, no, not all casual workers want to become permanent workers and our amendments do not say that that is the case. We do not want to see all casuals become permanent employees. That is not the case. Our amendments are such that, where we have people who are on rolling contracts and casual contracts for years at a time—whether they are childcare workers, retail workers or scientists—they would have the support of legislation to say, 'This is unfair,' and to be able to bring a case to their employer. They would have the support to remove the stigma that currently exists about taking that case to their employer. Then there would be the Fair Work Ombudsman as the umpire, able to give an objective assessment that balances the needs of that employee to have permanent, secure employment and the needs of the employer. That is exactly the sort of role that Fair Work Australia is set up to play—making those fair arbitrations. We think that this is one area where it would be very appropriate for Fair Work Australia to be involved so that we can get more fairness and the security which so many employees in Australia today are desperately requiring.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just indicate for clarity to the Greens political party that Labor are prepared to sit and have a discussion with you in relation to the specific amendments that you have raised here. We would also be happy to talk to you about broader areas in the employment portfolio. The shadow minister is always available to have those discussions with the Greens. As I have said on a number of occasions, the rhetoric from you guys might be okay but you do not follow through. So we will offer continued support for discussions with the Greens on these issues. We are happy to do that. But we just do not believe that the solution you have raised to the issues you have identified is wide enough, broad enough or deep enough to deal with them. I just want to make it clear that we are prepared to talk to you. I cannot remember one really substantive discussion I have had with you in this area, but I am happy to have that discussion. I am sure the shadow minister, Mr O'Connor, is happy to have those discussions with the Greens. There are plenty of opportunities for discussions on these issues; I just ask the Greens to take up those opportunities.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7560 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7554 be agreed to.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that schedule 2 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I oppose schedule 1 and schedule 2 in the following terms:

(2) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 4 (lines 2 to 8), to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 2, item 1, page 29 (lines 15 to 18), clause 2 to be opposed.

Under existing law, an employer is prevented from refusing an employee's request for an extension to unpaid parental leave unless the refusal is based on reasonable grounds. My amendments leave this restraint on employers untouched.

The bill before us seeks to add to this intervention in the managerial decisions of employers. It seeks to prevent an employer from refusing an employee's request for an extension of unpaid parental leave unless the employer has also given the employee a reasonable opportunity to discuss the request. My amendments oppose this additional restraint on managerial decisions in the workplace. The additional restraint on employers in this bill is a recommendation of the Fair Work Act review. However, the Fair Work Act review recommended the additional restraint with next to no explanation after having outlined that there was no problem with the existing provision. This additional restraint on employers would create the possibility of litigation based simply on the inadequacy or absence of a discussion even if an employer's refusal to extend leave were reasonable, and it would increase the bureaucratic meddling in the minutiae of decision making in the workplace. In short, this additional restraint on employers would be change for change's sake. We do not need this incessant and pointless fiddling with the law, and I oppose it.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor opposes these amendments. I do not think we would have to really detail why we would oppose them because I think everyone would expect Labor to be protecting people's rights to be able to sit down with their employer and discuss the issue of unpaid parental leave.

Senator Leyonhjelm now adds this to his CV of anti-worker rhetoric in this place. He came in here and argued that penalty rates should disappear. As I have said before, for politicians on $200,000 a year base rate to come in here and tell workers that their penalty rates should disappear I find absolutely obnoxious. But that is the sort of rhetoric and the sort of line we continue to hear from Senator Leyonhjelm. Now he describes a proposition that workers should be able to sit down and talk to their employer about parental leave issues as being 'bureaucratic meddling in the minutiae' of the enterprise. I think that just beggars belief. It absolutely beggars belief.

We have gone from a position, Senator Leyonhjelm—if you did not understand it—when the employers had total power in this country and when the old master-servant relationship was in place. We have moved on from that, in case you had not noticed. We have moved on from it. Managerial decisions are not inviolate. Managerial decisions can be challenged and should be challenged because there is such a thing as industrial democracy in the workplace. We do need some democracy in the workplace, and this is an example—where you come in here and try to trash democracy in the workplace. We are not talking about democracy in the workplace where workers are taking over the plant. We are talking about a bit of democratic right, where a worker can come in and actually talk to their boss about some of their problems. I think that for you to come in here and argue that that right should not be available is just unacceptable. We will oppose it as, I think, we will oppose many of your loopy ideas on industrial democracy and your loopy ideas on how this country should operate based on your view of life. I think we will be in here arguing on many occasions.

To come in and argue that penalty rates should not be available to sectors of our workforce, to us, is unacceptable. To come in and argue that workers should not have the opportunity to sit down and consult with their employer over key issues is unacceptable. Senator Leyonhjelm, your definition of managerial decisions and your definition of bureaucracy do not meet the standard of fairness. They do not meet the standard that is required in a modern society. They do not meet the standard that has been built up over many years—against the opposition of the coalition on some occasions, against the opposition of management on some occasions and against the opposition of business—that actually gives workers some rights on the job in this country. That right has been fought for and won by the trade union movement in this country and then carried through into the workshops and plants around this country.

Senator Leyonhjelm, we do not accept that your definition of managerial decisions and minutiae in the workplace is a proper definition. What you might think of as minutiae is extremely important to many workers in this country. It is not minutiae for a worker to get paid penalty rates—the very issue that you tried to kill the last time you were on your feet in this place, arguing for a two-tier approach on penalty rates in this country. Your definition of bureaucratic meddling is not a definition that we would agree to. Your definition of minutiae in relation to someone being able to sit down and talk about their paid parental leave or unpaid parental leave is just unacceptable.

I suppose it is minutiae if you are a senator and you come here and you do not have to worry about parental leave or penalty rates or a decent base rate of pay. I suppose from your perspective that can be minutiae, but it is not minutiae from Labor's point of view. It is not minutiae from my point of view—a point of view that understands that workers need decent rates of pay. They need decent conditions. They need their penalty rates to have a decent standard of living in this country. If you describe that as minutiae, then we have a different description. We think your position is so far out of touch as to be absolutely unbelievable. To come in here and argue that bosses should be able to dismiss their employees who are seeking an extension of their unpaid parental leave or who want to talk about their personal position or to try and get their boss to deal with the issues that are important to them shows a complete misunderstanding of what is important to not only the individual worker but also, in reality, the enterprise that those workers are engaged in.

We hear much talk about productivity and we hear talk about improving the productive performance of enterprises around this country. One of the things that improves productive performance in any enterprise is a decent relationship on the job. It is about workers having some decent rights on the job. It is about workers having access to penalty rates. It is about workers having access to a union. It is about workers having a capacity to sit down and talk issues through with their employer. That is what happens in modern economies, Senator Leyonhjelm. That is what happens in the new era—and when I talk about the new era, I am talking about something that has moved on since the 1900s and 1800s, where your views seem firmly planted. What you are proposing not only demonstrates a misunderstanding of how individual workers need to access decent rates of pay, decent conditions and some industrial democracy on the job but it also shows a complete misunderstanding of how productivity improves on the job. By simply sitting down with a worker and dealing with the issue of unpaid parental leave it gives the worker a capacity to understand and negotiate the issues with the boss and gives the boss a satisfied worker who is being looked after on the job. But for you to come in here and simply blow that away by saying that this is managerial decision making that should not be affected just beggars belief.

Managerial decision making is important, but you need checks and balances in the job. You need checks and balances on the workshop floor. You need checks and balances with management. If you did not have checks and balances with management and it was simply their prerogative to do what they liked, then workers' lives in this country would be diminished. Workers' capacity to make any impact on the job from an industrial democracy point of view would be finished. Your idea about managerial decisions being up to the boss and workers not having any capacity to be able to intervene, either on their own behalf or on the collective behalf of workers in the job, is completely out of touch with what makes improved productive workshops and enterprises around this country. Rather than being bureaucratic meddling, what this can do is actually improve productivity on the workshop floors of this country, improve productivity of white-collar workers and even improve middle management productivity and relationships on the workshop floors around this country.

We do not for a minute believe that managerial decisions should not be open to some scrutiny, assessment and input from workers on the job. That is one of the reasons why we oppose this. We oppose this because of your definition of 'bureaucratic meddling'. It is not bureaucratic meddling to have some decent rights at your workplace. It is not bureaucratic meddling to be able to sit down with the boss and talk through the issues that concern you. The days of the employer simply determining everything for every worker on the job in an enterprise are gone, Senator Leyonhjelm. Surely you understand that. Surely you understand that when you clock on or you walk into your factory—for those factories that are left after this dirty, rotten government got rid of the factories around the country—or your workplace that you should be able to exercise some democratic rights. You need some democratic rights in this country.

Senator Leyonhjelm, you are so far removed from reality on industrial relations that you should join the Liberal Party. You would have lots of bedfellows there who do not want penalty rates, industrial democracy or rights for workers and who would do anything to attack working rights in the race to the bottom on wages and conditions in this country. Senator Leyonhjelm, this is where you are at with these amendments. You would sit very happily with the coalition on the issue of attacking workers' rights. I reckon if you had been here, you would have backed Work Choices 110 per cent because you do not accept rights for workers. You do not accept any industrial democracy. You argue like the coalition does that industrial democracy should not be there and it should be the inviolable rights of the boss.

I know we have a new employment minister whose hero is Margaret Thatcher, but we are not going to go back to Margaret Thatcher. It does not matter what Senator Cash says—Margaret Thatcher is gone.

Progress reported.