Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of Senator Patrick, I seek leave to move items (6) to (14) on sheet 1214 together.

Leave not granted.

Okay, I'll move them one by one. This is the deletion of the schedules. The government is now in a fit of pique because they want to move their own amendments to gut their bill, rather than Senator Patrick's amendments to gut their bill, now requiring that they not be moved together. Is the government really going to be that petty? In which case, on behalf of Senator Patrick, I oppose schedule 2 in the following terms:

(6) Schedule 2, page 20 (line 1) to page 36 (line 6), to be opposed.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Senator Wong wants to play these games, that is fine. But, Senator Wong, you would be aware that the government has an amendment that effectively removes schedules 2 to 6 and divisions 3 to 7 in item (1) and items (2) and (3). You are aware of that, so, if you would like to play these games, you are more than welcome to; however, the government's amendment is to remove schedules 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and parts of schedule 7.

The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of Senator Patrick, I again seek leave to move items (7) to (14) on sheet 1214 together.

Leave not granted.

On behalf of Senator Patrick, I oppose schedule 3 in the following terms:

(7) Schedule 3, page 37 (line 1) to page 62 (line 7), to be opposed.

The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 3 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

I seek leave to move items (8) to (14) on sheet 1214 together.

Leave not granted.

On behalf of Senator Patrick, I oppose schedule 4 in the following terms:

(8) Schedule 4, page 63 (line 1) to page 65 (line 16), to be opposed.

The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 4 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

On behalf of Senator Patrick, I oppose schedule 6 in the following terms:

(9) Schedule 6, page 90 (line 1) to page 92 (line 17), to be opposed.

The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 6 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

I seek leave to move items (10) to (14) on sheet 1214 together.

A government senator: I missed that, sorry.

I'm just keeping on seeking leave so that the chamber can actually try to deal with this quickly in a guillotine. I'm seeking leave to move Senator Patrick's items (10) to (14) on sheet 1214 together.

Leave not granted.

Honourable senators interjecting—

On behalf of Senator Patrick, I oppose schedule 7 in the following terms:

(10) Schedule 7, item 1, page 93 (line 19) to page 98 (line 18), Division 2 to be opposed.

Ben Small (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to draw the chamber's attention to the discussion that we've been having for a number of days, and that is that the Morrison government has introduced some non-ideological incremental and measured reforms that are aimed at empowering Australian workers in the workplace to have the right to convert casual employment to permanent employment for the very first time. Instead, we see those on the opposition benches voting against that very important and fundamental right.

We have sought to improve the agreement-making process to deliver higher wages into the pockets of Australian workers faster. Those on the Labor benches are voting against that. We have sought to improve the enterprise agreement process, which Paul Keating has said is broken. It has fallen to the Liberal Party and the Morrison government to improve that. But what do we see from Labor and the Greens? We see unfounded claims that somehow this is racist and sexist. We have sought to deliver the 69 per cent increase in average earnings, compared to awards, under an enterprise agreement into the pockets of Australian workers. But, no, there's nothing from those opposite but unfounded rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims.

In all of the contributions that we've heard from around this chamber this week there has been nothing—no constructive opportunity or comment—from those opposite on how these reforms might be improved. Instead, this has fallen to our crossbench colleagues—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

The CHAIR: Order!

Ben Small (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to offer that really carefully, on the basis of private consultations that they've been having around Australia with employees, employer associations and unions. This has fallen to those crossbench colleagues who come to this place with an open mind and a motivation to see Australians earn more money and keep more of the money they earn for themselves and for their families. For that, I commend Minister Cash, Minister Birmingham and those other colleagues on the government benches who have recognised those contributions from our crossbench colleagues.

Let's turn to some of the detail that seems to be lost in translation here today. The double dipping of $39 billion in entitlements is an affront to any fair-minded assessment of what it means to do business in Australia today. This is not a liability that is just levelled at big corporations and labour hire firms—and that's certainly what we hear from over there. Instead, it falls to those small businesses, which Minister Cash advocates for so fearlessly on a daily basis. They're the ones who stand to lose their homes with this egregious double dipping on entitlements. You only needed to read the Financial Review just yesterday to hear stories relating to a drycleaner in Melbourne, where a small business owner stands to lose their house with the entitlements that have been rightfully paid to those casual employees who got a 25 per cent loading on the wages that they were paid. These are the sorts of people who the Morrison government stands up for. These are the people who those honourable colleagues sitting on the crossbench are prepared to fight for.

Instead, what do we get from over there? We get what the unions tell them to do, because it's the unions who stand to lose by empowering Australian workers to make their own choices. They put forward this idea of permanent casualisation somehow being illegitimate where a worker so chooses; frankly, we believe in the capacity of Australians to make that choice for themselves, and, in fact, they make that choice for themselves on a daily basis. Nine per cent of private sector employees choose to pay their hard earned money to the union movement. How else could they do it? They go around to industry super funds, as my colleague Senator Bragg pointed out. In fact, by 2030, $30 million a year in donations is likely to flow from the union super funds through to those unions. We're not interested in that; we're interested in ensuring that Australians get the opportunities they deserve, they get rewarded for their effort, and they're incentivised to strive. So far, the track record of the Morrison government speaks very strongly for this.

Our employment numbers show a 5.8 per cent unemployment rate in the Australian economy. But we're not done yet, Senator Rennick. These reforms offer those permanent part-time employees who work in the hospitality, accommodation and food services sectors and the retail sector the opportunity to work more hours, for the very first time, under the protections that permanent employment offers them. Those extra hours would be worked with leave entitlements accruing, with protections from unfair dismissal and with the sorts of protections that we are affording those workers. Instead, with the Labor Party voting against such a sensible, measured, incremental, non-ideological change, the Labor Party seeks to entrench casual employment in the Australian economy. Well, we won't stand for that. That is why this government has sought to expand the flexibility in the Australian workplace relations system that those opposite so fiercely oppose.

We're not solely focused on flexibility and, indeed, offering those casual employees in Australia the ability to convert their employment status for the very first time. We've also focused on the, frankly, broken agreement-making process in this country. With just nine per cent of Australian workers in the private sector choosing to fork out for union membership, as I mentioned, that means that 91 per cent of Australians see no role for the Australian union movement in their workplace. So why is it that the union movement continues to obstruct non-union agreements being moved through the Fair Work Commission? Those very same agreements have put 69 per cent more earnings in the pockets of hardworking Australians. Well, this government is seeking to make changes that expedite that agreement-making process, with 21-day approvals. We've heard the criticism that that is a tick-and-flick exercise. But that fundamentally ignores the fact that the Fair Work Commission, under these sensible reforms, has the capacity to extend the period of approval, where the merits of the case so confirm. However, have we heard a single evidence based, factual reflection on that provision from those opposite? No, we have not.

When we come to wage theft, wage exploitation and underpayment in Australia, we have been clear that the Morrison government will not stand for it—

Senator Pratt interjecting—

The CHAIR: Order, Senator Pratt!

so we have sought to increase the provisions relating to criminal and civil penalties on those employers that do the right thing. I'm sure that's something Senator Pratt would be so proud of, if she could bring herself to support those workers with the Morrison government. For the very first time there would be a criminal penalty, but you have decided to vote against it.

Honourable senators interjecting—

So, at the end of the day, we've got a government that is on the side of those employees who have been exploited, who have been underpaid.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Chair: could you please ask the other side of the chamber to be quiet. Senator Small has employed more people than the entire other side of the chamber has ever employed.

The CHAIR: Senator Rennick, resume your seat. I would ask everyone to please allow Senator Small to finish his contribution in silence.

Ben Small (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Finally, if we're not interested in the right of Australians to convert that employment for the first time, if we're against putting more money in the pockets of Australians through improved agreement-making, if we're somehow against increases in the criminal and civil penalties that apply in instances of wage theft or underpayment—somehow those opposite also find themselves against greenfields projects that mandate annual pay rises for the employees covered by them. Frankly, I find it staggering that the Labor Party are voting against mandated annual pay rises for employees involved in the construction of mega projects—those same mega projects that drive jobs, that drive taxation revenue, that help pay for the services that support those most vulnerable in the Australian community. The Morrison government is for that. The crossbench is prepared to vote for that. But it is the Labor Party and the Greens who time and time again find themselves unable to support hardworking Australians who deserve to be rewarded for their efforts, who deserve more of their—

The CHAIR: Order, Senator Small!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is so humiliating about this is this bloke, Senator Small, is sent out to argue for a bill, but he doesn't even know that the government have ditched most of what he is speaking about. They've ditched most of what he's having a go about. How humiliating! The government are in such crisis that they can't even tell a member of their own team, 'By the way, we've ditched that bit, and that bit, and that bit, and that bit.' So Senator Small comes in here and starts to proselytise about bill provisions that the minister is going to ditch. What a joke! If you ever wanted a demonstration of a government in crisis, it was that pathetic contribution. What a humiliation for Senator Small! The government don't even tell him what they're doing.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

COVID-19 has changed the dynamic of the Australian economy. It has made us focus as a society on what we need to do to ensure that businesses stay in business and to ensure that employees stay in work. What we are seeing on display by the Australian Labor Party today is nothing more and nothing less than absolute contempt for small businesses in Australia, who need to be protected from the $39 billion hit they are facing because of the double dipping back pay claims arising from the Rossato case.

We're also putting forward today long-awaited certainty in relation to the definition of 'casual employment'. This is something that Australian businesses and Australian employees have been asking for now for a very long time.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A lot was uncertain!

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was uncertain—I will take that interjection, Senator Scarr—because Labor failed to do anything about this in their Fair Work Act. Labor's Fair Work Act has unfortunately created the confusion we are seeing today. Casual employees and the businesses that support them deserve certainty. They deserve certainty in their employment relationship, both employers and employees alike. But casual employees also deserve to have a pathway to permanent employment set out for them. When you listen to how the Labor Party talk about casuals and the nature of casual employment, you have to ask why it is that, today in the chamber, the Labor Party are not prepared to support a measure that will provide that pathway to permanency for casual employees who work a regular pattern of work.

The CHAIR: Minister, please resume your seat. It is now 1 pm. The time for this debate has expired. The question is that division 2 in item 1 of schedule 7 stand as printed.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (4) to (7) on sheet 1254 together:

(1) Schedule 5, item 4, page 68 (line 4), omit "Subject to subsection (3A), the", substitute "The".

(4) Schedule 5, page 75 (after line 15), after item 10, insert:

10A At the end of section 557C

Add:

(4) To avoid doubt, a reference to proceedings relating to a contravention by an employer of a civil remedy provision in paragraph (1) (a) includes proceedings dealt with as small claims proceedings under section 548.

(5) Schedule 5, page 82 (before line 3), before item 36, insert:

36A Subsection 357(1)

Omit "(1)".

36B Subsection 357(1) (note)

Omit "subsection", substitute "section".

36C Subsection 357(2)

Repeal the subsection.

(6) Schedule 5, item 39, page 82 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item, substitute:

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

Insert:

(7) Schedule 5, items 43 and 44, page 84 (lines 15 to 29), omit the items, substitute:

43 After subsection 27(1A)

Insert:

(1B) Section 26 does not apply to:

(a) a law of a State or Territory providing for an employer, or an officer, employee or agent of an employer, to be liable to be prosecuted for an offence relating to underpaying an employee an amount payable to the employee in relation to the performance of work; or

(b) a law of a State or Territory providing for an employer, or an officer, employee or agent of an employer, to be liable to be prosecuted for an offence relating to an employee record that is required to be made or kept by the employer under this Act (such as an offence for failing to make or keep such a record or making or keeping a false or misleading record).

The opposition also opposes schedule 5 in the following terms:

(2) Schedule 5, item 4, page 68 (lines 9 to 12), subsection 546(3A) to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 5, item 10, page 74 (lines 22 to 26), subsection 548D(7) to be opposed.

The CHAIR: As indicated to the committee, I'll put these two questions separately. The first question is that opposition amendments (1) and (4) to (7) on sheet 1254, moved by Senator Wong, be agreed to.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that subsection 546(3A) in item 4 and subsection 548D(7) in item 10 of schedule 5 stand as printed.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For clarity, that means that subsection 546(3A) in item 4 and subsection 548D(7) in item 10 of schedule 5 will be removed from the bill. I will now deal with the circulated amendments to the bill, starting with the remaining government amendments on sheet PX114. The question is that schedule 5 and divisions 3 to 7 of schedule 7 and items 2 and 3 of schedule 7 stand as printed.

The government opposed schedule 5 and schedule 7 in the following terms—

(12) Schedule 5, page 66 (line 1) to page 89 (line 16), to be opposed.

(14) Schedule 7, item 1, page 98 (lines 19 to 29), Division 3 to be opposed.

(15) Schedule 7, item 1, page 99 (line 1) to page 100 (line 4), Division 4 to be opposed.

(16) Schedule 7, item 1, page 100 (lines 5 to 10), Division 5 to be opposed.

(17) Schedule 7, item 1, page 100 (line 11) to page 101 (line 3), Division 6 to be opposed.

(18) Schedule 7, item 1, page 101 (lines 4 to 11), Division 7 to be opposed.

(19) Schedule 7, items 2 and 3, page 101 (line 12) to page 102 (line 10), to be opposed.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the opposition, I ask that the question on schedule 5 and division 6 of schedule 7 be put separately so the opposition can vote accordingly.

The CHAIR: So the question is that schedule 5 and division 6 of schedule 7 stand as printed.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now move to the second part of the question, which was asked to be split. The question is that divisions 3, 4, 6 and 7 of schedule 7 and items 2 and 3 of schedule 7 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (8) on sheet PX114 be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendments—

(1) Title, page 1 (lines 10 and 11), omit "and the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009".

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:

(3) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 3 and 4), omit the table items.

(4) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item.

(5) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 10 to 14) to page 3 (table items 15 and 16), omit the table items.

(6) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 17), omit the table item.

(7) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 19), omit the table item.

(8) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 3—Small claims procedure

Fair Work Act 2009

23 Section 12

Insert:

small claims proceedings means proceedings dealt with as small claims proceedings under section 548.

24 After subsection 548(1A)

Insert:

(1B) Proceedings are also to be dealt with as small claims proceedings under this section if:

(a) a person applies for an order (other than a pecuniary penalty order) under Division 2 from a magistrates court or the Federal Circuit Court in connection with a dispute relating to one or more of the following matters:

(i) whether a casual employee meets the requirements of either or both of paragraphs 66B(1)(a) and (b);

(ii) whether an employer of a casual employee has reasonable grounds under section 66C not to make an offer to the employee to convert to full-time or part-time employment under section 66B;

(iii) whether a casual employee may make a request of an employer to convert to full-time or part-time employment under section 66F;

(iv) whether an employer of a casual employee has reasonable grounds under section 66H to refuse a request from the employee made under section 66F; and

(b) the person applying for the order indicates, in a manner prescribed by the regulations or by the rules of the court, that he or she wants the small claims procedure to apply to the proceedings.

Note: Orders that a court may make under Division 2 in relation to small claims proceedings may include the following:

(a) requiring an employer of a casual employee to consider whether the employer must make an offer under section 66B to convert the casual employee to part-time or full-time employment on the basis that the employee meets the requirements of paragraphs 66B(1)(a) and (b);

(b) requiring an employer of a casual employee to consider whether the employer must grant a request made under section 66F to convert the casual employee to part-time or full-time employment on the basis that the employee meets the requirements of subsection 66F(1);

(c) preventing an employer from relying on a particular ground under section 66C to not make such an offer, or a particular ground under section 66H to refuse such a request.

25 Subsection 548(1B)

Omit "Federal Circuit Court", substitute "Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)".

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In order to deal with the consequences for the opposition's voting position and, I think, also the Australian Greens, I seek leave to move amendment (1), (3) to (6) and (8) to (11) on sheet 1220 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 9) to page 5 (line 18), omit section 15A, substitute:

15A Meaning of casual employee

(1) A person is a casual employee of an employer if the employer makes no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work for the person.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), in determining whether the employer makes no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work for the person, regard must be had to the following considerations:

(a) whether the employer can elect to offer work and whether the person can elect to accept or reject work;

(b) whether the person will work only as required;

(c) whether the employment is described as casual employment;

(d) whether the person will be entitled to a casual loading or a specific rate of pay payable only to casual employees under the terms of a fair work instrument;

(e) the pattern of hours that is worked, or scheduled by the employer to be worked, by the person.

Note: Under Division 4A of Part 2-2, a casual employee who has worked for an employer for at least 12 months and has, during at least the last 6 months of that time, worked a regular pattern of hours on an ongoing basis may be entitled to be offered, or request, conversion to full-time employment or part-time employment.

(3) To avoid doubt, regard may also be had to considerations other than those referred to in subsection (2).

(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (before line 27), before subsection 66C(3), insert:

(2A) The employer must not:

(a) decide not to make an offer under subsection (1); or

(b) issue a notice under subsection (3);

unless the employer has consulted with the employee and any representative of the employee.

Note: An employee organisation may be a representative of the employee.

(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 12 (line 28) to page 13 (line 10), omit subsections 66M(1) and (2), substitute:

Application of this section

(1) This section applies to a dispute between an employer and employee about either or both of the following:

(a) whether or not an employee is a casual employee as defined in section 15A;

(b) the operation of this Division.

(2) However, this section does not apply in relation to the dispute if:

(a) a fair work instrument that applies to the employee includes a term that provides a procedure for dealing with the dispute; and

(b) that term provides either party with access to the arbitration of any dispute about the operation of this Division by the FWC.

Note: Modern awards and enterprise agreements must include a term that provides a procedure for settling disputes in relation to the National Employment Standards (see paragraph 146(b) and subsection 186(6)).

(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 13 (lines 18 to 26), omit subsection 66M(5), substitute:

(5) If a dispute is referred under subsection (4):

(a) the FWC must deal with the dispute (other than by arbitration); and

(b) where the dispute is unable to be resolved under paragraph (a), the FWC must deal with the dispute by arbitration.

Note: For the purposes of paragraph (a), the FWC may deal with the dispute as it considers appropriate, including by mediation, conciliation, making a recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)).

(6) Schedule 7, item 1, page 94 (after line 13), after subclause 45(1), insert:

(1A) Any determination made under subclause (1) must not affect the operation of any term of an enterprise agreement that is ancillary, incidental or supplementary to an entitlement of an employee under Schedule 1 to the amending Act.

Note: Subsection 55(4) allows for ancillary, incidental and supplementary terms to be included in enterprise agreements to the extent that the effect of those terms is not detrimental to an employee in any respect, when compared to the National Employment Standard.

(8) Schedule 7, item 1, page 95 (after line 19), after subclause 46(7), insert:

(7A) However, despite subclause (7), section 545A of the amended Act does not apply in relation to entitlements that accrue, or loading amounts paid, before commencement if an application has been made before commencement to a court for the court to determine a claim in respect of the entitlements or amounts.

(9) Schedule 7, item 1, page 95 (line 29), omit "before,".

(10) Schedule 7, item 1, page 95 (line 32), omit "before,".

(11) Schedule 7, item 1, page 98 (after line 12), after subclause 48(3), insert:

(3A) Any determination made under subclause (3) must not affect the operation of any term of a modern award that is ancillary, incidental or supplementary to an entitlement of an employee under Schedule 1 to the amending Act.

Note: Subsection 55(4) allows for ancillary, incidental and supplementary terms to be included in enterprise agreements to the extent that the effect of those terms is not detrimental to an employee in any respect, when compared to the National Employment Standard.

We also oppose schedules 1 and 7 in the following terms:

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (lines 10 to 26), subsection 66C(2) to be opposed.

(7) Schedule 7, item 1, page 94 (line 18) to page 95 (line 10), subclauses 46(1) to (4) to be opposed.

The CHAIR: The question is that subsection 66C(2) in item 3 of schedule 1 and subclauses 46(1) to (4) in item 1 of schedule 7 stand as printed.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(In division) Can we not commence the division until we have people seated?

The CHAIR: (In division) Senator Wong, I did warn people that I was about to commence. I remind the chamber that, once the tellers are appointed, you need to be sitting down; otherwise, you won't be counted. I'll ask that the count be started again.

The CHAIR: The question now is that opposition amendments (1), (3) to (6) and (8) to (11) on sheet 1220, as circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of Senator Patrick—I'm just making sure he knows I'm doing this—he opposes schedule 1 in the following terms:

(5) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 1) to page 19 (line 14), to be opposed.

The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, given that amendment (1) on sheet 1214 is consequential to the one we just passed, I'm wondering if you might seek leave to withdraw that amendment.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I withdraw amendment (1) on sheet 1214.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move the Pauline Hanson's One Nation's amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1228 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4".

(2) Page 3 (after line 11), after clause 3, add:

4 Review of operation of amendments

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) Without limiting the matters that may be considered when conducting the review, the review must:

(a) consider whether the operation of the amendments made by this Act is appropriate and effective in the context of Australia's changing employment and economic conditions; and

(b) identify any unintended consequences of the amendments made by this Act; and

(c) consider whether amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009, or any other legislation, are necessary to:

(i) improve the operation of the amendments made by this Act under paragraph (a); or

(ii) rectify any unintended consequences identified under paragraph (b).

(3) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of 12 months after this section commences.

(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

The CHAIR: The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Roberts, that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1128, by leave moved together, be agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the name of Pauline Hanson's One Nation, I move the amendments on sheet 1249, revised:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 24), omit paragraph 15A(2)(b), substitute:

(b) whether the person will work as required according to the needs of the employer;

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (before line 2), before section 66B, insert:

66AA Subdivision does not apply to small business employers

This Subdivision does not apply in relation to an employer that is a small business employer.

(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 9 (line 27), before "the request", insert "if the employer is not a small business employer—".

(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 9 (after line 28), at the end of subsection 66F(1), add:

Note: Nothing in this Subdivision prevents an employee from requesting to convert to full-time or part-time employment outside the provisions of this Division, or prevents an employer from granting such a request.

(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 14 (after line 26), after paragraph 125A(2)(d), insert:

(da) casual conversion entitlements of casual employees employed by small business employers;

(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 16 (line 14), omit "such a term", substitute "a term of the fair work instrument or contract of employment under which the loading amount is paid".

(7) Schedule 7, item 1, page 96 (line 2), after "employer", insert "(other than a small business employer)".

(8) Schedule 7, item 1, page 96 (line 17), after "employer", insert "(other than a small business employer)".

(9) Schedule 7, item 1, page 97 (after line 18), after clause 47, insert:

47A Casual employees of small business employers

(1) This clause applies in relation to an employee and a small business employer if any or all of the following apply:

(a) the employee was, immediately before commencement (and disregarding subclause 46(3)), a casual employee of the employer;

(b) the employee was, immediately before commencement (and disregarding subclause 46(3)), designated as a casual employee by the employer for the purposes of:

(i) any fair work instrument that applies to the employee; or

(ii) the employee's contract of employment;

(c) the employee is a casual employee of the employer within the meaning of

section 15A of the amended Act because of an offer of an employment made before commencement.

(2) Division 4A, other than Subdivision B, of Part 2-2 of the amended Act applies in relation to the employee and employer to whom paragraph (1)(a) or (b) applies on and after commencement as if the employee were a casual employee of the employer within the meaning of section 15A of the amended Act.

(3) An employer referred to in subclause (1) must give an employee referred to in that subclause a Casual Employment Information Statement as soon as practicable after commencement.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (9) on sheet 1249, revised, standing in the name of Senator Roberts be agreed to.

The committee divided. [14:10]

(The Chair—Senator Lines)

Question agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I withdraw One Nation amendments on sheets 1250, 1251, 1252 and 1253.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Griff, do you want to seek leave to withdraw amendments (3) to (6) on sheet 1265?

Stirling Griff (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like amendments (3) and (7) to be put separately and the others withdrawn.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Amendment (3) deals with schedule 5, which has been removed from the bill. I was expecting you to move amendments (1), (2) and (7). To be clear, I thought you would move amendment (7). Are you seeking leave to withdraw the other amendments? Some of them have been dealt with.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would make the suggestion that Senator Griff get advice, because this is obviously quite confusing and the government is asserting that some of these amendments have been dealt with. I have to say I haven't compared Senator Griff's proposed amendments with the government's for this purpose. So, we could vote on (7) and Senator Griff, during the four-minute division, could get advice on the remainder of his proposed amendments.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice is that items (1) and (2), relating to small claims hearings, are duplicates of amendments that the government has already moved and that have been accepted by the chamber.

Stirling Griff (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Centre Alliance amendment (7) on sheet 1265:

(7) Schedule 7, item 1, page 95 (after line 19), after subclause 46(7), insert:

(7A) However, despite subclause (7), section 545A of the amended Act does not apply in relation to entitlements that accrue, or loading amounts paid, before commencement if an application has been made before 18 March 2021 to a court for the court to determine a claim in respect of the entitlements or amounts.

The CHAIR: The question is that (7) on sheet 1265, as moved by Senator Griff, be agreed to.

Stirling Griff (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I withdraw my remaining amendments on sheet 1265.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum, which has been circulated, relating to the government amendments moved to this bill.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments and an amendment to the title; report adopted.