Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, and government amendments (1) to (68) on sheet PV124 moved by Senator Watt. The question is that government amendments (1) to (34), (36) to (62) and (64) to (68) be agreed to.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Chair, I ask that the question be put.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the question be put.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR: The question is that government amendments (1) to (34), (36) to (62) and (64) to (68) moved by Senator Watt be agreed to.

The CHAIR (16:27): The question before the chair is that items 584 and 667 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

The CHAIR (16:30): Honourable senators, I have a statement in relation to opposition amendments on sheets 1704 to 1711. The government amendments on sheet PV124 included amendments to the definition of 'small business' for certain purposes. Amendments (45), (50) and (56) changed the size of small businesses to 20 employees. As those amendments have been agreed to, the series of amendments circulated by Senator Cash that also seek to change the size of small businesses are contrary to standing order 118(2). That standing order provides:

No … amendment shall be proposed which is substantially the same as one already negatived by the committee, or which is inconsistent with one that has been agreed to by the committee, unless a recommittal of the bill has intervened.

As such, it is not in order for those amendments to be moved.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, am I allowed to make a statement in relation to this?

The CHAIR: Well, we're in committee, so, Senator Cash, you have the call.

Thank you very much. In relation to the statement that you have just made, let me be very clear to this place: I disagree with it. The reason I disagree with it is this: we are moving amendments to protect small and medium businesses in Australia from being compelled to bargain against their will in circumstances that they have never asked for. Chair, with all due respect, if you are telling me there is not a difference between a small business that has 20 employees and a business that has 200, I'm going to call you out and say you are wrong. If you are telling me that there is no difference between a small business in Australia that has 20 employees and one that has 175, I'll tell you you are wrong. If you are telling me there is no difference between a small business in Australia that has 20 employees and one that has 150 employees, again, Chair, you are wrong. If you are telling me that there is no difference between a small business in Australia and a business that has 125 employees, I am telling you you are wrong. If you are telling me there is no difference between a small business in Australia and a business that has 100 employees, I am telling you you are wrong.

The CHAIR: Senator McKim?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Chair, I just seek your guidance in terms of Senator Cash's direct criticism of a ruling that you have just made—and, if I might add, a complete mischaracterisation of what you've just said. It is my understanding that is well out of order, and I ask you for a ruling on that, please.

The CHAIR: I was allowing Senator Cash to make a contribution, but I have made the ruling. The ruling was made on the advice of the Clerk, and my characterisation of Senator Cash's contribution is consistent with yours, in that it's a criticism of my ruling. My ruling stands. Senator Cash, the ruling is in relation to the application of the standing orders. It doesn't apply to the actual amendment to the definition itself, which is what your contribution entails. The standing order says that you cannot make further amendments when an amendment has already been agreed to, in that the will of the Committee of the Whole has already been declared or articulated by the committee, and therefore to criticise the ruling is to criticise the decision of the Committee of the Whole. I'm prepared to give you the call again, but, if you wish to continue down the line you're taking, I will not give you the call.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

CASH (—) (): Thank you, Chair. What I will say is this: this is, without a doubt, one of the greatest travesties that businesses in Australia will ever face. The difference, quite frankly, between a business with 20 employees and a business with 21 employees is material to this debate. Why? Because a business with 20 or fewer is now excluded from the single stream of multi-employer bargaining. They can, yes, be compelled into the supported stream and they will face costs set out in the government's regulatory impact statement of around $14½ thousand.

But you see, Chair, with this ruling, which I respectfully disagree with, a business with but one more employee will now face costs of in excess of $80,000 per business. Colleagues, I remind you that in the regulatory impact statement it was $75½ thousand until during the committee stage when, amazingly, we were able to pick up that—and I quote the Minister of the Small Business, such is her contempt for small business—'the $5,000 was merely a typo'. That $5,000 means that businesses in Australia, according to the ruling that has been made, with 21 or more employees will now still be roped into—are able to be compelled into—the changes to the single-interest multi-employer bargaining stream against their will. Potentially, they will be bargaining with their competitors. The costs are set out clearly in the regulatory impact statement: $75½ thousand plus the small typo of $5,000.

So to every business in Australia: this bill is going to pass and it's going to pass very soon. But let me be very, very clear on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, on behalf of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Susan Ley, and on behalf of every member of the Liberal and National parties in this place and in the other: we will never stop defending you. We will stand by you every single step of the way. The fact is that this ruling says, quite frankly, there is no difference. I say shame on the ruling, quite frankly! Shame on Labor and your contempt for small business and business in Australia—

The CHAIR: Senator Cash, your criticisms of me are totally out of order!

I'm criticising the ruling.

The CHAIR: I ask you to withdraw them.

I withdraw, Chair. I am merely criticising the fact that, with this ruling, we are unable now to stand up for businesses in Australia with 200, 175, 150, 100, 75, 50 or 25 employees. On behalf of all Liberals and Nationals across Australia, the fight doesn't stop. We've got your back and we'll stand up for you every day of the week.

The CHAIR: Senator Pocock, you have the call.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which one? I was first on my feet!

The CHAIR: Sorry, I apologise! I'll allow you to arbitrate between the two of you.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to David Pocock for gracefully allowing me to go first. The Greens are supporting the government's amendments. There are many elements in this bill that take our labour law into the 21st century. They address the real work circumstances of Australians and they promise to end the fall in real wages which means that so many Australians right now are struggling to be other than working poor. They work in poverty, despite getting a wage. Their wages have not lifted for 10 years and it's time to fix our labour law.

It's time to improve justice for the millions of women who can't predict their hours tomorrow or next week and the millions of workers who have become insecure and who live insecurely, with consequences for their children and their families. It's time to fix our labour law and to make it address the real circumstances that affect millions of Australians, the flexibilities that they need to put together for a job and care of their kids or the care of a parent. We need to increase the wages of the low-paid, the people who are looking after our kids, people in our aged-care sector and in our disability care. We need to narrow the gender pay gap which, for 30 years—and certainly for the last 10—has not seen a narrowing. We need to support more fairly the one in two workers now in our labour market who are women. Some of the warriors in this place are fighting the industrial relations battles of last century. I've heard, today and last night, lines that we would've heard over successive struggles over industrial relations. It's time to move forward so that our labour law addresses the real issues affecting real Australians in their millions outside this place.

I want to specifically say something about the amendments which protect the better off overall test and put in place protections to prevent low-paid workers from going backwards. The government's original bill attempted to remove prospective employees from being considered under the better off overall test when agreements were approved. The Greens were concerned that this would have left some workers worse off. After negotiations with the government, we're pleased to see these amendments.

These amendments will further ensure that future employees will be covered by the agreement that's considered by the Fair Work Commission when they're assessing an agreement against that better off overall test. The amendments also clarify that when applying the better off overall test and considering potential work patterns of current or future employees, the Fair Work Commission will have to assess any work patterns that the employer, union or employee considers reasonably foreseeable, with the Fair Work Commission having regard to the kind of business the employer is running.

The bill establishes a new reconsideration process which allows employers, employees or unions to have agreements reconsidered against the better off overall test. These amendments will mean that if the Fair Work Commission changes an agreement because workers are worse off those changes can be applied retrospectively, allowing workers to have their pay backdated to the time of the agreement.

These amendments are an important win for workers, especially low-paid workers in retail and hospitality. So many of them are young people, so many of them are without very much power in the labour market. The better off overall test and its essential, important features has been preserved. Hence, for this, and many other reasons, which we will get to talk about this afternoon—and we will get to them—the Greens will be supporting this set of amendments. And we have supported them.

By leave—I would now like to move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1776:

(1) Clause 2, page 5 (after table item 32A), insert:

(2) Schedule 1, page 250 (after line 5), after Part 25A, insert:

Part 25B — Unpaid parental leave

Division 1 — Main amendments

Fair Work Act 2009

659C Paragraphs 72(3)(b) and (4)(b)

Omit "or 76", substitute "or 76A".

659D Subsection 72A(5)

Omit "section 76", substitute "section 76A".

659E Subsections 76(3) to (5A)

Repeal the subsections.

659F Subsection 76(6)

Omit "under this section", substitute "requested under this section".

659G After section 76

Insert:

76A Responding to requests for extension of unpaid parental leave

Responding to the request

(1) If, under subsection 76(1), an employee requests an employer to agree to an extension of unpaid parental leave for the employee for a further period of up to 12 months immediately following the end of the available parental leave period, the employer must give the employee a written response to the request within 21 days.

(2) The response must:

(a) state that the employer grants the request; or

(b) if, following discussion between the employer and the employee, the employer and the employee agree to an extension of unpaid parental leave for the employee for a period that differs from the period requested—set out the agreed extended period; or

(c) subject to subsection (3)—state that the employer refuses the request and include the matters required by subsection (6).

(3) The employer may refuse the request only if:

(a) the employer has:

(i) discussed the request with the employee; and

(ii) genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employee about an extension of the period of unpaid parental leave for the employee; and

(b) the employer and the employee have not reached such an agreement; and

(c) the employer has had regard to the consequences of the refusal for the employee; and

(d) the refusal is on reasonable business grounds.

Note: An employer's grounds for refusing a request may be taken to be reasonable business grounds, or not to be reasonable business grounds, in certain circumstances (see subsection 76C(6)).

(4) To avoid doubt, subparagraph (3)(a)(ii) does not require the employer to agree to an extension of the period of unpaid parental leave for the employee if the employer would have reasonable business grounds for refusing a request for the extension.

Reasonable business grounds for refusing requests

(5) Without limiting what are reasonable business grounds for the purposes of paragraph (3)(d) and subsection (4), reasonable business grounds for refusing a request include the following:

(a) that the extension of the period of unpaid parental leave requested by the employee would be too costly for the employer;

(b) that there is no capacity to change the working arrangements of other employees to accommodate the extension of the period of unpaid parental leave requested by the employee;

(c) that it would be impractical to change the working arrangements of other employees, or recruit new employees, to accommodate the extension of the period of unpaid parental leave requested by the employee;

(d) that the extension of the period of unpaid parental leave requested by the employee would be likely to result in a significant loss in efficiency or productivity;

(e) that the extension of the period of unpaid parental leave requested by the employee would be likely to have a significant negative impact on customer service.

Note: The specific circumstances of the employer, including the nature and size of the enterprise carried on by the employer, are relevant to whether the employer has reasonable business grounds for refusing a request for the purposes of paragraph (3)(d) and subsection (4). For example, if the employer has only a small number of employees, there may be no capacity to change the working arrangements of other employees to accommodate the request (see paragraph (5)(b)).

Employer must explain grounds for refusal

(6) If the employer refuses the request, the written response under subsection (1) must:

(a) include details of the reasons for the refusal; and

(b) without limiting paragraph (a) of this subsection:

(i) set out the employer's particular business grounds for refusing the request; and

(ii) explain how those grounds apply to the request; and

(c) either:

(i) set out the extension of the period of unpaid parental leave for the employee (other than the period requested by the employee) that the employer would be willing to agree to; or

(ii) state that there is no extension of the period that the employer would be willing to agree to; and

(d) set out the effect of sections 76B and 76C.

Genuinely trying to reach an agreement

(7) This section does not affect, and is not affected by, the meaning of the expression "genuinely trying to reach an agreement", or any variant of the expression, as used elsewhere in this Act.

Division 2 — Civi l remedies and dispute resolution

Fair Work Act 2009

659H Subsection 44(1)

Omit "(1)".

659J Subsection 44(1) (note)

Omit "subsection", substitute "section".

659K Subsection 44(2)

Repeal the subsection (including the notes).

659L Before section 77

Insert:

76B Disputes about extension of period of unpaid parental leave

Application of this section

(1) This section applies to a dispute between an employer and an employee that relates to a request by the employee to the employer under subsection 76(1) to agree to an extension of unpaid parental leave for the employee for a further period of up to 12 months immediately following the end of the available parental leave period if:

(a) the employer has refused the request; or

(b) 21 days have passed since the employee made the request, and the employer has not given the employee a written response to the request under section 76A.

Note 1: 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)).

Note 2: Subsection 55(4) permits inclusion of terms that are ancillary or incidental to, or that supplement, the National Employment Standards. However, a term of a modern award or an enterprise agreement has no effect to the extent it contravenes section 55 (see section 56).

Resolving disputes

(2) In the first instance, the parties to the dispute must attempt to resolve the dispute at the workplace level, by discussions between the parties.

FWC may deal with disputes

(3) If discussions at the workplace level do not resolve the dispute, a party to the dispute may refer the dispute to the FWC.

(4) If a dispute is referred under subsection (3):

(a) the FWC must first deal with the dispute by means other than arbitration, unless there are exceptional circumstances; and

(b) the FWC may deal with the dispute by arbitration in accordance with section 76C.

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

Representatives

(5) The employer or employee may appoint a person or industrial association to provide the employer or employee (as the case may be) with support or representation for the purposes of:

(a) resolving the dispute; or

(b) the FWC dealing with the dispute.

Note: A person may be represented by a lawyer or paid agent in a matter before the FWC only with the permission of the FWC (see section 596).

76C Arbitration

(1) For the purposes of paragraph 76B(4)(b), the FWC may deal with the dispute by arbitration by making any of the following orders:

(a) if the employer has not given the employee a written response to the request under section 76A—an order that the employer be taken to have refused the request;

(b) if the employer refused the request:

(i) an order that it would be appropriate for the grounds on which the employer refused the request to be taken to have been reasonable business grounds; or

(ii) an order that it would be appropriate for the grounds on which the employer refused the request to be taken not to have been reasonable business grounds;

(c) if the FWC is satisfied that the employer has not responded, or has not responded adequately, to the employee's request under section 76A—an order that the employer take such further steps as the FWC considers appropriate, having regard to the matters in section 76A;

(d) subject to subsection (4) of this section:

(i) an order that the employer grant the request; or

(ii) an order that the employer agree to an extension of unpaid parental leave for the employee for a further period of up to 12 months (other than the period requested by the employee) immediately following the end of the available parental leave period.

Note: An order by the FWC under paragraph (c) could, for example, require the employer to give a response, or further response, to the employee's request, and could set out matters that must be included in the response or further response.

(2) In making an order under subsection (1), the FWC must take into account fairness between the employer and the employee.

(3) The FWC must not make an order under paragraph (1)(c) or (d) that would be inconsistent with:

(a) a provision of this Act; or

(b) a term of a fair work instrument (other than an order made under that paragraph) that, immediately before the order is made, applies to the employer and employee.

(4) The FWC may make an order under paragraph (1)(d) only if the FWC is satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the dispute being resolved without the making of such an order.

(5) If the FWC makes an order under paragraph (1)(a), the employer is taken to have refused the request.

(6) If the FWC makes an order under paragraph (1)(b), the grounds on which the employer refuses the request are taken:

(a) for an order made under subparagraph (1)(b)(i)—to be reasonable business grounds; or

(b) for an order made under subparagraph (1)(b)(ii)—not to be reasonable business grounds.

Contravening an order under subsection (1)

(7) A person must not contravene a term of an order made under subsection (1).

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

659M Section 146 (note)

Repeal the note.

659N Subsection 186(6) (notes 1 and 2)

Repeal the notes.

659P Subsection 539(2) (table item 1, column 1)

Omit "44(1)", substitute "44".

659Q Subsection 539(2) ( after table item 5AA)

Insert:

659R Subsection 539(2) (table item 34, column 1)

Omit "745(1)", substitute "745".

659S Subsection 545(1) (note 4)

Repeal the note, substitute:

Note 4: There are limitations on orders that can be made in relation to contraventions of subsection 463(1) or (2) (which deals with protected action ballot orders) (see subsection 463(3)).

659T Paragraph 557(2)(a)

Omit "subsection 44(1)", substitute "section 44".

659U Paragraph 557(2)(p)

Omit "subsection 745(1)", substitute "section 745".

659V Paragraph 557C(3)(a)

Omit "subsection 44(1)", substitute "section 44".

659W Paragraph 558B(7)(a)

Omit "subsection 44(1)", substitute "section 44".

659X After paragraph 675(2)(aa)

Insert:

(ab) an order under subsection 76C(1) (which deals with the extension of periods of unpaid parental leave);

659Y Subsection 739(2)

Repeal the subsection.

659Z Subsection 740(2)

Repeal the subsection.

659ZA Subsection 745(1)

Omit "(1)".

659ZB Subsection 745(1) (note 1)

Omit "subsection", substitute "section".

659ZC Subsection 745(2)

Repeal the subsection (including the note).

(3) Schedule 1, item 660, page 263 (after line 15), at the end of Part 13, add:

Division 20 — Amendments made by Part 25B of Schedule 1 to the amending Act

85 Requests for extension of period of unpaid parental leave

The amendments made by Part 25B of Schedule 1 to the amending Act apply in relation to a request made under subsection 76(1) of this Act on or after the commencement of that Part.

These amendments will allow the Fair Work Commission to deal with employers who unfairly deny workers a request for an extension to unpaid parental leave. This will support parents to take the time they need to care for their child. Prior to this bill being introduced only two of the 11 National Employment Standards—that's the right to request flexibility and the right to ask for an extension of unpaid parental leave—did not have an enforcement mechanism. What do you call a labour law without enforcement? It's a failed gesture. And it especially affects women. So it's telling that those two mechanisms with the most important impacts for women haven't had enforcement—and now must. We are going to correct that with this amendment.

I'm pleased to see that Labor have listened to the Greens and included an enforcement mechanism in this bill for the right to request flexibility. That is a really significant step forward for the millions of people who want to work a different day, or they want to change their start or finish time—simple things that make such a difference to them as they put together the care for someone else and a job.

We also need an enforcement mechanism for employers who unfairly deny requests for an extension to unpaid parental leave. This is a really important thing for those who really need it. Their child is sick. Their plans haven't worked out on parental leave. They can't get child care. This will allow them to get some backup when they seek an extension to their unpaid parental leave.

We know we need to increase paid leave. We are so far from the international standard of 52 weeks of paid leave and we need to move towards that as soon as we can. But this measure will back up those who need an increase in their unpaid leave now. It makes no sense to leave only one of the 11 National Employment Standards without an enforcement mechanism, so I'm delighted to move this amendment which will make a real difference to the lives of many Australians.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Barbara Pocock, for that contribution. The government will be supporting these amendments. There are only two entitlements in the National Employment Standards that are unenforceable—the right to request a flexible working arrangement and the right to request an extension of unpaid parental leave. These entitlements are predominantly used by women. I also thank Senator Pocock for pointing out that the bill was already providing dispute resolution for one of these entitlements, flexible work. We support this amendment and also provide dispute resolution for the right to request unpaid parental leave as well.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be put.

Question agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1776, moved by Senator Barbara Pocock, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1780 and amendment (1) on sheet 1781, circulated in my name, together:

SHEET 1780

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

(2) Page 6 (after line 8), after clause 3, insert:

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; and

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

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

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

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

(3) The review must start no later than 2 years 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.

SHEET 1781

(1) Schedule 1, item 543, page 183 (line 20) to page 184 (line 3), omit subsection 235(5), substitute:

End of the minimum bargaining period

(5) The end of the minimum bargaining period in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement is:

(a) if one or more enterprise agreements (the existing agreements) apply to any of the employees that will be covered by the proposed agreement—the later of the following:

(i) the day that is 9 months after the nominal expiry date for that existing agreement, or the latest nominal expiry date for those existing agreements;

(ii) the day that is 9 months after the day bargaining starts, as worked out under subsection (6); or

(b) the day that is 9 months after the day bargaining starts, as worked out under subsection (6).

(6) For the purposes of subparagraph (5)(a)(ii) and paragraph (5)(b), the day bargaining starts for a proposed agreement is:

(a) if a supported bargaining authorisation or single interest employer authorisation is in operation in relation to the proposed agreement—the day that the authorisation first comes into operation; or

(b) otherwise—the notification time for the proposed agreement.

The amendments on Sheet 1780 ensure that there will be a statutory review no later than two years after the commencement of the legislation. The review will look at, among other things, whether the operation of the amendments made by this act is appropriate and effective and identify any unintended consequences of the amendment made by this act and whether amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 or any other legislation are necessary to improve the operation of the amendments made by this act or rectify any unintended consequences identified. The persons who conduct the review must give the minister a written report of the review within six months of the commencement of the review, and the minister must then table a copy of the report within 15 sitting days. The amendment on sheet 1781 effectively extends the grace period from six months to nine months by altering the minimum bargaining period. This was something that came up repeatedly in the committee process.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will not be supporting Senator Pocock's amendment requiring a review to commence after two years of the legislation coming into force. This amendment then gives six months before the review needs to be completed and a further 15 sitting days before it needs to be tabled. Given where we'll be in the electoral cycle, this amendment will essentially mean that it will be at least 2.5 years—possibly three years or longer—before any review is actually completed and tabled in the parliament. The extreme changes being proposed by the government, which will pass this chamber shortly, need to be reviewed independently and much sooner, given the significant ramifications that this bill could have on Australian workplaces and the Australian economy. Most concerningly, this amendment doesn't even say that the review should be independent. There's nothing stopping the minister from getting his own department or one of his friends to conduct a review of the legislation and literally say glowing things which are not true. So we would argue, Senator Pocock, that it should be an independent review.

I understand you've also moved your amendment on sheet 1781, by leave, together. In relation to sheet 1781, the coalition will not be supporting Senator Pocock's amendment, which requires that the minimum bargaining period increase from six months to nine months. The amendment does nothing to make what is an incredibly bad bill any better. Businesses will still be forced to bargain against their own will, potentially with their competitors. This amendment will undoubtedly only lead to the words of businesses across Australia ringing true: more strikes and less jobs.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will be supporting this amendment because it will make it less likely that arbitration could be misused by employers who want to remove hard-won conditions and wages. If employers disagree with the term of an expired enterprise agreement, the Greens are worried they could act in bad faith by simply refusing to negotiate and then roll the dice and hope the commission arbitrates in their favour. The government has gone a long way to removing employers' terminating agreements as a bargaining tactic to undermine existing conditions, something we fully support.

While the Greens have been able to secure some changes to help prevent employers undermining existing conditions, we flag this concern and we will be paying close attention to ensure the arbitration provisions do not get abused by employers. This is something the statutory review, which we also support, needs to pay close attention to.

The CHAIR: The question before the committee of the whole is that the amendments on sheet 1780 and 1781 as moved by Senator D Pocock be agreed to.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendment numbers 1-7 on sheet 1761 together:

(1) Schedule 1, Divisions 1 and 2, page 130 (line 2) to page 131 (line 17), omit the Divisions, substitute:

Division 1 — Requests for flexible working arrangements

Fair Work Act 2009

446 Subsections 65(1), (1A) and (1B)

Repeal the subsections, substitute:

(1) If an employee would like to change his or her working arrangements, the employee may request the employer for a change in 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) Schedule 1, item 459, page 132 (lines 4 and 5), omit "relating to circumstances that apply to the employee".

(3) Schedule 1, item 459, page 132 (lines 20 and 21), omit "to accommodate the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1)".

(4) Schedule 1, item 459, page 133 (lines 34 to 36), omit "that would accommodate, to any extent, the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) and".

(5) Schedule 1, item 463, page 134 (lines 25 and 26), omit "relating to circumstances that apply to the employee".

(6) Schedule 1, item 463, page 136 (lines 25 and 26), omit "to accommodate, to any extent, the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 65B(1)(a)".

(7) Schedule 1, Part 11, page 138 (after line 9), at the end of the Part, add:

Division 5 — Positive duty for flexible working arrangements

Fair Work Act 2009

469AA After paragraph 336(1)(c)

Insert:

(ca) to protect the ability of persons to balance work and family responsibilities, and in doing so to promote gender equality;

469AB After section 351

Insert:

351A Positive duty to ensure flexible working arrangements are made available

Positive duty

(1) An employer must take reasonable and proportionate measures to ensure that, as far as possible, flexible working arrangements are made available to the employees of the employer to assist them to balance their work and family responsibilities.

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

(2) The following matters are to be taken into account in determining whether an employer complies with subsection (1):

(a) the size, nature and circumstances of the employer's business or undertaking;

(b) the employer's resources, whether financial or otherwise;

(c) the practicability and the cost of making flexible working arrangements available;

(d) whether the employer has complied with any guidelines prepared and published by the FWC under subsection (3);

(e) any other relevant matter.

FWC guidelines

(3) The FWC has the function to prepare, and to publish in such manner as the FWC considers appropriate, guidelines for complying with subsection (1).

(4) In performing its functions under subsection (3), the FWC must have regard to:

(a) the need for guidelines to be available in multiple languages; and

(b) the cultural diversity of Australian workplaces.

Positive duty additional to requirements und er Division 4 of Part 2-2

(5) To avoid doubt, the requirement in subsection (1) applies in addition to the requirements in Division 4 of Part 2-2 (requests for flexible working arrangements).

469AC Subsection 539(2) (cell at table item 11, column 1)

After "351(1)", insert:

351A(1)

This amendment does two things. It widens the eligibility for the right to request flexibility, and it establishes a positive duty in favour of creating flexible workplace in Australia. It's 2022. Flexibility should be available to all employees, not just those with narrowly defined family responsibilities. It's only when seeking flexibility is something available to all that the stigma will be removed from asking for it, and we will see more men seeking flexibility and hopefully sharing domestic and care duties as a consequence. Wider eligibility for flexibility has been adopted in the UK, based on clear evidence about its value. Guess what? The sky has not fallen.

The second part of this amendment establishes a positive duty to create flexible workplaces. A modern workplace should create an environment that actively anticipates and responds to the needs of its workers and doesn't require individuals to have to push for it one by one individually, too often at risk of job security. So many employers already do this, talking to employees. This amendment will encourage others to create that positive flexible environment.

The CHAIR: I'm now going to put the question. The question before the committee is that Greens amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 1761 as moved by Senator Barbara Pocock be agreed to.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (3), on sheet 1758, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 5 (after table item 32A), insert:

(2) Schedule 1, page 250 (after line 5), after Part 25A, insert:

Part 25B — Minimum wage

Fair Work Act 2009

659C Section 12

Insert:

median national hourly wage means the median weekly total cash earnings for all full-time employees paid at the adult rate of pay, most recently published by the Australian Statistician, divided by 38.

659D After subsection 294(1)

Insert:

(1A) The monetary amount per hour produced by the national minimum wage must at least equal 60% of the median national hourly wage.

Note: The national minimum wage must be expressed in a way that produces a monetary amount per hour (see section 295).

(3) Schedule 1, Part 26, page 263 (after line 15), after Division 19, insert:

Division 20 — Amendments made by Part 25B of Schedule 1 to the amending Act

85 Definitions

In this Division:

phase in period: see paragraph 87(1)(a).

86 Application of amendments — national minimum wage orders

Orders that come into o peration after phase in period

(1) Subsection 294(1A) (as inserted by the amending Act) applies in relation to a national minimum wage order that comes into operation after the end of the phase in period.

Orders made and that come into operation during pha se in period

(2) If a national minimum wage order is made, and comes into operation, during the phase in period, the national minimum wage set by the order must reflect the phase in referred to in subclause 87(1).

(3) Subclause (2) does not apply to the national minimum wage set by a national minimum wage order, if:

(a) FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the phase in, in relation to that particular national minimum wage order; and

(b) the national minimum wage order includes the FWC's reasons for the departure.

87 FWC must phase in increases in national minimum wage

FWC must determine rate of phase in

(1) In the first national minimum wage order that comes into operation after the commencement of the amending Act, the FWC must set out:

(a) the period (the phase in period) during which the effect of any increases in the national minimum wage that will be required because of subsection 294(1A) (as inserted by the amending Act) are to be phased in; and

(b) the rate of the phase in during that period.

(2) The phase in period must end no later than 6 years after the commencement of the amending Act.

(3) In determining the rate of the phase in, FWC must have regard to the following matters:

(a) the need to reduce inequality;

(b) the state of the economy;

(c) the circumstances of particular industries and classes of employers;

(d) any other matters the FWC considers relevant.

Special rules if a national minimum wage order is made shortly before commencement

(4) If the first national minimum wage order that is to come into operation after the commencement of the amending Act is made before that commencement, the FWC must, after that commencement and before the national minimum wage order comes into operation, make a determination varying the order so that the order complies with subclauses (1) to (3).

(5) To avoid doubt, subclause (4) applies despite paragraph 296(3)(a).

Note: Paragraph 296(3)(a) restricts the grounds on which a national minimum wage order can be varied.

(6) A determination made in accordance with subclause (4):

(a) comes into operation immediately after the order as unvaried comes into operation; and

(b) takes effect at the same time as the order.

(7) The following provisions apply to a determination made in accordance with subclause (4) as if the determination was made under Part 2-6:

(a) subsection 296(2) (publication requirements);

(b) subsection 617(3) (determination must be made by Expert Panel).

88 Application of amendments — ot her Commonwealth laws

(1) This clause applies in relation to a payment if:

(a) the payment is of a kind that is payable by the Commonwealth under a law of the Commonwealth (other than this Act); and

(b) the law requires the payment to be calculated (however described) by reference to the national minimum wage set by a national minimum wage order.

Note: A kind of payment to which subclause (1) applies may be a kind of payment that is also payable by persons other than the Commonwealth (for example, parental leave pay under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010).

(2) A national minimum wage set by a national minimum wage order that comes into operation after the commencement of the amending Act does not apply for the purposes of the calculation of the payment.

(3) Subclause (2) does not apply if the payment is prescribed by the regulations.

These amendments would enshrine in law a new minimum wage—a living wage. The rising cost of housing, energy, food and everyday essentials, combined with low wage growth, means that many working people are living in poverty. In a rich country like Australia, people earning the minimum wage shouldn't be struggling to make ends meet.

These amendments lift the national minimum wage to a living wage, which we define, like many other countries, as 60 per cent of the median full-time weekly wage, as determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The amendments will allow the Fair Work Commission to determine the phase-in period and the amounts for this increase, which should be no longer than six years. The Fair Work Commission must have regard in these amendments to matters including: reducing inequality; the state of the economy; and the circumstances of particular industries and classes of employers.

The Greens recognise the government's intention to lift wages through this bill, and that's to be applauded and it's long overdue, but we believe we need to lift the floor of the minimum wage so workers aren't in poverty and inequality narrows.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Original question negatived.

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

by leave—I move Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendments (1) to (8), on sheet 1768, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 426, page 116 (before line 10), before the definition of gender identity, insert:

COVID-19 vaccination status means the status of a person relating to whether, and to what extent, the person has been vaccinated against the coronavirus known as COVID-19 (including any subsequent variants of that virus).

(2) Schedule 1, item 427, page 116 (line 17), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,".

(3) Schedule 1, item 429, page 117 (line 3), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,".

(4) Schedule 1, item 432, page 118 (line 3), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,".

(5) Schedule 1, page 118 (after line 3), after item 432, insert:

432A Paragraph 351(2)(a)

Before "not unlawful", insert "for action taken other than because of a person's COVID-19 vaccination status—".

(6) Schedule 1, item 433, page 118 (line 6), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,".

(7) Schedule 1, item 436, page 118 (line 23), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,".

(8) Schedule 1, item 437, page 119 (line 23), omit "or intersex status,", substitute ", intersex status or COVID-19 vaccination status".

In proposing this bill, the government says the bill aims to secure jobs. My amendments on sheet 1768 go to the heart of ensuring job security and protecting workers' rights. To ensure job security, my amendments on sheet 1768 ensure that unjustified vaccine discrimination is stamped out in employment.

The original bill inserts breastfeeding, intersex status and gender identity as attributes that the Fair Work Act protects from discrimination. These amendments copy that approach and simply add COVID-19 vaccination as an attribute protected from discrimination. The protection is still subject to the limits imposed on the other discrimination grounds in the Fair Work Act. An employer, for example, will not be in breach of the antidiscrimination grounds where the employer can prove, as they should have to, that it is a genuine and reasonable requirement of the position. These amendments are reasonable. In their approach, they are not radical because they use and simply extend the existing mechanisms in the Fair Work Act.

We've long known that COVID vaccines do not stop transmission. Before this became apparent, getting vaccinated 'to protect others' was the justification many businesses used to roll out vaccine mandates that squashed people's jobs, livelihoods and careers. As a condition of keeping their job, many employees were coerced—and still are being coerced—into receiving COVID vaccinations and boosters they do not want. These vaccine mandates cannot be justified, given the fact vaccines do not guarantee protection from transmission. The New South Wales Personal Injury Commission recently agreed with this view, with workers' compensation being awarded for psychological distress stemming from the mandates in the determination of Dawking v Secretary (Department of Education), handed down on 3 November.

Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly, yet we are happy that judicial bodies are taking up this self-evident position that broad vaccination mandates cannot be justified. Despite this, mandates are still in effect across the private sector. It's clear that further legislative action needs to be taken. Businesses are simply ignoring the evidence against unjustified vaccine mandates. A clear message needs to be sent that unreasonable directions that infringe on workers' rights have no place in Australian workplaces.

Often, mandates do not even account for Australians who have accepted medical contra-indications to vaccination. The Australian newspaper reports that Qantas sacked a pilot for failing to comply with a vaccination mandate while he was off work, in a serious condition, being treated for bowel cancer. Separately, I have met with a Qantas employee, who after being injected with the first COVID injection, was rushed to hospital with severe, possibly life-threatening, disability due to the COVID injection. After hospital care and partial recovery, he returned to work, where Qantas insisted he get the second injection. He contested it and is now on vastly reduced pay on workers compensation. He fears his career with Qantas is finished That is discrimination.

This amendment seeks to reinforce workers' rights to refuse a workplace direction where it is not a reasonable and justified requirement of the job. It leaves no doubt for employees and employers that vaccine mandates must not be in place unless there is a reasonable and justifiable need for them. Minister, given that businesses continue to ignore workers' rights in this area, will the government support this amendment to reinforce the decisions of the Fair Work Commission and codify protections for workers against unreasonable workplace directions?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

CANAVAN () (): I'd like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Roberts and indicate to the chamber that I will be supporting his amendments because I support workers' rights. A fundamental right of every Australian should be to earn a livelihood to support their family. That should be a basic right. In fact, it's a right we have signed up to in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. One of the enshrined human rights that we as a country have signed up to is the right to work to provide for your family. With the introduction of vaccine mandates last year, we denied that right to thousands of Australians who were thrown out onto the streets and had no way to provide for their families, in the short term at least.

The mandates were never justifiable. Even I thought at the time that there was no evidence that the vaccine stopped transmission. Really, the only justification you could have to overturn and override that fundamental human right would be if somehow getting the vaccine protected a third party. I said at the time, and I'll say now that if we had a vaccine that could stop COVID in its tracks and prevent that death, I would consider some limitations on other rights. That's the way rights work. There is a right to life, as well. Sometimes we have to weigh these different human rights up. But if it wasn't apparent a year ago, it is clearly and starkly evident today that, for whatever the merits of the coronavirus vaccines, they do not stop transmission. Someone's else not having the vaccine is of no risk to you or anybody else in our society, and we know that now because we've largely got rid of mandates, in any case. They're gone, largely, but they are not completely removed. They still exist in the resources sector, where I come from in Central Queensland, where people have been locked out from their jobs because some companies have dug their heels in, if you like, and are maybe embarrassed to back down on the very strong stances they took a year ago that have proven to be wrong.

We have an opportunity, when we're debating this type of legislation, to protect the rights of workers and to protect the rights of individual Australians to provide for their families. There can be no justification now to continue these mandates. Keep in mind, too, that even if you supported the mandates—I've never seen a mandate for a booster; I actually don't know. I think some health authorities might, but all of the mandates I've seen in private companies are for the original two shots. For anyone who took the original two shots on the timeline for most of us—that is, by late last year—they've already worn out. We know that from the science. The science says that, after 12 months—well, after six months really, but after 12 months definitely—there is no more impact of those first two shots.

So, if you thought this was an issue or if these private companies thought there was a risk, why aren't they mandating the third shot—the booster—or a fourth shot? They're not doing that because they'd lose a lot of their workers if they did. These have no basis in science. All they are doing is hurting Australian families—admittedly fewer than last year. Thankfully, most of these mandates, as I say, have gone. The state governments have largely got rid of them in their laws, but there are still people being hurt by this. There are still people being harmed by it. They have no justification. I will once again stand up for the right of all Australian workers to make decisions about their health care when it doesn't affect the health of others.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make some brief comments in support of this, and I thank Senator Roberts for bringing this important amendment to the chamber. To add to Senator Canavan's comments on the subject: I think this is a topic which has picked up some acceleration over the last period. We're not in December 2021 anymore. A lot of the stuff we actually did know at this time last year—or that many of us knew—is now plainly evident. And as Senator Canavan said, the science is now settled on this issue. Transmission of the COVID virus is not affected by the use of these therapies. They are experimental therapies, and, at the end of the day, people have to accept that. I know there's a degree of cynicism in this room and there has been a period of 12 to 18 months of name-calling—antivax and this, that and the other—but the reality is that people have been forced into a very difficult decision over the past 12 to 18 months in order to keep their livelihood or take a risk on this therapy, and that has been wrong.

What we have seen in the last two years, in my view, is one of the greatest scandals in Australian history—certainly in Australian medical history. This parliament and this Senate need to take the opportunity now to support this amendment—I support this amendment—and allow people the opportunity to return to work without the fear of losing their job because of a medical choice. There is no risk to the public. We have got private companies that are still engaging in this, and we need to set the tone here now. We hear a lot about the party of the workers: the Australian Labor Party. Let me tell you: the trade union movement bailed out on Australian workers on this issue.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

CFMMEU did.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that's true. It would be very interesting to be where I'm standing in defence of the CFMMEU, but, in any event, that is a very fair point and I'll take that from Senator Canavan. But there are workers out there. If you'd seen the emails that come through my office and no doubt Senator Rennick's office on a daily basis—surely there is some humanity left in this place. It's time for us to support this. I support it and I ask that others do.

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

Here we are at the end of 2022, and we've had over 10 million cases of COVID. The Australian health department, of course, stopped counting around September sometime because, I think, it was getting too embarrassing to admit that, despite over 20 million people having been vaccinated, over half the country had caught COVID. Whatever happened to protecting you? But we don't want to talk about that anymore. We'll just pull it off the website and we'll not discuss it. Then we've got the excess deaths that Senator Babet talked about before. We had 8,706 extra deaths last year, despite the fact that New South Wales locked down for three months. So, in theory, the deaths should have been lower, like they were in 2020, but let's not count 2021 in the ABS figures—sorry, it's 2020 they're not counting. Let's pretend nothing happened there.

There were almost 140,000 jab injuries—more than all the injuries reported from vaccines since 1971 and more than all the injuries put together. You've got an injury rate that's three times higher, yet the TGA don't want to look at the signal. The whole point of having a database where doctors report these injuries, where they tick the box 'suspected'—and, as the doctors say, they don't fill these forms out because they don't have the spare time. They don't have a lazy 20 or 30 minutes sitting around, filling these forms out, if someone fell off a bike. No, no—they're ticking these boxes because they believe that the vaccine caused the injury that they are reporting. Yet the TGA want to pretend that there's nothing to see here. And why wouldn't they? Professor Skerritt is head of an organisation that is funded by big pharma. If you want to talk about a conflict of interest, that's it. These guys have no idea what they are talking about.

I asked Professor Brendan Murphy, who was the chief health officer at the time, whether or not he'd actually read the non-clinical report into the Pfizer vaccine. Guess what? He hadn't read it. Despite that, he had been saying for a couple of days prior to that that the spike protein wasn't in the blood. Had he read the report, he would have known that they never even tested the spike protein.

And they would have also known that, when they did the animal trials, that the report said there was no difference in lung inflammation between the placebo group and the vaccinated group after nine days. There was not one skerrick of evidence that showed that that vaccine was effective. But did anyone in this chamber right here, right now, actually read that report? I bet not, but you all went out there and said it was safe and effective, when you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. Shame on you. Because the law in this country, in the Australian Immunisation Register, says, No. 1, you cannot be coerced into taking a vaccine, and, No. 2, you need to be properly informed about what is in the vaccine.

You've got to dig very far to get to the bottom of this stuff, but that spike protein in the vaccine isn't even the same as the spike protein in the virus. No. They've actually changed one of the nucleotide and they've actually got a synthetic gene in the vaccine. They've added 17 nucleotides to the poly(A) tail, which is designed to make it last longer. It's designed to last longer.

The mRNA in the trials was shown to last for up to nine days. The lipids were shown to last at least two days, and they stopped the trials. Despite the fact that it doubled—

Listen to this, Senator Hanson-Young: despite the fact that the concentration of the lipids that are cationic would double in the ovaries from day one to day two, do you know what they did? They stopped the trial. They stopped the trial and they went and told everyone that it just stays at the site of injection. That was a blatant lie. If you want to talk about misinformation, go and check out page 44 of the Pfizer non-clinical trial report. It was released on the TGA FOI disclosure log 239-6. I've read it numerous times. Guess what, you should also read the top paragraph of page 8, that says, 'The study suggests that the spike protein can be either inserted into the membrane or secreted from the cell.' What does that tell you? I'll tell you what that tells you. It tells you that rather than killing the actual pathogen, which is what a normal vaccine would have done, this particular vaccine goes inside your cell, takes over the reproduction—the ribosomes, which are what produce the protein—and then starts producing more of the toxic substance. That is not the name of the game. You want to actually kill the virus; you do not want to reproduce it. And, of course, Brendan Murphy, the then chief health officer, claimed that there was nothing to worry about. He never read the document.

Then we've got Professor Kelly. He came out and made the bold statement that it stops transmission. He was lying, because the FDA came out in December 2020 and said that there was no evidence that the vaccine stopped transmission. When I pressed him on it, there are no trials to show that there's any IgA in the mucosal system. You don't have to take my word for it. Go and speak to Robert Clancy, Australia's foremost immunologist and vaccinologist. He's retired. You can trust this guy. He's not on the take from big pharma or the big universities that aren't actually interested in research; they're just interested in lining their own pockets.

Then, of course, we've got the vaccine injury scheme, which is just a joke. Today, and last night, and day after day for the last 15 months, I get contacted by people who have had their lives destroyed by this vaccine—a vaccine that the government said was safe and effective. And if isn't bad enough that these people—I'm looking at you people in this chamber here today—didn't read the documents, this took over someone else's body because it suited your narrative, your command-and-control narrative. You showed no humanity—no humanity. There are people out there who are not only injured; they have lost their jobs, and they cannot get medical support to help them. There are husbands and wives who had to quit their jobs to stay home and look after those people who are injured and are in an incredible amount of pain.

The fact that you're interjecting, Senator Hanson-Young, just goes to show the type of person you are.

The CHAIR: Senator Rennick!

How dare you come into this chamber and start mocking the vaccine injured!

The CHAIR: Senator Rennick, please sit down.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order: reflecting on another senator, as well as being odious and tedious.

The CHAIR: Not the second part. Senator Rennick, just withdraw to the extent that you made an adverse inference.

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

I withdraw. The fact is that the Greens Party can sit in that corner over there and mock and laugh at the vaccine injured. These people aren't antivaxxers. They believed what the government told them, as I did when I first came to this place. But I can tell you what: there's nothing but a cesspit of lies in this place. The fact is that the Greens Party think that they can just sit there and mock the injured. These people believed in the government.

You want to talk about trust and transparency. Oh, yes, there's Senator Waters again, mocking and going, 'Come on.' Maybe you should pick up the phone. Maybe you people should pick up the phone and talk to some of these people who have been injured.

When we go to the basis, the substance, of this act, the Fair Work Act, this is a public health issue. The idea that businesses in this country can be responsible for the transmission of an airborne virus is just as absurd as the billions of dollars that are getting wasted on the idea that you can control some tiny trace gas in the atmosphere. We are living in the land of the unicorn farmers and intellectual pygmies who are just chasing the impossible dream. Like Sancho Panza chasing the windmills, it is absurd. Yet we stand here today, almost three years after the virus broke out in China or whatever, and we still have these ridiculous mandates in so many places, particularly in private industry, which is what this amendment will address.

They are still being coerced into getting a vaccine. I've literally had three messages in just the last hour about people who are losing their jobs, not in the health sector but in sectors that are outdoors—they have nothing to do. It is absurd, and it needs to stop, because the state of emergency, even at the state government level, has been retracted, yet these people here today do not want to grant people their autonomous right to control what goes into their bodies.

And I might remind members of the LNP that one of our values is the dignity and worth of every individual. We don't believe in multi-patent bargaining, because we recognise that every business is unique, and we think that the employer and the employee should have the first right in deciding what's best for them. That is what we believe in. We believe in empowering individuals to make the decisions that suit their needs the best, and only the individual or the parent of the child can make that decision.

But what we've got here today is typical command and control. We've got the Labor Party and the Greens protecting their own narrative that the government can save us. 'Govern me harder, Daddy!'—that is what these people believe in.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To stop this rubbish, I move:

That the question be put.

The C HAIR: The question before the committee is that the question be put.

The CHAIR (17:35): The question is that the amendments on sheet 1768 moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.