|
senate vote 2021-03-18#7
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-07-08 10:59:13
|
Title
Bills — Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021; in Committee- Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021 - in Committee - Transitional arrangements
Description
<p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>On behalf of Senator Patrick, I seek leave to move items (6) to (14) on sheet 1214 together.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-03-18.44.5) that:
- > *[division 2](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6653_first-reps%2F0007;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6653_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0#140cd707c70e41a587b2a65f735567ea) in item 1 of schedule 7 stand as printed.*
- In other words, they voted to keep that division unchanged.
- ### What does Division 2 do?
- Division 2 includes proposed clauses 45 to 48. According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd053):
- > *Proposed clause 45 of Schedule 1 to the Act, at item 1 of Schedule 7 to the Bill provides that employers, employees or employee organisations can apply for the FWC to make a determination to vary an enterprise agreement made before commencement of the reforms to resolve any uncertainty regarding the interaction of the agreement with the proposed definition of casual employee and proposed casual conversion process*
- >
- > *Proposed clause 46 of Schedule 1 to the Act, at item 1 of Schedule 7 provides:
- >
- > * *existing employees that would have met the proposed statutory definition of casual employment when engaged (or when given an offer of employment) will be considered casual employees both at the commencement of the Bill and retrospectively (this does not apply to employees who were the subject of a binding court decision or converted their status prior to commencement)*
- >
- > * *employees that are retrospectively deemed casual employees, who could have otherwise made a claim for accrued entitlements, will not be able to do so*
- >
- > *Proposed clause 47 of Schedule 1 to the Act, at item 1 of Schedule 7 provides a six month transitional period where employers musts assess existing casual employees against conversion eligibility criteria (this includes employees designated as ‘casual’ but who may not meet the proposed statutory definition) and offer conversion, unless reasonable not to do so*
- >
- > *Proposed clause 48 of Schedule 1 to the Act, at item 1 of Schedule 7 requires the FWC, within a six month period after commencement, to review modern awards in force at commencement that make provision for casual employment, and vary their terms which are inconsistent with the proposed amendments.*
<p>Leave not granted.</p><p>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:</p><p class="italic">(6) Schedule 2, page 20 (line 1) to page 36 (line 6), to be opposed.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>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.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>On behalf of Senator Patrick, I again seek leave to move items (7) to (14) on sheet 1214 together.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>On behalf of Senator Patrick, I oppose schedule 3 in the following terms:</p><p class="italic">(7) Schedule 3, page 37 (line 1) to page 62 (line 7), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 3 stand as printed.</p><p>Question negatived.</p><p>I seek leave to move items (8) to (14) on sheet 1214 together.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>On behalf of Senator Patrick, I oppose schedule 4 in the following terms:</p><p class="italic">(8) Schedule 4, page 63 (line 1) to page 65 (line 16), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 4 stand as printed.</p><p>Question negatived.</p><p>On behalf of Senator Patrick, I oppose schedule 6 in the following terms:</p><p class="italic">(9) Schedule 6, page 90 (line 1) to page 92 (line 17), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 6 stand as printed.</p><p>Question negatived.</p><p>I seek leave to move items (10) to (14) on sheet 1214 together.</p><p>A government senator: I missed that, sorry.</p><p>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.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p><p>On behalf of Senator Patrick, I oppose schedule 7 in the following terms:</p><p class="italic">(10) Schedule 7, item 1, page 93 (line 19) to page 98 (line 18), Division 2 to be opposed.</p> <p class="speaker">Ben Small</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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—</p> <p class="speaker">Hon. Senators</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: Order!</p> <p class="speaker">Ben Small</p><p>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.</p><p>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 <i>Financial Review</i> 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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—</p><p class="italic">Senator Pratt interjecting—</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: Order, Senator Pratt!</p><p>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.</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Gerard Rennick</p><p>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.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: Senator Rennick, resume your seat. I would ask everyone to please allow Senator Small to finish his contribution in silence.</p> <p class="speaker">Ben Small</p><p>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—</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: Order, Senator Small!</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Scarr</p><p>A lot was uncertain!</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>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.</p><p class="italic">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.</p> -
-
|