|
senate vote 2009-03-17#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-01-24 12:41:13
|
Title
Description
<p>Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.</p>- <p class="speaker">Trish Crossin</p>
- <p>
- The question is that opposition amendments (6) to (12) on sheet 5739 revised be agreed to.</p>
- <p>Question negatived.</p>
- <p class="speaker">The Temporary Chairman</p>
- <p>The question is that opposition amendment (13) on sheet 5739 revised be agreed to.</p>
- <p>Question put.</p>
-
<p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 16 March 2009.</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>I have a number of general matters that I seek to raise in relation to this bill. The Senate is now finally commencing discussion of the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4016">Fair Work Bill 2008</a> in the committee stage and, depending on some of the answers that I may or may not get in relation to the matters that I raise, I foreshadow potential further amendments. I will go through a number of questions for the minister to answer. The first and most important one for all Australians is whether or not the government is willing to provide the assurance that no worker will be worse off as a result of the changes being made to the industrial relations regime by this legislation.</p><p>I then ask whether the government are willing to provide similar assurances that no employer, community organisation or, indeed, consumer will be worse off as a result of these changes. Of course, just to contextualise it, it was the Australian Labor Party that demanded a similar guarantee from the previous government. They made a big song and dance about that, and I think it appropriate for this government now to indicate whether they are able to give the sort of assurance that they were demanding of the previous government.</p><p>Can I also invite the minister to confirm that in the bill that is before us, which is some 570 pages, about 10 per cent of it or more is now to be amended by government amendments, with 52 pages of amendments—albeit that we have just had circulated some further and revised government amendments: one of eight pages and this one, QW366, which is of some nine pages. We are now having revisions of amendments being put by the government. I would like to know how many separate changes there now are. I understood there were 218, but we now have more. There are 14 separate documents outlining all of these amendments—if I am correct, 52-plus pages of amendments and, of course, 50 pages of an additional explanatory memorandum. I just think it is important that we know the full extent.</p><p>I believe it is also incumbent on the minister to advise the Senate what deals, if any, have been done with the minor parties in relation to a whole range of issues. For example, has the government indicated it is willing to support an amendment by Senator Fielding to provide that a union permit holder exercising right of entry for the purpose of investigating an alleged breach may only inspect documents relating to employees who are not members of the permit-holder’s union if that employee gives written consent or if Fair Work Australia determines that it should be permitted to do so?</p><p>I would also be interested to know whether the government has agreed to support an amendment by Senator Xenophon to include an additional explanatory note to the provision regarding representation as a further guide to Fair Work Australia that small businesses and employees without expertise in or who have difficulties with English should be able to be represented before Fair Work Australia. If these sorts of agreements have been reached, when are we going to be seeing the amendments that relate to them? Has the government indicated it will support an amendment moved by Senator Xenophon which waives the requirement to provide 24 hours notice of intention to enter for the outworker sector? If that is the case, I am not sure at this stage whether any amendments have, in fact, been circulated in the name of Senator Xenophon. If the government is agreeing to these things behind the scenes—and they may well be good amendments—when will the party that has the most seats in this place be given the courtesy of an indication as to what those amendments might be?</p><p>I am also inquiring as to whether the government has agreed to support an amendment by the Greens in relation to the National Employment Standards for carers of disabled children under 18 years of age regarding a right to request flexible working arrangements—an issue, might I add, that I pursued throughout the committee hearings and was expecting the government to move an amendment about. It did not, but the Greens did and I congratulate them on that. But if an agreement has been reached, I think it would be appropriate for us to be told at the commencement. Indeed, there are a number of other hunches that I have in relation to the agreements reached by the government with crossbench senators. From that perspective, I think we are entitled to be given a full explanation. Indeed, I just note that there is now a revised running sheet with further amendments and proposals.</p><p>Can I just also ask the minister—possibly in his role as Minister for Human Services; in a bizarre way, it does apply to this legislation—about community organisations. There is one in my home state of Tasmania called Community Based Support—South Inc; they provide great support to people in need in their homes. In their February 2009 newsletter, they write:</p><p class="italic">The election of the Rudd Labor Government brought an effective end to Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). From April 2009 our support workers will mostly work under the Community Services Award.</p><p class="italic">Will this spell the end of consumer choice of worker and time of services? The answer for many is “unfortunately, probably yes”, mainly due to the enormous cost of continuing current work patterns under the Award (costs would at least double).</p><p>Now, that is just one of the practical implications of the government’s legislation. I am wondering whether the government is making any provision to ensure that organisations such as Community Based Support—South Inc. will be given the extra funding needed so that they are able to continue with the excellent and vital service deliveries that they undertake.</p><p>Having raised that list of introductory questions, I indicate, before I sit down and wait for the answers, that from the opposition’s point of view there are a number of amendments that we will be supporting, government amendments that we believe are technical and make sense. We can also indicate that we have only one matter of concern to us, and that is that we have a practical piece of legislation that will not prejudice jobs and small business and that does not deliver excessive power to the trade union movement. Those are basically the three benchmarks on which we will be judging the proposed amendments as we proceed. If the minister could commence by addressing some of the issues that I have raised, I would be much obliged.</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>Some of those answers will require a little bit of time to collate. As I understand it, that is now underway. In relation to one of the last matters—community based organisations—perhaps I will put my Human Services hat on. It would be helpful if we could take that away and have a look at what the circumstances are in relation to that particular community organisation, particularly the type of funding it accesses or grant that it is on and the length of the grant. There are obviously a range of circumstances that might surround that particular organisation. While I reject the assertion that you make in relation to it, it is worth while in many instances to have a look at the actual circumstances of the community based organisation and work out what type of grant it is being funded by, what purpose the grant is for and of course whom the grant is from. Given that the Human Services portfolio, which I look after, does not provide grants of that nature, it is not within my portfolio, as I understand it. But I am happy to look at it in any event. It may be from FaHCSIA or another Commonwealth department, but I am happy to look into the particular circumstances.</p><p>With respect to the number of amendments, as I understand it we will provide you with those details. With respect to the particular issues that have been negotiated, it is clear that there are a large range of interests in the Senate, with the two independents, yourselves as the opposition and the Greens. These matters do require careful consideration and negotiation, and that has obviously been undertaken and we do have a revised running sheet that details those. What I am looking for is the letters that may assist. We will be able to deal with those shortly as well. I understand they are now being accessed. It is really then open to you whether we do it in seriatim and on each amendment indicate whether there is an agreement and how it is being progressed or whether you want that upfront in a way that may be able to demonstrate what agreements have been reached with respect to the Greens, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding. I am open to either provide that as we deal with each amendment as we go through or, alternatively, see if we can collate that and provide it first. Of course, that would take some time, but we will have the dinner break shortly and I suspect we will be able to undertake that task. Senator Abetz, could you indicate which you would prefer from the latter and the former?</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>Our difficulty is that we do not fully know what is going to be put to us after the dinner break. This legislation has now been around, allegedly in Forward with Fairness, since before the election, but of course the legislation that we now have before us is a significant departure from the election policy and therefore it is very difficult for us to know how best to proceed in relation to that without actually seeing the amendments. So I will have to reserve my position and the coalition’s position in relation to that.</p><p>Whilst that is being determined, I will use the time before dinner to see whether we can get some specific answers, albeit not to matters that are before us at this stage, in relation to amendments. Having been, if I might say, a fairly active participant in the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations inquiry into the Fair Work Bill, I placed a number of questions on notice. I received some written answers. In South Australia, if my memory serves me correctly, we heard from Yum! Restaurants International, a business organisation that is into fast foods. They were concerned about enterprise awards being able to continue under this new regime. I asked: will the legislation allow for new enterprise awards to be made along similar lines to that which Yum! International operates under? The answer that I was provided with says that the transitional bill will ‘allow parties to “modernise” enterprise awards so that they can continue to operate’. That is fine if you have an ongoing enterprise, but my specific question was: will the legislation allow for new enterprise awards? And the written answer did not canvass that. If I could be provided with an answer in relation to that, that would be helpful.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|