Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I inform the chamber and the people of Australia that I am deeply concerned about the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 and consequently do not support it in its current form. I cannot and will not support any legislation that erodes the rights of Queensland workers or, more broadly, Australian workers.

However, I am also aware of the importance of the business sector in Australia and its role in providing the engine room for our economy. In order to achieve economic growth and restore business and consumer confidence, we need to support business to grow and prosper. A growing business sector equals jobs growth. Jobs growth, however, will not be achieved by removing the rights of workers. It will be achieved by stimulating the economy through growth measures and investing in our people, thereby enabling them to succeed.

Restricting our people's access to higher education by deregulating the higher education sector will not achieve this either. This is another reason why I do not support the deregulation of higher education. It will only result in a substantial increase in the cost of university degrees, which will discourage Australians from seeking to better themselves through education. I am hoping that, under Mr Turnbull's leadership, the deregulation bill never sees the light of day again in any way, shape or form.

The Fair Work Amendment Bill comprises many components. While I feel that most components of the bill will have a negative impact on the rights of workers, some components are actually good and deserve support. Accordingly, I am co-sponsoring a raft of amendments to the bill which will knock out the negative elements and retain the good elements. I should mention that there are probably a range of other positive measures that could have been included in the bill. However, as the bill was developed under the Abbott government, and, as per usual, the crossbench and indeed many sectors of the community affected by it were never consulted in the early stages of its formation, we are now burning the midnight oil to try and fix a bad bill that should never have made its way to the Senate in its current form. My hope is that, under the new Turnbull government's leadership, things will change significantly moving forward.

In relation to the bill specifically, I am supporting the removal of a range of sections or parts to cleanse it of its nasty components. These include part 2 of the bill, which relates to the payment of accrued annual leave on termination. It is my view that workers should be paid accrued annual leave on termination at the appropriate rate. Part 3 relates to the accrual of annual leave while receiving workers compensation benefits. Employees on workers compensation are absent from the workplace through no fault of their own and should not be disadvantaged or penalised by losing accrued leave as a result. Part 4 relates to individual flexibility arrangements. I am of the view that this section has the potential to see vulnerable and disadvantaged workers' rights exploited by employers. Accordingly, it has to go.

Part 6 relates to the transfer of employee entitlements across related businesses. I believe that this will disadvantage employees who voluntarily move across businesses within an organisation's group of brands. Part 8 relates to right of entry by unions into workplaces. I am deeply concerned that this will restrict and hamper unions from undertaking their important work of representing the rights and needs of workers in the workplace. Part 9 relates to Fair Work hearings and conferences. I believe that this will remove the requirement for Fair Work to hear the merits of unfair dismissal applications and decide whether to dismiss or hear the cases. Unfair dismissals are often very murky and require the consideration of Fair Work to fully understand the circumstances around them. Therefore it is imperative that this part be removed to ensure that hearing and conferencing arrangements are retained to protect employees.

In addition, I am co-sponsoring an amendment to part 5, which seeks to deal with the way in which greenfields agreements are negotiated. The amendment will extend the negotiating phase of a greenfields agreement to six months from the current proposal of three months. This will provide the platform to enable both the employer and the union to come together in the hope that they can reach an agreement to commence a new project. I understand there are concerns on both sides regarding the way in which parties may approach the negotiating process. However, the amendment does seek to extend the good-faith bargaining framework. In effect, the amendment will allow both parties more time to reach an agreement and, where the process fails, enable Fair Work to become involved and make a determination.

I am pleased that the crossbench has come together to collectively work through this bill. We as a group are acting in the best interests of our states and our constituents. I believe that the people of Australia will be extremely proud of the results we are achieving in this chamber for workers and, more broadly, for all Australians across the country. I note the good work of Senator Day in putting forward an amendment to the Fair Work bill to increase flexibility around the negotiation of greenfields agreements. While I understand the reasons for Senator Day's amendment, I am concerned that such increased flexibility could result in the exploitation of workers who technically cannot vote on workplace agreements because they are not yet employed. For that reason and various other reasons, I have let Senator Day know that I cannot support this amendment. I will be supporting the opposition's amendment which removes part 7 of the bill relating to protected action ballot orders. My reason for supporting this amendment is that the part does not obligate employers to negotiate before any protected action takes place. There may be scope to rework this part in future to ensure that it meets the needs of employees and employers; however, considerable consultation would be required by both sides in order to achieve this. In summary, I believe that the crossbench has achieved a delicate balance between the needs of the business community and the economy and the protection and retention of workers' rights across Australia.