Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare) Share this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting the amendment put forward by the coalition, for the reasons that I outlined in my speech in reply to the second reading debate. To reiterate, a number of practical difficulties have resulted from the removal of coverage of off-site recess breaks. These problems include the inequity to some employees whose employers do not provide on-site facilities for these recess breaks. This is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed, but there is also the difficulty in determining what would or would not constitute an off-site recess break. The example I gave previously was a Telstra technician who is on the road and whose work site really is their vehicle. The opposition's suggestion for how to determine what would or what would not constitute an off-site recess break in these examples is puzzling to us.

A further inconsistency arises in that an employee would be covered when attending employer sanctioned courses at educational institutions both during and outside normal work hours but might not be covered during lunch breaks.

These are sensible and important changes which the government is putting forward. The opposition's amendment seeks to remove a major part of the bill before the House and we will be opposing it.

See this speech in context