House debates

Thursday, 18 June 2009

Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009

Consideration of Senate Message

Consideration resumed from 17 June.

Senate’s amendments—

(1)    Clause 2, page 2 (table item 9, column 1), omit “and 2”, substitute “to 2E”.

(2)    Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 13), insert:

13A.  Schedule 23, items 9A and 9B

Immediately after the commencement of Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

(3)    Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 15), insert:

15A.  Schedule 23, item 21A

Immediately after the commencement of Part 6-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

15B.  Schedule 23, items 21B and 21C

Immediately after the commencement of Part 6-4 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

(4)    Schedule 3, item 23, page 34 (after line 17), after subitem (1), insert:

(1A)         If there is a dispute about the application of this item which must be resolved by FWA in accordance with item 26, FWA may compare the entitlements which are in dispute:

             (a)    on a ‘line-by-line’ basis, comparing individual terms; or

             (b)    on a ‘like-by-like’ basis, comparing entitlements according to particular subject areas; or

             (c)    using any combination of the above approaches FWA sees fit.

(5)    Schedule 5, item 2, page 58 (after line 23), at the end of subitem (5), add:

   ; and (c)    the likely effects on the relevant industry or industry sector of any modern award that the Commission is considering, or is proposing to make, including on productivity, labour costs and the regulatory burden on businesses.

(6)    Page 165 (before line 1), before Schedule 13, insert:

Schedule 12AUnfair dismissal

1  Meanings of employee and employer

In this Schedule, employee and employer have their ordinary meanings.

2  Meaning of small business employer, for unfair dismissal purposes, prior to 1 January 2011

(1)    For the purposes of the application of Part 3-2 of the FW Act in relation to the dismissal of a person before 1 January 2011, a national system employer is a small business employer if, and only if, the employer’s number of full-time equivalent employees, worked out under this item, is less than 15 at the earlier of the following times (the notice or dismissal time):

             (a)    the time when the person is given notice of the dismissal;

             (b)    immediately before the dismissal.

(2)    The employer’s number of full-time equivalent employees at the notice or dismissal time is worked out as follows:

Method statement

Step 1.        For each person who was an employee of the employer at any time during the period of 4 weeks immediately preceding the day on which the notice or dismissal time occurs, work out the number of ordinary hours (including parts of hours) of the person as the employer’s employee during the period.

                  Note:             Subitem (3) sets out what are a person’s ordinary hours.

Step 2.        If, during the period, the person took leave to which subitem (4) applies, work out the number of hours of leave to which that subitem applies that the person took during the period.

Step 3.       Add together all of the numbers of ordinary hours worked out under step 1, and subtract all of the number of hours of leave worked out under step 2.

Step 4.       Divide by 152 the number worked out under step 3. The result is the employer’s number of full-time equivalent employees at the notice or dismissal time.

                  Note:             The number 152 is based on the maximum number of hours that a full-time employee would work in 4 weeks (being 38 hours per week) excluding reasonable additional hours.

(3)    For the purposes of step 1 of the method statement in subitem (2), the ordinary hours of work of a person as the employer’s employee are:

             (a)    to the extent that a modern award, enterprise agreement or workplace determination applied to the person, and the person was not a casual employee—the ordinary hours of work specified or provided for in that award, agreement or determination; or

             (b)    to the extent that a transitional instrument applied to the person, and the person was not a casual employee—the person’s ordinary hours of work under item 33 of Schedule 3; or

             (c)    to the extent that:

                   (i)    a State industrial instrument applied to the person as a non-national system employee; and

                  (ii)    the instrument specified, or provided for the determination of, the person’s ordinary hours of work; and

                 (iii)    the person was not a casual employee;

                      the ordinary hours of work as specified in, or determined in accordance with, that instrument; or

             (d)    to the extent that no such award, agreement, determination or instrument applied to the person, and the person was not a casual employee:

                   (i)    if the person was a national system employee—the person’s ordinary hours of work under section 20 of the FW Act; or

                  (ii)    if the person was a non-national system employee—what would have been the person’s ordinary hours of work under that section if the person had been a national system employee; or

             (e)    to the extent that the person was a casual employee—the lesser of:

                   (i)    152 hours; and

                  (ii)    the number of hours actually worked by the person.

(4)    This subitem applies to leave, whether paid or unpaid, that the person took if:

             (a)    the person was entitled to the leave in connection with:

                   (i)    the birth of a child of the person or the person’s spouse or de facto partner; or

                  (ii)    the placement of a child with the person for adoption; and

             (b)    the duration of the period of leave has been at least 4 weeks;

        whether or not the person took any other kind of paid leave while taking that leave.

(5)    For the purposes of this item, a national system employer and the employer’s associated entities are taken to be one entity.

(6)    This item has effect despite section 23 of the FW Act.

(7)    Schedule 13, item 13, page 172 (line 16), omit “item 15”, substitute “items 14A and 15”.

(8)    Schedule 13, page 172 (after line 27), after item 14, insert:

14A FWA may order that industrial action is taken to be authorised by a protected action ballot

        (1)    A person who is a bargaining representative for a proposed enterprise agreement may apply to FWA for an order under this item if, before the WR Act repeal day, the person was an applicant specified in an order for a protected action ballot in relation to a proposed collective agreement.

        (2)    The application must be made within 28 days after the WR Act repeal day.

        (3)    FWA may order that industrial action that was authorised under section 478 of the WR Act in relation to the proposed collective agreement is taken to be authorised, in relation to the proposed enterprise agreement, by a protected action ballot under subsection 459(1) of the FW Act, if FWA is satisfied that:

             (a)    on or after 1 March 2009, the person organised or engaged in industrial action, for the purpose of supporting or advancing claims in relation to the proposed collective agreement; and

             (b)    all such industrial action organised or engaged in by the person was:

                   (i)    authorised by a protected action ballot under section 478 of the WR Act; and

                  (ii)    protected action within the meaning of the WR Act; and

             (c)    the person did not first organise or engage in such industrial action on or after the WR Act repeal day; and

             (d)    no collective agreement covering the employees whose employment would have been subject to the proposed collective agreement was approved by those employees before the WR Act repeal day; and

             (e)    the proposed enterprise agreement will cover those employees; and

              (f)    the person is genuinely trying to reach agreement in relation to the proposed enterprise agreement; and

             (g)    it is reasonable in all the circumstances to make the order.

        (4)    Industrial action that is taken to be authorised because of the operation of subitem (3) is only taken to be authorised in relation to employees who:

             (a)    will be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement; and

             (b)    were relevant employees (within the meaning of section 450 of the WR Act) in relation to the proposed collective agreement.

        (5)    For the purposes of subsection 414(3) of the FW Act, the results of the protected action ballot under that Act are taken to have been declared on the day of the order.

(9)    Schedule 22, page 246 (after line 28), after item 62, insert:

62A  Subsection 158(1) of Schedule 1

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

        (1)    A change in the name of an organisation, or an alteration of the eligibility rules of an organisation, does not take effect unless:

             (a)    in the case of a change in the name of the organisation—FWA consents to the change under this section; or

             (b)    in the case of an alteration of the eligibility rules of the organisation:

                   (i)    FWA consents to the alteration under this section; or

                  (ii)    the General Manager consents to the alteration under section 158A.

(10)  Schedule 22, item 63, page 246 (line 29) to page 247 (line 24), omit the item.

(11)  Schedule 22, page 247 (before line 25), before item 64, insert:

63A  After section 158 of Schedule 1

Insert:

158A Alteration of eligibility rules of organisation by General Manager

        (1)    The General Manager must, on application by an organisation in accordance with subsection (2), consent to an alteration of the eligibility rules of the organisation to extend them to apply to persons within the eligibility rules of an association of employers or employees that is registered under a State or Territory industrial law, if the General Manager is satisfied:

             (a)    that the alteration has been made under the rules of the organisation; and

             (b)    that the organisation is a federal counterpart of the association; and

             (c)    that the alteration will not extend the eligibility rules of the organisation beyond those of the association; and

             (d)    that the alteration will not apply outside the limits of the State or Territory for which the association is registered; and

             (e)    as to such other matters (if any) as are prescribed by the regulations.

Note:   If the General Manager consents to the alteration, FWA may make orders that reflect State representation orders (see section 137F).

        (2)    The application must not be made before 1 January 2011, or such later day as the Minister declares in writing.

        (3)    A declaration made under subsection (2) is a legislative instrument, but section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 does not apply to the declaration.

        (4)    If the General Manager consents, under subsection (1), to an alteration, the alteration takes effect on:

             (a)    if a day is specified in the consent—that day; or

             (b)    in any other case—the day of the consent.

(12)  Schedule 22, item 82, page 249 (lines 18 to 21), omit subparagraph 6(c)(i), substitute:

                   (i)    unless subparagraph (ii) or (iii) applies—the fifth anniversary of the earliest day on which an organisation can make an application in accordance with subsection 158A(2); or

(13)  Schedule 22, item 82, page 249 (line 25), omit “commencement”, substitute “day”.

(14)  Schedule 22, item 82, page 249 (line 28), omit “commencement”, substitute “day”.

(15)  Schedule 22, item 89, page 257 (line 23), omit “employee organisations”, substitute “organisations of employees”.

(16)  Schedule 22, item 89, page 258 (after line 12), at the end of section 137B, add:

        (3)    If:

             (a)    the eligibility rules of an organisation of employees have been altered with the consent of the General Manager under section 158A; and

             (b)    because of the alteration, members of an association of employees registered under a State or Territory industrial law have become eligible for membership of the organisation;

a reference in this section to the organisation includes a reference to the association referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection.

(17)  Schedule 22, item 89, page 258 (after line 30), after the heading to Part 4, insert:

137F FWA may make orders reflecting State representation orders

        (1)    If:

             (a)    the eligibility rules of an organisation of employees have been altered with the consent of the General Manager under section 158A; and

             (b)    because of the alteration, members of an association of employees that is registered under a State or Territory industrial law (a State registered association) have become eligible for membership of the organisation; and

             (c)    immediately before the alteration took effect, an order (a State representation order) was in force that:

                   (i)    was made by a State industrial authority in relation to the State registered association; and

                  (ii)    was an order of the same kind as, or of a similar kind to, an order that FWA could make under this Chapter in relation to an organisation;

FWA may, on application by the organisation or by a party to the State representation order, make an order in relation to the organisation that is to the same effect, or substantially the same effect, as the State representation order.

        (2)    The order under subsection (1) applies to each organisation that is:

             (a)    a federal counterpart of the State registered association; or

             (b)    a federal counterpart of any other association of employees:

                   (i)    that is registered under a State or Territory industrial law; and

                  (ii)    to which the State representation order applied.

(18)  Schedule 22, item 353, page 285 (lines 24 and 25), omit the item.

(19)  Schedule 22, page 286 (after line 9), after item 359, insert:

359A  Subsection 158(5) of Schedule 1

Omit “the Commission” (wherever occurring), substitute “FWA”.

(20)  Schedule 23, page 315 (after line 10), after item 2, insert:

2A  At the end of subsection 22(2)

Add:

           ; (c)    any other period of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

2B  After subsection 22(3)

Insert:

     (3A)    Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) may prescribe different kinds of periods for the purposes of different provisions of this Act (other than provisions to which subsection (4) applies). If they do so, subsection (3) applies accordingly.

2C  Paragraph 22(4)(a)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

             (a)    a period of service by a national system employee with his or her national system employer is a period during which the employee is employed by the employer, but does not include:

                   (i)    any period of unauthorised absence; or

                  (ii)    any other period of a kind prescribed by the regulations; and

2D  Paragraph 22(4)(b)

Omit “of unauthorised absence”, substitute “referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii)”.

2E  After subsection 22(4)

Insert:

     (4A)    Regulations made for the purposes of subparagraph (4)(a)(ii) may prescribe different kinds of periods for the purposes of different provisions to which subsection (4) applies. If they do so, paragraph (4)(b) applies accordingly.

(21)  Schedule 23, page 316 (after line 26), after item 9, insert:

9A  At the end of subsection 371(2)

Add “, or within such period as a court allows on an application made during or after those 14 days”.

9B  At the end of section 371

Add:

Note:   In Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298, the Industrial Relations Court of Australia set down principles relating to the exercise of its discretion under a similarly worded provision of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.

(22)  Schedule 23, page 319 (after line 29), after item 21, insert:

21A  Paragraph 722(a)

Omit “5 of Part 6-1”, substitute “3 of Part 6-4”.

21B  At the end of subsection 779(2)

Add “, or within such period as a court allows on an application made during or after those 14 days”.

21C  At the end of section 779

Add:

Note:   In Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298, the Industrial Relations Court of Australia set down principles relating to the exercise of its discretion under a similarly worded provision of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.

9:05 am

Photo of Robert McClellandRobert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

At the last election the Australian Labor Party promised the Australian people that we would get rid of Work Choices and replace it with a fair and balanced workplace relations system. This new system based on the newly enacted Fair Work Act 2009 comes into effect on 1 July this year and will be fully operational by 1 January 2010. Provisions to ensure a smooth, simple and fair transition to the new system while providing for certainty in employment arrangements are set out in the two transitional and consequential bills which were passed by the House on 2 June. These two bills are the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 and the Fair Work (State Referral and Consequential and Other Amendments) Bill 2009. The Senate has now passed these two bills.

The Fair Work (State Referral and Consequential and Other Amendments) Bill was passed without amendment. The Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill has also been passed by the Senate but with a number of amendments. The House now has to consider these proposed amendments. First, I remind the House that the government accepted amendments in the Senate to the substantive Fair Work Bill where they were in accord with Labor’s commitment to the Australian people in Forward with Fairness and improved the operation of the legislation. The government will take the same approach in relation to these bills and, accordingly, as well as a number of amendments moved by the government we will be accepting the two amendments moved by Senator Xenophon and passed by the Senate.

I now briefly outline for the House the amendments moved by the government in the Senate. In respect of unfair dismissal, during the Senate debate on the Fair Work Bill the government made a commitment to Senator Fielding that, until 1 January 2011, the threshold used to define a small business for the purpose of applying the unfair dismissal arrangements would be less than 15 full-time equivalent employees. The amended provisions now before us reflect that commitment. The calculation of the number of full-time equivalent employees is based on the number of ordinary hours of an employer’s employees over the previous four weeks, including periods of authorised leave, whether that was paid or unpaid. At Senator Fielding’s request, it was agreed that the ordinary hours of employees on parental leave are excluded where that employee has been on parental leave for more than four weeks. From 1 January 2011, the threshold will be based on a simple headcount of employees as provided for in the Fair Work Act. The government has also made a commitment to Senator Fielding to add a further clause to the objects of the Fair Work Act that acknowledges the special circumstances of small and medium sized employers, and this has been done.

The amendments moved by the government and passed by the Senate are intended to improve and clarify a small number of provisions in the bill. In respect of ballots, the bill originally provided that protected action ballots and authorisations under the Workplace Relations Act will be of no effect from 1 July 2009. A government amendment passed by the Senate now allows limited preservation of Workplace Relations Act protected action ballot authorisations after 1 July 2009 on application by a bargaining representative to Fair Work Australia. This will mean that employees and unions who are midway in an industrial campaign will be able to continue to rely on a secret ballot authorisation across the 1 July bridging period avoiding the cost, delay and inconvenience of running a new ballot process.

There are also a number of government amendments passed by the Senate which are intended to further assist state and federally registered organisations to rationalise their affairs and simplify their operations across multiple jurisdictions. These amendments include changes to the provisions allowing federal organisations to extend their eligibility rule to reflect the broader rules of an equivalent state association. There are also changes to ensure that settled demarcations are not reopened by allowing Fair Work Australia to make a federal representation order that reflects a state representation order in situations where a federal organisation has altered its eligibility rules to reflect those of an equivalent state association.

Finally, the list of Senate amendments contains a number of small technical and moderate changes which the government introduced in the Senate. These include provisions for the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court to have the discretion to extend, where appropriate, the 14-day time limit in relation to certain general protection and unlawful termination court applications.

Two additional amendments were moved by Senator Xenophon that the government is also prepared to accept. The first amendment seeks to set out an approach that Fair Work Australia may take when considering an application to resolve the uncertainty or difficulty under item 26 of part 5 of schedule 3 to the bill relating to the interaction between a transitional instrument and the NES. The second amendment adds additional factors to be considered in the award modernisation process and is expressed substantially in terms already set out in the modern awards object in section 134 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Accordingly, the government accepts the amendment.

The government will accept these amendments made to the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 made by the Senate. The list of amendments that we are now considering deserves to be approved by the House because the changes are all consistent with, and help to promote, the government’s overarching commitment to fairness, balance and flexibility in Australian workplaces. I commend these amendments to the House.

9:07 am

Photo of Michael KeenanMichael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | | Hansard source

The opposition will accept the motion. The government amendments are relatively noncontroversial. The amendments of Senator Xenophon deserve greater thought. The most serious problem with this Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 is that there are aspects of it that will directly destroy tens of thousands of Australian jobs. You do not need to take my word for that; you can listen to any of the industries that are going to be affected. They have got independent research. In the fast food industry, 18,000 people are going to be thrown out of work unless this government decides to change tack. In the pharmacy industry, thousands will be thrown out of work. Research done in my home state of Western Australia says that almost 700 people will lose their jobs unless this government listens to reason on this so-called award modernisation process.

The amendments of Senator Xenophon go only a very small way to addressing our concerns. The coalition had far superior amendments, but the government, the Labor Party, would not change tack, they would not listen to reason and they are hell bent on pursuing this course of action no matter what the consequences are for average Australians. Some of the most vulnerable workers in our community are literally going to be thrown out of work unless this government listens to reason and changes aspects of their industrial relations regime. This so-called award modernisation process is in pursuit of what we consider to be a laudable aim. But, like so much that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Ms Gillard, pursues, it has been completely bungled and botched. This is a minister who cannot give the time required to her massive brief, so she bungles in education and she bungles workplace relations, but the consequences in workplace relations are particularly severe because we are talking about people’s livelihoods. We are talking about the ability of Australians to be able to go out there and get a job, particularly in industries which traditionally employ very vulnerable Australians—people who might not be able to find work elsewhere. These amendments will be accepted, but the reality is that the debate about Labor’s industrial relations system, in particular this so-called award modernisation, has a long way to go.

9:13 am

Photo of Robert McClellandRobert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise for the purpose of placing on the record the reasons for rejecting the opposition’s amendments. Applying a global test to the National Employment Standards for transitional instruments as suggested by opposition amendments (1) and (2) would deprive almost all employees of the safety net and, we believe, would be unworkable and uncertain. It is inconsistent with the government’s commitment to ensuring that the National Employment Standards, which underpin employment conditions across the country, are operational from 1 January 2010. The employer cost orders proposed by opposition amendment (4) are also unnecessary, we believe. The award modernisation request already requires the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to consider transitional arrangements and the government has made a submission urging the commission to take account of increased or decreased labour costs in each industry or occupation.

Opposition amendment (7) would take away the ability of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to tailor transitional arrangements for particular industries or sectors, entrenching state based inconsistencies in terms and conditions for another five years, and then providing that they must automatically cease. This big bang approach, we believe, is a recipe for chaos. The commission is best placed to set out an orderly transitional arrangement and arrangements in the awards themselves. Opposition amendment (3) would require the commission to take into account business profitability in carrying out award modernisation. We note that this concept is already covered off in the existing criteria, which require the commission to consider economic sustainability, reducing the regulatory burden on business, the creation of jobs, productivity, high levels of employment and also labour force participation.

9:15 am

Photo of Michael KeenanMichael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | | Hansard source

I will be brief, because I am very keen to assist the business of the House today. But I cannot let the comments of the Attorney-General—the acting minister—go without making some response. What he said was not correct. If he could have been present for the debate yesterday in the Senate he would have heard that the new junior employment minister—granted he has only been in the job for a very short time—was completely unable to address the concerns that were raised by the opposition, the Greens and the Independent senators about the amendments. In relation to our own amendments, what they do in reality is alleviate the worst aspects of the so-called award modernisation process that is going to throw tens of thousands of Australians out of work. That is what we are trying to do. They are considered amendments. The government come back with this nonsense about unintended consequences; they come back with this nonsense, ‘Oh well it’s covered off in other areas.’ If it was, we quite frankly would not have needed to move the amendments.  Do not just listen to the opposition; listen to any of the industries that are going to be affected by these diabolical changes. This is a government that talks about creating jobs and about caring for the employment prospects of Australians, but then we see them come into this House and do things that directly destroy jobs. As I said, this debate has a long way to go.

Question agreed to.