Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion and follow the recommendation that we take note of the report on the Fair Work Amendment (Better Work/Life Balance) Bill 2012. This report is a result of an inquiry that was undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment as a result of a piece of legislation that came before this House in February this year. It was followed by a hearing in Canberra in March. It did receive a considerable degree of interest but perhaps not as much as one might have expected given the title of the proposed bill put forward by the member for Melbourne. Given that it was about a better work/life balance, you would think that there would be a high degree of community participation in this inquiry. In fact, there were 23 submissions, and at the hearing in Canberra there were 12 witnesses.

I certainly want to thank those who submitted, all 23 of them. They are indicative of quite a range of interests. In terms of the public hearing and those who attended, I note—to give a bit of a flavour of the people who participated in this inquiry—that we had the Australian Council of Trade Unions; Carers Australia, who were represented very well; the Centre for Work + Life; the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations; Job Watch Inc.; the Northern Territory Working Women's Centre; the Queensland Working Women's Service; the Australian Industry Group; the University of Melbourne; the Women and Work Research Group; and the Working Women's Centre South Australia. So we have to be very thankful for the participation of these people from across the country on what is an important issue. The Labor Party certainly understands that work/life balance is something that was at the heart of why we were so successful in encouraging the Australian people to vote Labor and reject the Work Choices legislation, which was the other option that they had.

But, despite the central importance of work/life balance for all working Australians, why were there so few? The answer to that perhaps lies in the fact that at the time there was a significant number of bills that had been referred and a significant number of reviews going on which were touching on areas of flexible working conditions. Among those was the Productivity Commission's Caring for older Australians report, which was released on 8 August and being considered by the government at the time. Also crossing over into this area of carer responsibilities and work/life balance was the Productivity Commission's report Disability care and support, which was released on 10 August 2011. And the Advisory Panel on the Economic Potential of Senior Australians had another report. It was entitled Realising the economic potential of senior Australians: turning grey into gold, which I think is an outstanding title and certainly does reflect our particular interest as a government in making sure that the wealth of older Australians' knowledge and work capacity is not overlooked. Then, of course, there was the Australian Law Reform Commission's Family violence and Commonwealth laws: improving legal frameworks report. So all of these were being considered at the same time. It is in light of that background that we can see perhaps a little bit of participation fatigue for some of the peak bodies that represent the interests of so many Australians. But overriding all of that and perhaps most significant are the flexible working arrangements being considered right at this time by an independent review of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations is consulting and expanding the right to request flexible working conditions under the National Carer Recognition Framework. In addition, the General Manager of Fair Work Australia is conducting research right at this time into the extent of individual flexibility arrangements under modern awards and enterprise agreements and the content of those arrangements and also the operations of the provisions of the National Employment Standards in relation to employee requests. All of this research going on at the same time, conducted under section 653 of the Fair Work Act 2009, is due for report by 26 November 2012. With that entire frame of so much work going on by an incredible number of agencies and with that dedicated work being done in relation to the Fair Work Act, perhaps we understand why this bill did not get the attention one initially might have thought it would garner.

Recommendation 1 from the committee's report is:

In light of the Independent Review of the Fair Work Act 2009 currently underway, the Committee recommends the Bill be reconsidered after the Independent Review of the Act has been completed and the Government’s response has been released.

That seems to be an entirely sensible response. We would not want to be putting the cart before the horse when there is so much important work being done to make sure that we have the fullest range of responses and deep considerations that, if change is brought about, are going to affect people's working conditions in a most significant way.

Regarding the current provisions, we have a number of important measures in the Fair Work Act providing for flexible working arrangements. For those who might not be quite aware of what those are, I will always take the opportunity to put it on the record and do a little public education. Section 65 of the act says:

(1) An employee who is a parent, or has responsibility for the care, of a child may request the employer for a change in working arrangements to assist the employee to care for the child if the child:

(a) is under school age; or

(b) is under 18 and has a disability.

Secondly:

(2) The employee is not entitled to make the request unless:

(a) for an employee other than a casual employee the employee has completed at least 12 months of continuous service with the employer immediately before making the request; or

(b) for a casual employee the employee:

  (i) is a long term casual employee of the employer immediately before making the request; and

  (ii) has a reasonable expectation of continuing employment by the employer on a regular and systematic basis.

These are the current provisions. They indicate a sensibility to the challenges that face us as working men and women who are, I think, perhaps increasingly aware that there is a trade-off between our working life, with its demands on us to do our very best and be highly productive, and our very important rights and needs to be in relationship with others and to nurture and sustain those relationships with family, friends and community members, who rely on the goodwill of those closest to them to enhance the outcomes for life.

I would like to put on record the stakeholders' reactions to this bill, and I think they are best characterised in the report. Strong support and considerable opposition are the two ways in which people have reacted to the bill as it was presented. Carers Australia expressed a very important concern. They said that trying to impose orders on employees had the capacity to perhaps invite resistance. This notion of compulsory and non-compulsory negotiation was one that came up frequently in the discussions and submissions.

I go now to my final comments regarding this report and the motion that it be noted. I would like to move to the committee's concluding comments. We note the government's commitment to a review of flexible working arrangements. We certainly note particularly the government's commitment in relation to the right to request for people with responsibility for the care of another person. We endorse the National Carer Recognition Framework and the consultations that DEEWR is currently holding under the National Carer Strategy. In the course of this inquiry, one very important principle emerged: that the committee supported the principle embodied in the bill that the right to request flexible working arrangements should be extended to a particular group of employees other than carers—that is, people who are suffering domestic violence or family violence. These are situations that are, sadly, ever present in our community. They do impact on people's working lives—their capacity to be at work and to be at work in a highly productive way. And they do impact on their capacity to continue to work when many things in the background of someone's life might be in a state of incredible flux, where they might be facing incredible personal and practical challenges.

In this chamber yesterday, I had the privilege of listening to a very passionate and very articulate expose by the member for Kingston of the issues faced by women who suffer domestic violence. She recounted a story of her days working for the SDA union and a woman who had been suffering terrible domestic violence. Very sadly, her husband finally came to her workplace and shot her in her workplace. I do not think any employer, or any employee in that context, would begrudge the need to have a balance to support workers—particularly women, though it can be men and it can be children as well—who find themselves in fraught and difficult conditions. We need to ensure that we respond in practical and genuinely authentic ways to our fellow Australians and in a way that is appropriate to our time, and in 2012 we need to lead in this way as a Labor government.

In closing, I absolutely support the recommendation of the committee that the bill be considered after the independent review has been completed and after the government's response has been released. At such time as that occurs, I expect that there will be a considerably fuller engagement with the larger community than was evident in this case.

Debate adjourned.