Let's go through the issues. What have we seen? We saw the total mismanagement of the NZYQ case itself, an absolute total mismanagement of that case. Then we saw abject failure to prepare for the outcome of that case. Then we saw the incompetent response when the decision was handed down and how 149 dangerous noncitizen detainees were released into our community without adequate preparation. I've quoted in this place the views of a victim of rape when she heard that her convicted rapist was one of the cohort of 149 released into the Australian community. I've quoted her views, her dismay, with respect to the absolute failure of the Albanese Labor government to manage this policy space competently. What else have we seen? Undetected boat arrivals, which Senator Roberts referred to. This isn't Senator Scarr saying this; there's an article from the ABC on 21 February 2024, 'Backstory of a boat arrival and the bizarre day when 39 foreigners landed in a bush community'. That's the ABC reporting on 21 February 2024. Those opposite in the Albanese Labor government talk about misinformation, but what about this story, 'Backstory of a boat arrival and the bizarre day when 39 foreigners landed in a bush community'? Those opposite would prefer we not speak about it. Well, we will speak about it, and we'll speak about it every day until the next federal election because the Australian people have a right to know.
I want to quote from this ABC article:
No vessel has been found, creating further embarrassment for authorities. It's believed the boat skipper did what locals refer to as a 'splash and dash', dropping the men off and sailing back to Indonesia undetected.
That's from an ABC article. This is what is happening in this country. This is what happens when you get the policy settings wrong. I don't blame the wonderful people of Australian Border Force or the Australian Federal Police. This is of the government's making. They got the policy settings wrong, and now they are reaping what they sowed by getting those policy settings wrong.
And there's more. It's never-ending, this nightmare. What do we see? There is an article from Geoff Chambers in the Australian on 16 March that says:
Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil has conceded the government has lost control of key aspects of Australia's migration laws …
The minister herself concedes the government has lost control. I'm sorry, Minister, but, if the government is unable to control our borders under your leadership, maybe you should resign and give someone else a go. Maybe that's the honourable thing for the minister to do. I quote further from the article:
In response to what the government describes as an "unsettled and evolving legal environment", the Department of Home Affairs and the Australian Government Solicitor's office have hired almost 50 lawyers in addition to established legal teams.
This is what is happening under the Albanese Labor government: absolute, abject failure to confidently manage one of the most important portfolios needed to protect Australian communities and Australian citizens. It's an absolute abject failure and incompetence, and we will talk about it every day until the next election.
]]>What have we seen since the Albanese Labor government came to power? We have seen $379 billion more in taxes collected under the Albanese Labor government since they came to power and an additional $209 billion in spending. Now, in the short term, when you had iron ore prices at record highs, you could cover that spending. But the problem is—and this has always been the case—over the cycle, commodity prices come down and that's what we are seeing now. Since the start of the year iron ore prices, for example, have come down by nearly 20 per cent. Commodity prices are coming down. That taxation revenue from the iron ore industry, the mining industry et cetera which has propped up the government spending is simply not going to be there at the same levels next year. Who suffers? The Australian people will suffer.
The RBA put out a document earlier this year which talked about the fall in real disposable income. This is the cost-of-living crisis. This is not a senator's document; this is the RBA. The RBA said, 'The rate of real disposable income has declined by 5.5 per cent since early 2022'—the time of the last election—'the largest decrease observed in around three decades.' In 30 years, real household disposable income has fallen by 5.5 per cent, the highest rate in the last three decades.
Question agreed to.
]]>That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
]]>There is a cohort of former national servicemen of some 2½ thousand who deserve this medal as a matter of equity, fairness and justice. This cohort of former national servicemen have been supported in this campaign by an outstanding advocate—a leader, Mr Richard Barry OAM, a former national serviceman from the 10th intake who served in Vietnam in 6th Battalion RAR. Other advocates have also joined this campaign. They include retired Lieutenant Colonel Bert Hoebee, who is with us here today, together with other supporters of this campaign, including veterans—my deep, deep respects. This cohort of former national servicemen are supported in their quest by our wonderful Australian Vietnamese community, many of whom are here in the gallery today, including veterans of the armed forces of the Republic of Vietnam. I pay my deep respects to each and every one of you. I also recognise the presence of Mr Andrew Wilkie MP in the chamber today.
On 30 April 2021, I attended a Queensland Vietnamese community ceremony at the aptly named Freedom Place in Inala, Brisbane, to mourn the fall of Saigon in 1975. As is the case at every Queensland Vietnamese community event, the service of Australians who fought in Vietnam was deeply and movingly honoured. That occurs at every single Queensland Vietnamese event that I attend. It was in this context that senior members of the Vietnamese community approached me and asked that I advocate for this cohort of former national servicemen. Reflect on that: it was the Vietnamese community who approached me, not the former national servicemen.
Since then, I have been advocating for the Australian government to issue this medal. I've been on this quest for only two years and 10 months. Mr Richard Barry OAM has campaigned for this wrong to be righted for decades. Progress was at last being made in the period leading up to the last federal election. I was informed that the then veterans' affairs minister and the then defence minister in the coalition government had both signed off on the issue of the medal. The matter entered into the whole-of-government process. I was advocating hard for it to be done before the last election. This was in the context where dozens and dozens of current and former parliamentarians, prime ministers, governors, veterans organisations and Vietnamese community organisations had all given their support to right this wrong. I have the list here. There are pages and pages of supporters, including senators sitting in this place, some of whom are around the Albanese cabinet table today.
The then opposition spokesperson for veterans' affairs, the Honourable Shayne Neumann, issued a media statement on National Servicemen's Day, 14 February 2022. This is what he said:
This year, Labor is calling on the Morrison-Joyce Government to formally recognise thousands of National Servicemen who fought in Vietnam with a Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal …
… … …
Labor urges the Government to give these men the recognition they deserve and finally allow them to proudly wear the RVCM when they march alongside their mates on Anzac Day this year.
That is what Labor said before the election. So confident was I of the then opposition's support, of Labor's support, that I advocated to the former government that the issue of the medal could be resolved during the caretaker period, and I actually lobbied senior government advisers, in emails to that effect. It was not to be.
The Hon. Shayne Neumann MP did not become the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Hon. Matt Keogh MP was appointed. After a further 18 months—18 agonising months—of further considering this matter, the minister declined to make a decision to issue the medal. I have here the letter he wrote to Mr Richard Barry OAM, saying: 'I decline to make a decision in relation to the RVCM.'
Before the election, the Labor opposition called for the coalition to issue the medal. After the election, the now Labor government refused to issue the medal. It is shameful—just shameful!
But it is not too late. There is still an opportunity to rectify this matter, to correct this injustice. How can it be, senators, that US veterans, serving towards the end of US involvement in the Vietnam war, could be issued the medal for 60 days' service, but our former national servicemen are denied? How is that equitable? It is unjust. It is inequitable. It is unfair. The Australian government should have fixed it back then, 50 years ago. It's not too late to fix it now.
Senators, I ask each and every one of you to consider the words of former national servicemen who have been denied this medal. Consider their words. A former national serviceman who served for 148 days in Vietnam, in 104 Battery, 4th Field Regiment, said: 'On Anzac Day, I get called a "short-timer" because I do not have the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.' A former national serviceman who served for 170 days in Vietnam, just 11 days short of the 181 days, in 3RAR said: 'For many years, I wondered why I had not received the Vietnamese campaign medal. It seems I was a "short-timer". I've always felt embarrassed to have only one award for so many operations. I've never unboxed or worn that, or will any future awards.' A former national serviceman who served for 117 days in Vietnam in 5RAR said: 'I arrived in Vietnam on 8 February 1969. Over the next four months, we engaged with the enemy on numerous occasions, and I witnessed the true tragedy, horror and consequences of war in 117 gruelling and heart wrenching days.'
And consider the words of the wife of a former national serviceman. We know the toll that veterans' service in Vietnam puts upon their families. These are the words of the wife of a former national serviceman who served for 141 days in Vietnam, in the 1st Australian Logistical Support Group. In an email to Mr Richard Barry, she wrote: 'My husband was one of the Vietnam veterans that was recalled at short notice after having served 141 days in Vietnam. We have always felt it was unfair that he was not awarded the medal. Not being awarded the medal has added to the feeling of inferiority when gathered with other Vietnam veterans. He is battling severe depression. His service was 141 days. And I met him at Sydney airport when he came home.' I have pages and pages of these testimonies, provided by Mr Richard Barry OAM. For over 50 years, these former national servicemen have been waiting for this injustice to be corrected.
Consider the words of leaders of the Australian Vietnamese community. Mr Xuan Lam, the national president of the former ARVN and former Thu Duc reserve cadets association in Australia, who is here today, says, 'Being an officer in the Republic of Vietnam armed forces during the war, I know that our Australian soldiers had been the primary target for the Vietcong's attacks around the clock. They could have lost their lives at any time, and they did not need to wait for 181 days for such horrific physical harms to come to them.'
Consider the words of Mr Cong Le, national president of the Vietnamese Community in Australia, who is here today: 'Our brave Australian soldiers have served in the Republic of Vietnam with dedication, gallantry and honour, irrespective of duration. They should be awarded the full RVCM.'
In closing, consider the words of Richard Barry OAM: 'These men were compulsorily called away from their civilian careers to serve in the Australian Army. They fought in a foreign country in the name of peace and democracy at the behest of our government. These men are nearing 80. We owe it to them.'
]]>At the outset, I say that I'm going to be very careful when I'm reading this letter from someone who's written to me as both a teacher and a concerned parent in relation to antisemitism in our Queensland schools. I'm going to be very careful that I do it to maintain the anonymity of the person who wrote to me. The parent is concerned to make sure that their anonymity is protected, and I want to do my best to do that. I'm going to read parts of this letter from this parent, which is heartbreaking:
I hope this message finds you well. I write to express my grave concern about the increased experience of antisemitism for children in our schools. I write as both a teacher and a concerned parent of … children who have all experienced negative sentiment while attending school.
The reported increased incidents of antisemitism are extremely distressing and pose a significant threat to individuals. It is essential for our leaders to address this issue head-on, implement measures to curb antisemitic behaviour and foster an environment that promotes tolerance and understanding. My … children all now have stories to share of victimisation in the playground, hurtful remarks, labels and threats. This was unimaginable in Brisbane for our family prior to 7 October.
'Unimaginable prior to 7 October' is what this teacher and parent in my home state of Queensland says.
This teacher and parent recounts how a fellow student came up to one of their children and said, 'I have hatred for all Jews.' This is what was said to this teacher and parent's child by a fellow student in a Queensland school.
The teacher and parent goes on:
We informed the school but are still unclear how this was dealt with from their end. I have needed to manage school refusal from my children due to their feelings of unsafety, while feeling a knot in my stomach with worry about if they are indeed safe if we do send them? We felt compelled to make the difficult decision to move my son to a private school to ensure that he feels safer each day.
So this parent and teacher had to move their child to a different school because of antisemitism in schools in Queensland.
I continue:
Late last year, promotional material shared by local members of the Greens party was targeted at children and teachers to participate in a … rally. I was deeply concerned to see children being swept up in a one-sided political agenda which will only incite more one-sidedness and hate along with misunderstandings. The flyer also contained an image of Israel superimposed with the Palestinian flag which is representative of a call for the removal of Israel and its people from the map. This is deeply worrying and unsettling in the context of being directed towards children. These images in our community along with swastikas are clear messages of hate and are impacting on the wellbeing and safety of our children. I wrote to our local Greens member … in November—
this letter was addressed to me on 20 February—
to address my grave concerns for my children's safety but still await a reply.
I urge you again to take a proactive stance against antisemitism in our schools and in any form of political marketing targeted at children and trust that, with your influence, we can collectively work towards creating a community that is safe, inclusive, and free from the shadows of antisemitism.
That is from a teacher and parent in my home state of Queensland. These were terrible, terrible, terrible experiences suffered by the children of that teacher and parent at a school in my home state of Queensland. It shouldn't happen. It shouldn't happen in this country. It's unforgivable. But it's happening, and we know it's happening because the Blueprint Institute—just today, a week after I received that letter—released the report Antisemitism in Australian schools: an examination. This is what they've found, and I congratulate them on this research. I quote from the executive summary:
Our poll, consisting of a nationally representative sample of 510 employees in the Australian public school workforce, has uncovered widespread reports of antisemitism in Australian primary and secondary schools.
Their research validates the experiences detailed in this letter. They say:
… our results suggest an average of approximately 75,000 incidents per year in government schools across the country—
an average of 75,000 antisemitic incidents per year in schools across the country. Further, they detail how the problem is elevated at high schools. On page 6 of the report it says:
Incidents of antisemitism were reported as more prevalent in secondary school settings, with 35% of secondary school teachers and administrators compared to 16% of primary school teachers and administrators surveyed reporting they had directly experienced, witnessed, or been informed by others of antisemitism
That's 35 per cent of secondary school teachers reporting that.
In the course of the estimates process I raised the fact that, whilst the government has provided money to enhance safety at Jewish schools and preschools, there has been an absence of an allocation of sufficient funds to conduct a program to support agencies, NGOs and the wider community to combat the scourge of antisemitism in our community.
There was a noble grant that was offered, a social cohesion measures grant, to combat Islamophobia. Its purpose and objectives were to combat Islamophobia, develop communications to combat Islamophobia and racism, and mitigate the harms of misinformation and disinformation narratives that impact communities. That's an important grant, with noble purposes, but what we need to see—as the evidence being provided from parents and teachers and other members of the Jewish community across this country and the research are indicating to us—is the Labor government dedicating sufficient funds to a program to combat the scourge of antisemitism. That's what's needed.
It is unacceptable that children going to schools in Australia should be suffering from vile antisemitic attacks of the nature detailed in this letter. It is unacceptable, and all of us, as leaders in this country, need to stand up and fight the scourge of antisemitism in our country.
]]>When Senator Hume, on behalf of the coalition, made her opening contribution in relation to this bill she referred to the hearings of the Select Committee on the Cost of Living. The Senate formed a cost-of-living committee to look at the issue of cost-of-living in this context. The committee visited Gladstone, and Senator Hume conveyed to this chamber how, when she visited Gladstone in the context of that cost-of-living committee, Gladstone council conveyed to the committee that there are young people living in my home state of Queensland, in Gladstone, who are making decisions now as to whether they pay the rent or whether they go and see a GP to get medical care. Those are the sorts of decisions people are making today in the middle of this cost-of-living crisis.
I am seeing exactly the same thing where my office is located, in the greater Ipswich region. Most of Ipswich is located within the federal seat of Blair, a Labor-held seat. There was research released this week in relation to bulk-billing rates in GP medical clinics in the federal seat of Blair—indeed, across the whole of Australia. What did that research indicate, Mr Deputy President? It indicated that over the course of 2023—only 12 months—the number of GP medical clinics in the federal seat of Blair, which includes much of Ipswich, fell from 26 to 15—26 down to 15.
So that means, for an adult who isn't on a concession and who contacts a GP medical clinic in the City of Ipswich within the Labor-held federal seat of Blair, that the number of medical clinics offering bulk-billing in the region where my office is located has fallen from 26 to 15, a 36 per cent drop over the course of just 12 months. That is a staggering fall in just 12 months, and that is under the watch of the Albanese Labor government.
We are in a cost-of-living crisis. There is absolutely no doubt about it, and that is why the coalition is not going to stand in the way of providing tax cuts to Australians who are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis—from 19 per cent to 16 per cent. We can't stand in the way of that tax relief for Australians who are doing it tough. But Australians must always remember that this bill which we're debating today means that Australians cannot take the Labor government at its word with respects to any tax matter. Remember when the Prime Minister said, 'My word is my bond'? This bill demonstrates that the Prime Minister's word is not his bond. This bill demonstrates that Labor cannot be trusted with respect to whatever it says and whatever it commits to with respects to taxation, whether it's in relation to negative gearing, capital gains tax, franking credits or superannuation. Whatever it is, this bill demonstrates and is evidence—exhibit A—that the Albanese Labor government cannot be trusted with respect to anything that it says in relation to tax. It will promise one thing before an election and then do something else after an election.
There's one other matter which Senator Hume touched upon that I want to address in my remarks in relation to this legislation. I genuinely think this is appalling. It is absolutely appalling. On the same day that the Albanese Labor government announced $14 million of funding for food relief agencies—and the food bank in the greater Ipswich region, where my office is located, is telling me they're seeing a lot of people and working families they've never seen before. I've actually spoken to a lot of those people at the food bank at Ipswich Assist in Ipswich, and I pay tribute to all of the volunteers at Ipswich Assist—Jason and his team. They're seeing people they've never seen before. On the same day that the federal government announced $14 million of funding for food relief agencies, the coalition discovered that the Labor government is spending $40 million on marketing this bill—this broken promise. Can you believe that?
Just think about it. We're in a cost-of-living crisis, our food relief agencies are seeing people they've never seen before, and the Albanese Labor government is providing $14 million for food relief agencies but spending $40 million—nearly three times as much—to market their broken promise. How contemptible! It is shameful. That is $14 million to help food relief agencies and $40 million on marketing, which is not necessary at all. It is absolutely not necessary. There isn't a question of you needing to apply for the tax cuts under this bill. They work automatically through the ATO. There's no educational component to this whatsoever. It's not as if you've got to educate people to participate in a government scheme. It's shameful, but it is even more shameful when you put that expenditure of $40 million on a marketing campaign against $14 million of relief for food relief agencies. There could be no better example that the Albanese Labor government is out of touch with Australians suffering in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.
Just reflect on that: $40 million to market the broken promise represented by this bill but only $14 million to food relief agencies to help Australians in need. This is a government that has got all of its priorities wrong. It should be held accountable by the people at the next election.
]]>And then what happened after the election? As recently as mid-December, when Australia was already in a cost-of-living crisis, the Prime Minister said, 'We're not reconsidering the position with respect to the stage 3 tax cuts.' At the same time that the Prime Minister made that statement, Treasury was working on a change to the position, at the same time there were people in the Treasury department here in Canberra working on a change to the position. So first we've got 'My word is my bond.' After the election we got 'We're not reconsidering our position,' but at the same time Treasury was working to implement a changed position. Now, when we are discharging our role as the opposition on behalf of the Australian and ask questions to probe whether or not there are going to be any other changes in relation to taxation policy, we are not receiving clear answers.
I want to go through some of the no doubt carefully chosen words that Senator Gallagher has used not just in question time here but leading up to question time as well. When Karl Stefanovic asked the finance minister to say on the record that there would be no change to negative gearing, the finance minister said there was no plan. She refused to say there would be no change; she just said 'no plan'. We all know that could mean 'We don't have a plan today, but we've got a plan tomorrow,' right? They are weasel words. Senator Hume today asked a question about negative gearing. The answer we got was, 'The law is clear.' That's not an answer. The law is clear today, but, just as they've done with respect to the stage 3 tax cuts, they can introduce a bill tomorrow and change the law.
We then had my colleague from Queensland, Senator Canavan, ask a question about the mining tax and the diesel fuel tax credit system. In that case, again there was a refusal to rule it out and we were simply told, 'It is not currently part of the tax reform agenda.' Again, the agenda today can change. All options are on the table. And then Senator Gallagher said, 'We have been upfront.' No, that cannot be accepted. If you are upfront—and it's not a question of being upfront with us as senators; it is a question of being upfront with the Australian people before they vote. If you're upfront with them, you tell them before an election what you're going to do and, when you say, 'My word is my bond,' you actually mean it.
]]>That the Senate take note of answers to all questions from coalition senators.
'My word is my bond.'
]]>An opposition senator: It's simple!
It's simple! Hell, I'll make a copy for my next customer!
That's what you're imposing upon more than two million small businesses. It's taken me three hours today to work that out. That's what you're imposing on Australian small businesses, including all those small businesses in the ACT. Senator Pocock, I'll give you a tutorial and you can help explain it to them.
]]>I admire Senator Smith's passion, her integrity and her commitment with respect to this matter. However, there are deep concerns we have in relation to this legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. As is so often the case when there are things that need to be addressed in society and issues of legitimate concern to anyone of good faith and good heart, there's concern that, when the regulatory pendulum swings too far and too hard, good people who are doing the right thing are damaged. A lot of those good people aren't the cross-border multinationals with billions and billions of dollars of capital; they're small businesses. The over two million small businesses in this country, which employ more than 40 per cent of employed Australians, are the ones who are going to be left to grapple with this legislation. They're the ones I'm concerned about—the small businesses who don't have an internal legal department with hordes and hordes of lawyers ready to support them and don't have multiple billions of dollars of capital but who are just hanging on by their fingernails. I have advocated for a number of these small businesses to the Australian Taxation Office and to other people in relation to what they're going through. My concern is for those small businesses and what this legislation is going to impose upon those small businesses.
I want to give you just one example of how I think this legislation is going far too far. I think the issues that are being identified could have been addressed without going this far. I want to give you one example of that, and that is the definition of 'casual employee' under the legislation. This is what we are imposing on small businesses across Australia—including the ACT, I say to Senator David Pocock, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. This is the definition we are imposing upon small businesses. It takes 25 steps. I counted them. I've been a practising lawyer for over 25 years. I read this legislation word for word—25 steps of mental gymnastics for a small-business person who's hanging on by their fingernails to try to determine whether or not one of their employees is a casual employee. I will walk through them for you, because this is what we're imposing. There is all the lovely rhetoric, all the wonderful words, but, at the end of the day, over two million small businesses—I'm not talking about the BHPs or Rio Tintos—hanging on by their fingernails are going to be left to try to work out what the hell this means. If I as a lawyer who has practised in Australia, Papua New Guinea, Chile and Laos—I've navigated all sorts of employment situations—have trouble working it out, what hope have they got? This is what you are imposing on them—25 steps.
Step 1 is in section 15A on the meaning of 'casual employee'. The general rule is:
(a) the employment relationship is characterised by an absence of a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work …
There are 18 words we've identified in step 1. What do they mean? Now we've got to go from the first limb of the general rule to the indicia, the indications that apply to the purposes of the general rule under 15A(2). There, in the first paragraph, we've got to consider:
… the basis of the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the employment relationship …
That is a bit of tautology, isn't it—the 'real substance'? I'm not sure why we are saying 'real substance' instead of 'substance'. I would have thought something is either a substance or not. It's a bit like a round circle. Then we are saying 'the practical reality'. How that is that different from 'real substance'? Then we have to consider the 'true nature' of the employment relationship. I'm not sure what that's intended to add. That's our second step. We have another 23 to go. This is for someone hanging on by their fingernails as a small-business person in this country. So in step 2 we've got to consider real substance, practical reality and true nature and:
(b) on the basis that a firm advance commitment can be in the form of the contract of employment …
So I can look in my contract of employment. That's easy. That's step No. 3.
But, if it isn't in my contract of employment, I've got to go to step 4, which is these words:
… irrespective of the terms of that contract, in the form of a mutual understanding or expectation between the employer and employee not rising to the level of a term of that contract (or to a variation of any such term) …
So it's something nebulous. It's an understanding or it's an expectation. I'm not sure what the understanding or expectation is. Senator Pocock might be able to go down to his local cafe and explain to the owner of the business how to interpret this clause.
Then, once we've worked out whether or not we've got something that is maybe an understanding or an expectation, in step 5 we then have to go to the explanatory notes. We've gone through the first limb of the general rule. We then went onto the second indicator clause. Now there is an explanatory clause in 15A(3). It says:
(a) for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b)—
and (2)(b) is the clause that talks about the mutual understanding or expectation—
a mutual understanding or expectation may be inferred from conduct of the employer and employee after entering into the contract of employment or from how the contract is performed …
I'm not really sure what that means. We're only up to step 5. We've got another 20 steps to go. This is what your local cafe owner is going to have to go through.
Step 6, we're now returning to the indicia of the general rule, the first limb of the general rule:
(c) having regard to, but not limited to, the following considerations (which indicate the presence, rather than an absence, of such a commitment)—
what a word salad that is!
Step 7:
(i) whether there is an inability of the employer to elect to offer work or an inability of the employee to elect to accept or reject work (and whether this occurs in practice);
Step 8:
(ii) whether, having regard to the nature of the employer's enterprise, it is reasonably likely—
I always love that term, 'reasonably likely'—
that there will be future availability of continuing work—
well, I've got to tell you, the small businesses I talk to are hanging on. They're not sure if they're going to survive—
in that enterprise of the kind usually performed by the employee;
So there are about six or so elements in that step, and that's only step 8.
Step 9:
(iii) whether there are full-time employees or part-time employees performing the same kind of work in the employer's enterprise that is usually performed by the employee;
Step 10, we have to consider:
(iv) whether there is a regular pattern of work for the employee.
Step 10 is one of my favourites, actually, because 'whether there is a regular pattern of work for the employee' actually has an explanatory note under it that says:
A regular pattern of work does not of itself indicate a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work. An employee who has a regular pattern of work may still be a casual employee if there is no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work.
I'm not really sure what that adds—but, hang on, my next customer has come. I have to try and deal with my customer as well as finish step 11.
But, hang on, I've got to now go to step 12 because this is the third limb of the test that's telling me what a regular pattern of work is. We've got section 15A(2)(c)(iv) and then the explanatory note, but then I've got to go to section 15A(3)(c). Senator Pocock, you can explain to the small businesses in Canberra what this means:
(c) a pattern of work is regular for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(c)(iv) even if it is not absolutely uniform—
If it's not 'absolutely uniform'. If it's a little bit uniform—I don't know what that means—
and includes some fluctuation or variation over time (including for reasonable absences such as for illness, injury or recreation).
Okay. That's step 12.
I've then got to go to step 13, which tells me that, when I'm considering all those factors which I considered under steps 6 to 11, I can't consider any of them to be determinative. They don't all have to be met. And, in fact, there could be others as well, so it's open-ended. That's step 13.
I'm now up to step 14. I have to go back to the general rules. So we've gone on a journey from the general rule, to the indicia, through to the explanatory clause dealing with the indicia, but I've only dealt with the first limb of the general rule, and that's taken me 13 steps. So now I'm up to step 14. Small businesses in Canberra, ring Senator Pocock. He'll explain it to you. Step 14:
(b) the employee would be entitled to a casual loading—
Would be entitled if they were a casual. It's a bit circular. I'll call it a round circle in the spirit of the tautologist nature of the legislation—
or a specific rate of pay for casual employees under the terms of a fair work instrument if the employee were a casual employee—
that's step 15.
Step 16:
… or the employee is entitled to such a loading or rate of pay under the contract of employment.
Then we have another one of these useful notes, step 17:
An employee who commences employment as a casual employee remains a casual employee until the occurrence of a specified event (see subsection (5)).
That takes us to a new subsection—subsection (5)—which has four elements to it, which are step 18, step 19, step 20 and step 21. Then we're up to—
]]>Senator Shoebridge might well assist Senator McKim—at least we know what we're going to get from Senator McKim. He is quite upfront. He believes in a socialist economic policy, as do his brethren sitting on the Greens benches. We know what we're going to get from them. Senator McKim is advocating for changes to negative gearing and advocating for changes in terms of the CGT discount. We know where the Greens stand.
But the whole point of this debate is the promise that was made. I think the tally is that the promise was made almost 100 times by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and others in the government that they would not change the stage 3 tax cuts. So, when Senator Polley gets up and says that those on this side of the chamber are attempting to rewrite history, that is a gross distortion of the facts of the matter. We are not the ones trying to rewrite history here. The history is there, and those sitting in the gallery know what the history is. They will remember the Prime Minister saying, 'My word is my bond.' That is what the Prime Minister said in particular in relation to this context. They will remember that.
They will also remember that, as recently as mid-December, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer stated at least a dozen times that they hadn't changed their position on the stage 3 had tax cuts. When they were specifically asked as recently as only a few months ago about the stage 3 tax cuts, they said they had not changed their position. But at the same time the government had commissioned Treasury to do the research for them to do the policy work to change their position. We were in a cost-of-living crisis in mid-December. We'd been in a cost-of-living crisis for a number of months. I can remember taking the shadow Treasurer to one of the food banks in the greater Ipswich region, where my office is located. That food bank was seeing people it had never seen before as clients. We were in a cost-of-living crisis then. But as recently as December the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were saying they were not reconsidering their position.
Senator Polley said that the government has been honest and upfront. That was the phrase Senator Polley used: upfront. On my understanding of the plain English meaning of 'upfront', before an election you make a promise and a commitment and then, after you get elected, you keep the promise or commitment. It's pretty simple. When politicians of whatever stripe—it doesn't matter what colour they are—don't do that, we all suffer, because people then say, 'Well, you just can't trust anything they say.' That's the position we're in now in terms of this government.
For the Australians who are listening to this debate, be very, very careful. When members of the government—the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance—say that they're not currently considering something or they're not reconsidering, that's a red flag, because they may well change their position. You've got no guarantee. When they say they have 'no plan' to do something, that's a red flag. Most of all, when the Prime Minister looks the Australian people in the eye and says to them, 'My word is my bond,' then you're in a great deal of trouble. That is what the Australian people have learnt over the last few weeks.
]]>