Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens will be opposing these amendments. These address a mixture of what were apparently drafting issues—and I will come back to that in a minute—and of substantive changes to the act, such as the stand-down provisions and the cashing out of carers leave and sick leave. The drafting errors are a result of legislation hastily rushed through last time, and both Senator Wong and Senator Murray have addressed this issue as well. As we all know, it was a large piece of legislation given very little time for review. About 700 pages of amendments with 40 minutes notice were dumped on us in the committee stage of the Work Choices legislation. At the time we all very carefully articulated our concerns that we had not had time to review them and that there would be drafting errors in the process. Surprise, surprise—of course there were drafting errors.

Then, to compound that, these series of amendments were given to us with about 40 minutes or less notice as well. Not only were those amendments attending to drafting errors; there were as I said substantive changes. We have not had time to adequately consider those substantive changes, and the point is that those substantive changes have not been out for community consultation and have not been subject to committee review. We managed to pick up some drafting errors last time—textile outworkers are a very good example of what was picked up last time through the committee process, and a number of other issues were also picked up—but this time the normal committee process has been circumvented and it has not been subjected to that, so we have not had time to see whether there are any substantial drafting errors and to make fixes.

It makes me wonder whether the stand-down changes in amendment (11) are the result of rushed drafting or whether it is intended that they be so wide open that they are absolutely certain to be subject to abuse by employers. People can be stood down for a downturn in work, ‘a breakdown of machinery’, ‘a strike’ or industrial action or any ‘stoppage of work for any cause for which the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible’.

Look at a breakdown of a piece of machinery as an example. As I articulated previously, I am deeply concerned that an employee could be held responsible for a breakdown of a piece of machinery. We have not had time to look at whether that would mean that a breakdown of a piece of machinery is not a cause for a stand-down or whether that overrides a stoppage for which an employer cannot be held responsible. I would argue that, if the machinery was being properly maintained, it is less likely to break down. However, I believe this is open slather for employers to abuse and be able to use any excuse to stand down any employee.

The same goes for carers leave and sick leave. I have heard both sides of the argument, but I have not been convinced by the side that supports being able to pay out sick leave. I think this is an essential part of what we should take as standard conditions in the workplace. That is, if people are sick they are entitled to take sick leave. The point is that nobody actually knows when they are going to get sick. If we knew when we were going to get sick, we could just wad it out as leave. But we do not: we do not know what the seriousness of the illness will be; we do not know when it will occur or with what frequency; and we do not know whether it will require a longer amount of leave.

I have heard several stories over the last couple of days of people saying that they have relatives who have suddenly become sick. In one case, the person has cancer and therefore needs to use their leave. Particularly when you are young, you never think anything is going to happen to you. You think you are well; you think you are healthy: ‘Why do I need sick leave?’ So in particular I am extremely concerned about young people being encouraged to think: ‘Oh, it will never happen to me; I will trade some in.’ I am also concerned about what it means for women, in particular those with family and carer responsibilities who might be tempted or subtly pressured into cashing out their leave. This would then directly impact on their caring abilities and their family relationships. It makes the family-workplace balance even harder than it was before—even harder than Work Choices has made it since last year.

Rushing this process through like this adds insult to injury. We could not properly analyse the first set of legislation, and now we have not been able to properly analyse this set of amendments. There are other concerns around clause 10, dealing with redundancy. I know there are a number of concerns around about what this actually means beyond some of the other issues that have been raised and what it means in terms of the supposed new greenfield arrangements. We went through a lot of debate during the last debate over Work Choices about the concerns we all had about greenfield arrangements. It affects what happens following a takeover or transfer of ownership of an existing business. We have not had time to analyse those provisions adequately. We have had no community input. We have not been able to go to experts to check on this legislation in the same way that the committee was able to get in experts over the Independent Contractors Bill and over the original bill in the first place. Despite the fact that the government did not take on many of the recommendations that came from those experts, at least we were able to talk to those experts and get their expert opinions.

We have not been able to do that on this substantive set of amendments. We do not know whether the amendments that are being brought in to fix the previous drafting arrangements actually fix them adequately. Other things that have been slipped into this package of amendments that do not specifically address independent contractors are not only on stand-downs and sick leave but also on the ability to waive your right to a seven-day review of your AWA. Again, this was another very big point of concern the last time we debated this legislation. Now this so-called drafting oversight is brought to us as well. We have not had time to analyse that. The community has not had time to assess it.

I do not believe this is the appropriate way to make legislation. The Senate process is being abused: not only do we now have the shortening of time in which committees can assess pieces of legislation—very short notice—but now we have circumvented the committee process altogether: ‘Just slip these amendments into a piece of legislation that is currently being debated and give no-one time to look at them. Give no-one in the community time to look at them. Give no-one time to go to experts to have a look at them, and give nobody time to report to the Senate on what these amendments actually mean.’ This is a bad way of legislating. It is likely to introduce more drafting errors into this already complex, error ridden legislation and it does not do anything to improve workers’ rights in this country. In fact it substantially undermines those rights. There are a few positive amendments in this package. Those are substantially and totally undermined by the negative amendments, such as the provisions on stand-down and cashing out sick leave, and by many others.