Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

We will try to, absolutely. We reckon a real Fair Work bill would tilt the tables the other way to genuinely make work fairer. Our amendments, if we get to the third reading, would give workers more job security and allow workers to have the flexibility that works for them, so that they can have the time off to pick up the kids, to drop them off at school or, perhaps, to look after a sick grandparent.

I want to spend some time talking about these amendments here and now because our amendments would actually create a bill that really was a fair work bill, that really would provide for flexibility. A big reason that we hear the term 'work-life balance' so much these days is because we have less balance than we should between the two; between the amount of time and effort and dedication to work as opposed to the rest of our life—family commitments, community commitments, time for exercise, leisure, doing activities that are good for our health, including sleeping. It did not used to be this way and it does not have to be this way.

The figures show that the average full-time working week in Australia is 44 hours—the longest in the developed Western world. Research shows that these sorts of working hours are impacting on our wellbeing, with poorer health and greater use of prescription medications. It is also affecting our personal and family lives. Sixty per cent of women say that they feel consistently time pressured and nearly half of men also feel this way. Almost half of all fathers in couple households work more than they would prefer, and one-third of women working full time would also prefer to work less, even taking into account the impact that this might have on their income. If you want to talk about flexibility then consider that, on average, full-time employees would like to work about 5.6 hours less per week, while part-time workers would like to work around four hours less than they are currently working. In addition, we work $72 billion of unpaid overtime each year as a country. It cuts the other way too. There are many people—though according to the studies a lesser number—who would like to work more hours than they are currently working but are unable to.

A 2010 study on the health and working conditions of approximately 78,000 working Australians concluded:

... it may be counterproductive for employers to expect long working hours as employees are likely to take more time off and work less efficiently.

The study also commented that there is considerable evidence of an association between work demands and poor health.

There is no doubt that many good employers already recognise the benefits of providing flexible working arrangements. However, this recognition is not as widespread as it should be. The Greens want people to have more control over their time and their working arrangements. We need a better match between the hours people want to work and the hours that they actually work. I note that the ACTU, prominent academics, Carers Victoria, government advisory bodies and many others have also advocated extending the right to request flexible working arrangements.

The current legislated mechanism to request flexible working arrangements is only available to employees who have caring responsibilities for children under school age, or children under 18 with a disability. Employers can refuse on reasonable business grounds, but there are no mechanisms for appeal. The mechanism is well-intentioned but it is narrow and unenforceable. It can be strengthened and it should be strengthened. If we had a bill with these measures included in it, it would be strengthened. The amendments we will move also reflect the Greens view that wherever possible enterprise bargaining and enterprise agreement should be the best mechanism for providing better industrial outcomes.

'Flexible working arrangements' would be inserted into the list of permitted matters that can be included in an agreement. In all instances, the right to request flexible working arrangements to all employees would be able to be refused by employers. The right to request would be strengthened for those with caring responsibilities with employers only able to refuse where there are serious countervailing business reasons. Ongoing employees must have performed a minimum of 12 months service before a request could be made. If an employee's request for flexible working arrangements was refused, Fair Work Australia would be empowered to hear an appeal and where appropriate make flexible working arrangement orders.

Allowing workers to have more control over their time would be a productivity bonus for the economy. Businesses would benefit from this reform, including employers who are already promoting flexible working arrangements so that employees can achieve a better work-life balance. Satisfied employees are likely to remain in a workplace longer, be healthier and be more productive. If people want to work different hours or to work from home so that their life is better, then the law should allow it and society should encourage it, provided that it does not unduly impact on their employer.

Our amendments recognise that carers play a special role in our society. Caring for those close to us must be a central concern for our society, and it is important for the economy. People need greater control over their time, not just to look after kids but also, increasingly, to look after parents and grandchildren, as well as foster children, people with disabilities and people with extended illnesses—the list goes on and on. For this reason, our amendments define 'carer' simply as an employee who has responsibility for the care of another person. In addition, as I have referred to, the bill raises the threshold test to serious countervailing business reasons before employers could refuse a request for flexible working arrangements.

There are more women working more hours in paid employment but there is still the unpaid caring to do. With caring still done predominantly by women, there is a growing double burden on women and their families. If we are serious about supporting women in returning to work after having had kids then we can and should do many things, not only expanding accessibility, quality and affordability of child care but also giving a legally-enforceable right to flexible working arrangements. As I have referred to, the provisions do not remove the capacity for managerial decisions to be made regarding working hours and working arrangements. If there were legitimate business reasons against a request it would be able to be declined.

These measures are not radical nor unprecedented. A number of countries have various types of legislative mechanisms for people to request flexible working arrangements, and a serious-countervailing-business-reasons test has been used in the Netherlands since the year 2000. A review of flexible working arrangement laws in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK showed that a number of valuable lessons had been learned and that a number of myths had been dispelled regarding the laws.

There was a reasonable, but manageable, level of requests. The Netherlands had the highest level of requests, with 14 per cent of employees, while the UK had only 3½ per cent and Germany recorded less than one per cent. But, significantly, the majority of the requests in each country were acceptable to employers. Costs were not a major problem with implementation, and sometimes even resulted in savings. In addition, very few requests ended up in dispute. In the Netherlands and Germany fewer than 30 requests per country resulted in court action in the first two years of the law. The overseas experience suggests that being obliged to provide flexible work for employees may in fact help companies by ensuring that they examine alternative models that they may not have considered previously.

If our amendments were passed, it would not undermine those very important industries and sectors, like fire fighters—and there may be many others as well—where control over working time is necessary to ensure that there is not industrial arguments between people working differing hours side by side in environments where harmony and consistency, and equality of payments and arrangements, are necessary. As I said, it would not override management prerogative. Our amendments would help to drive positive cultural change in relation to flexible working arrangements by providing a clear framework and criteria for requests. Importantly, they would begin to remove the stigma of fathers and mothers—indeed, anyone who has to care for another person and anyone who wants to have more control over their life—requesting that change.

We urge the Senate to reject this bill as it currently stands. But if it were to get to the third reading stage, our amendments would radically change the bill. We would want to see them supported to truly give workers the flexibility and work conditions that they deserve.