Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In relation to Senator Urquhart's reference to 'hollow', what is hollow and, more than that, disappointing—profoundly disappointing—is that we're in a position in this country where there are reasonable things that could be done to improve our industrial relations system that are in the best interests of employers and employees, that are fair and reasonable, that have checks and balances and that would promote more employment and, in particular, for young people who have not had the opportunity for employment that other people have had in our society, promote the opportunity for them to get their first job and to get experience. It's a real shame, a profound shame, that we can't come together and come up with a system of reforms to make it easier, not harder, for small business—in particular, small business—to take that step to hire that extra worker, to give that young person a go, to give young people more hours and to provide them with more opportunities and, therefore, more experience so that they can progress in their career, and in their life, with the benefit of that work. It's a real shame, I believe, that what are relatively modest proposals for IR reform have once again become bogged down by an ideological debate.

In relation to casual workers, I'd just like to make the initial observation that I went back and looked at the 2009 Fair Work Act, and the definition of 'casual worker' in that act was totally unacceptable; it wasn't there. It wasn't there. I don't know what the thinking of the then government was at the time with respect to how they defined 'casual work' in the Fair Work Act. I'd love to know. I should maybe go back and have a look at the parliamentary record. But there was no definition of 'casual work'.

In the industrial reforms that are being put forward by the government, there actually is a definition of 'casual work'. Is that an issue? Do people have an issue with that—that casual work is work where there is 'no firm advance commitment' to ongoing work? It seems an absolutely fair definition to me. So this reform seeks to actually provide a definition of casual work. The implication of the then Labor government's abject failure to put in a definition of casual work is that so many small businesses have been absolutely blindsided by a decision of the courts. Small businesses paid someone who'd been hired as a casual worker the extra loading—because they're a casual worker, they're not getting annual leave et cetera, so they're paid the extra 25 per cent—only to then find out that the law did not consider them to be a casual worker and the business had a liability to pay those workers the entitlements which they missed out on, notwithstanding the fact that they'd been paid a 25 per cent loading. How any reasonable person can look at that set of circumstances and determine that reasonable and fair reform is not required is absolutely beyond me. What do those opposite think will happen if small businesses across this country face claims, years old, with respect to allegations that entitlements have to be paid out, when the 25 per cent loading was paid?

This is an area that needs reform. It needs to be fixed. This is a problem. I call upon those opposite to actually address that particular problem of where a small business has paid someone the 25 per cent loading on the reasonable understanding that they're a casual, and then it's determined years later that they weren't a casual and that same person applies to be paid out their entitlements. What is your answer to that particular problem? That is the question that small businesses around this country are asking every day: if you do not support this change, what is your answer to the issue of double dipping? (Time expired)