Crossbench cool on IR proposals

Key Senate crossbenchers have expressed concerns about the ­Coalition’s proposed changes to casual employment and enterprise agreement making.

Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie. Picture: Gary Ramage

Key Senate crossbenchers have expressed concerns about the ­Coalition’s proposed changes to casual employment and enterprise agreement making, as employer groups criticise Labor’s decision to oppose the industrial relations bill.

Attorney-General Christian Porter is likely to require the support of at least three of the five crossbenchers when the government tries to get the bill passed by the Senate in March.

Giving COVID-19-stressed employers more power to bypass the Fair Work Act’s “better off overall” test and casual employment changes have been identified as areas of concern by crossbenchers.

Jacqui Lambie’s spokesman said the Tasmanian senator had “initial concerns” about the BOOT changes and the proposed definition of a casual worker.

South Australian senator Rex Patrick said while he supported “the need to have a definition about casual, I don’t know whether the definition that has been put forward is the right definition”.

“I have some concerns about transferring (employees) across from casual to permanent and the fact that businesses can simply get around that by presenting a ‘it’s not reasonable argument’ without arbitration,” he said.

“I need to hear both sides of the argument on the BOOT test.”

Under the changes, employers would be able to avoid exposure to billions of dollars in backpay by offsetting previously paid casual loadings against any leave claim by a casual found by a court to be ­permanent.

The bill introduces a new statutory definition of casual employment, with a worker defined as a casual if ­employment is offered without firm advance commitment the work will continue indefinitely, follows an agreed pattern of work and the employee accepts the offer on that basis.

Employers would be required to offer part-time or full-time roles to people after 12 months if they worked a regular pattern of hours for the previous six months.

One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts, who with his leader Pauline Hanson will meet with Mr Porter to discuss the bill in the next sitting week, said the proposed definition of a regular casual had the potential to cause industrial turmoil.

Centre Alliance senator Stirling Griff said he and Rebekha Sharkie were “generally supportive of the need for greater clarity for casuals and certainly support the move for harsher penalties for wage theft and underpayments — the rest is being reviewed.”

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s workplace relations director Scott Barklamb said Labor’s decision to reject the entire bill was surprising, given it addressed several longstanding Labor and union concerns.

“If it delays the bill, Labor would be standing in the way of underpaid Australians getting money back, delaying pay increases under enterprise agreements, and removing the last vestiges of WorkChoices from the system,” he said.

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said Labor’s decision was disappointing as the bill was a reasonable and workable settlement after months of talk between unions and employers.

Australian Mines and Metals Association chief executive Steve Knott said it became clear during negotiations that unions would not support the changes, “even ones designed to support job retention and creation”.