Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to the debate on new clause 6, set out on Amendment Paper 8. This is an amendment proposed by Ricardo Menéndez March requiring a review of the operation of section 67A three years after the bill’s commencement. Just before we start taking calls on this, I just want to note that it’s a very narrow clause, just like the last one, so we don’t want to see anything repetitive; we just want to stick to the point of the clause.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, again, I don’t mean to sound repetitive; it’s just that we haven’t had the select committee process. But I think what this seeks to add in this amendment under my name is the ability for the House—and I make the difference compared to my previous call, and I talk about the House because this amendment does have a requirement to report to the House as opposed to just kind of publish the ongoing review each financial year. So there are those differences about the reporting mechanisms that are being presented in this amendment that I’m proposing.

This is a three-year proposed review, and particularly when it comes to any effects on outcomes for workers when it comes to employment—so it could be quite broad, and it does then allow for some discretion about the scope of what we would be looking for. It’s a bit less prescriptive—well, it’s quite a lot less prescriptive than the previous amendment that I put previously.

Then it also gives the Minister discretion, while requiring the Minister to “ensure that the persons and organisations”—including representatives of employees and employers—“that the Minister thinks appropriate are consulted during the preparation of the report” about the matters to be considered in the report. That should, in my view, allow the Minister to freely canvass what she has previously spoken about in terms of the needs of employers and that flexibility that she seeks to embed in the bill that she’s put forward. But it also then allows that worker’s voice to be present, right, which we didn’t have because there was no select committee report, and the Minister has been unable to present that worker voice.

Then, lastly, there’s a requirement for the Minister to present a copy of the report to the House of Representatives, so then this allows for us to have that more substantive debate on the issue. No matter what the make-up of Parliament is, it just allows those debates to continue to be carried, and then it allows that report to then be used by the public as well. And it gives the public confidence that when we are introducing something that has such a big material impact, that they can use the report that is being presented to the House for research and for that public discourse. I think that’s, again, really important. In my view, it also addresses some of the previous things that we’ve debated around the lack of awareness that was identified on any policy that changes employment law. Because by having an amendment that requires that public discussion in the House, you are also kind of lifting the awareness constantly each three years for it to be then debated in the public.

So I think this, again, reinforces what the coalition set out to do, which is to make decisions based on facts. This allows for evidence gathering and those facts to be out in the public, rather than making decisions without that information being available prior. So I think it, in my view, should be considered by the Minister, and I think, in fact, it’s in line with the goals of the coalition, despite myself not agreeing with the intent of this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to respond and thank the member for his contribution, also noting that I responded to this in clause 4, clause 5, and in the previous amended attempt at clause 6—and will repeat it again—that I will work to consider my research and evaluation plans in the context of my wider work programme in further months. However, I do not believe that there is an appropriate need for a review provision in this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a contribution on the amendment in the name of a colleague from the Green Party, Ricardo Menéndez March, introducing a new clause 6. I guess I just wanted to put to the Minister the importance of including some provisions within the bill that would provide the Government and the Minister and the ministry that monitors this legislation with the evidence base that is needed in order to properly monitor the impact of this bill.

Throughout the debate tonight, we have heard about some of those impacts that colleagues have raised, one being the mental health impacts. We’ve heard some quite distressing stories about the mental health impacts of those who have been subject to a dismissal under the 90-day trial, including a very serious result, which my colleague Jan Tinetti shared with the House this evening.

There have also been questions raised around the cost to the taxpayer. For those who exit an employment relationship who have been dismissed under a 90-day trial, there’s a likelihood—quite a high likelihood, I would say—that they then become subject to receiving a benefit, and that is a cost to the taxpayer. So it will be useful to be able to do some evidence gathering, and we’re just noting the clause, in particular, is looking at any effects on outcomes for workers in employment. That would be the type of impact of someone who had been in employment who was leaving their employment, but also those who are within the employment, whether they are more likely, for example, to try to negotiate a higher wage rate, whether they may be more likely to join a union, whether they may be more likely—colleagues in previous contributions have talked about workers being willing to leave a job that might be safe; you know, they’ve gone past that 90-day trial, but they might be seeking to, for example, apply for a role where they would be having a higher rate of pay and they may be less willing to do so if that presents a risk that they would then be subject to a 90-day trial.

These are the kinds of matters that it would be very useful, I believe, for the Minister, for the Government, for the House to have some evidence of. So just reading out the amendment, which is that after three years following the commencement of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Act, require a report to be prepared “on the operation and effects of section 67A, in particular any effects on outcomes for workers in employment.”

I just really take note on that point around outcomes for workers, because throughout this debate, the other side often raise the issues that employers may raise, but this specific new clause would be specific around potential outcomes for workers in their employment. I’m very interested in the impacts, particularly for women workers, who—as my colleague Helen White pointed out earlier—are often less risk averse around actually looking for another job. There were some amendments I put up tonight that would have limited the scope of this bill to those earning over a certain amount, and, again, that’s often because—[Interruption] Yeah, we’re getting to that clause. We’re looking at the outcomes on workers and it’s very clear we’re talking about the outcomes on workers.

The point I’m making is that there could be an outcome, and one of the things around research is that you put out a hypothesis and then you test it. One of the hypotheses I’d like to put out is that those on lower wages may well be in a position where they’re less likely to negotiate for a pay rise and they may be less likely to apply for a different job with a different employer. So I would say to the members opposite who seem to be interjecting a lot tonight—I mean, if they’re so interested in this clause, then maybe they should take a fulsome five-minute call. I’d encourage them to do that. They’ve been, well, I wouldn’t say quiet tonight; they’ve actually certainly had quite a bit to say, and I’d really encourage them, if they’ve got—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): To the point.

—something to say, stand up and say it. So just responding to the interjections, Madam Chair. So I think this is an excellent amendment in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March. It would insert a new clause 6. It would allow us to have, as soon as is practicable after three years, a review. One of the things the Minister will be required to do would be to not just hear from employers but to hear from unions and others that might be interested. You could have employment consultants, for example. People who work with people with mental health could be consulted. So it’s an excellent amendment and I commend it to the House.

I’m going to take a call from Camilla Belich, but I want this to be very strictly to the point of the clause, please. Thank you.

Noted, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the amendment in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March, amending 67BA which is a new clause to be added in at clause 6 of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill.

There are three parts to this particular amendment, and I won’t take the full amount of time, but I want to make a few comments on the operative parts of it. The first one is, as we know, a review provision. However, the member has set down a review in three years and, in my mind, I think that’s probably a bit too long. I think it would be preferable to have a review after a shorter period of time, possibly one year or two years. I would like to ask the Minister if she—she’s obviously indicated she’s not interested in this particular provision as it stands at the moment. However, if it was amended to change the number of years, in fact, to make it a shorter period of time, would she be more open to it? Alternatively, in fact, a longer period of time would also be better than nothing, in my view. So we’ve got three years at the moment; would she be minded to agree to review provision if it was five years? So that’s 67BA(1) of the amendments in Menéndez March’s name.

The second part of that provision is looking at the people who should be consulted as part of the review, and we have had, I think, some very relevant and useful contributions on other people that could be included in that provision. But I wanted to take the time just to note that this bill is going through without a select committee process. I did read, when I was looking at my phone briefly in between taking contributions, that when this bill was first introduced it was also introduced under urgency. I wondered if she had information about that or whether this is, in fact, the first time urgency has been used in a trial period bill. As we know there have been—and she stated in her first reading speech—four different iterations of trial period legislation as they’ve been through the House. It hasn’t been to a select committee, and I think clause 2, 67BA(2), addresses some of the issues relating to the fact we didn’t have a select committee.

The third provision which would be useful I think for the House would be to present a copy to the House of Representatives. I’d go a little bit further than my colleague Mr Menéndez March and just say: would it be, in fact, more appropriate for us to actually have a special debate on that report when it was tabled? I won’t be tabling a separate amendment to make that suggestion, but I’d be interested in the Minister’s thoughts. If she was to be agreeable to perhaps a shorter or longer period in clause 67BA(1), in that operative provision of three years at the moment, would she be open to having a debate in the House looking at this report that he has suggested?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the amendment inserting new clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 8 in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.