Labor and the Australian Council of Trade Unions are on a unity ticket in voicing concerns about the government’s proposed changes to casual employment.
Asked what rights the bill takes away, shadow industrial relations minister, Tony Burke, said:”The right the casuals have at the moment is if they are being abused as casuals, if they are in fact being employed as permanents, then they are able to go through a process and get [permanent] entitlements … So if the employer is only giving them the insecurity of casuals, but you look at the commitments that are being made in terms of future hours, you look at the roster that’s being worked, and they’re really full-time or part-time employees, then they have a pathway to be able to access their leave. All of that leave disappears with the stroke of pain if the government gets this legislation through. All those entitlements for casuals, gone. But if an employer breaks the law, if an employer put someone on as a casual, even though they’re giving them a permanent roster and expecting them to work as a permanent, the only penalty that happens is the employer will have to put up with after 12 months the employer saying “please can you stop doing that?” And that’s it.”
Burke refused to be drawn on whether Labor could support the bill, noting it will not be introduced until Wednesday.
On Sky, ACTU president, Michele O’Neil, said although the full bill hasn’t been released unions have been told there is no right of review for casual employees if employers refuse to make them permanent.
The test of whether it is “reasonable” to refuse to make someone permanent “leaves a really wide opening for employer to say here’s why I’m not going to do that”, she said.
O’Neil also rejected claims casuals are in effect double-dipping by receiving a loading and permanent entitlements.
She said:
“In the Workpac the workers weren’t getting a casual loading. And they were working alongside workers doing the same work, and they were getting less pay. If you’re doing the same work, at the same base rate and the casual is getting 25% more, then we understand the argument. But a lot of casuals aren’t receiving the loading, or are paid such a lower rate to begin with that even with the loading, they’re receiving less.”
Speaking of leadership rumblings, things are still not rosy in the Nationals (timeless statement) with Michael McCormack still failing to inspire loyalty. Llew O’Brien, the Queensland MP who tried to bring on a spill, failed, quit the party room (but not the LNP – he sat in joint party rooms, but didn’t take part in the Nationals gatherings) is back in the tent, officially.
There’s no way he would back McCormack in any future leadership spill, but at this point there is still no consensus candidate. Partly because Barnaby Joyce still thinks he can win the leadership back, and partly because enough of a cohort don’t think David Littleproud is ready.
But keep an eye on it.
Also keep an eye on who goes round for another term in the next election. Ken O’Dowd is expected to retire, leaving Flynn open for preselection, giving Matt Canavan an opening to jump to the lower house if he so wishes (although there is some talk in Queensland that he is waiting for Capricornia, Michelle Landry’s seat to become open, and that isn’t expect to happen at the next election. Capricornia takes in more of his base, so it would make sense, but it depends on whether Canavan wants to wait it out in the Senate for a few more years or not.)
There is also speculation Damian Drum (a McCormack supporter) will retire at the next election. If that happens, his Nationals colleagues expect the Liberals to run a candidate at the next election as well, setting up a three-cornered contest which could see the Liberals win the seat from their Coalition partner. That doesn’t change the government numbers but it does alter the power the Nationals have in the party room, which impacts on everything from policy to cabinet positions.
It’s all very early and no one, despite the speculation of an election being called during the August-October six-week break in the 2021 sitting calendar, knows when the next election will be.
It’s just something to keep an eye on.
Updated
Richard Marles spoke to ABC News Breakfast this morning about the foreign interference bill, which he said was “half-baked” – but Labor is still supporting it “reluctantly”.
(“Reluctant” support doesn’t change the votes.)
We’ve made it clear that we support the objective of this bill. It stands to reason that our national government should be in charge of our foreign relations and there an appropriateness about ensuring that the agreements that are reached by subnational bodies, states, universities, local councils that they are consistent with whatever is the national policy in respect of those foreign relations.
Having said that, this bill from the outset was half-baked. It was rushed into the parliament. It is full of flaws. We have been very concerned about it.
We’re supporting it, reluctantly, but we have moved a lot of amendments in relation to and we are asking for the government to sit down with us and talk this through so we can see the reasonable objective that is contained in the bill, realised through good legislation, but what we have got at the moment is something which is really half-baked.
Updated
Sally McManus, the head of the ACTU, is now speaking to ABC radio RN about the government’s proposed IR changes. She says she is “really disappointed” in the bill and that it is “everything the employers wanted”:
It allows employers to put a label on someone and call them a casual even if it’s a permanent job. And what happens then is you lose all your entitlements you lose sick leave and you lose your annual leave.
And yes, certainly after 12 months, your employer’s got to offer you a permanent job but you’ve got no way of enforcing it.
I mean, there’s no point having a right to something if you can’t actually do something about it.
You can’t actually enforce it so it’s, we think, it’s actually it’s going to take [conditions] backwards.
Updated