Ms Rosa Lee Long

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

I rise to contribute to debate on the Industrial Relations and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2005.

One of the main thrusts of this bill is to ensure that workers in the clothing industry who are acting honestly and legally are paid properly and fairly. One could say that it is as basic as the good old Aussie fair go, and I firmly believe that a fair day's work should bring a fair day's pay. In days gone by, after a fair day's work a worker could expect to be paid with cash in the hand-that is, with immediate recompense. Not so these days when trust has all but disappeared and technology is so smart that it is mostly done by direct debits. This bill is to bring Queensland into line with the other eastern states with a process for wage recovery for outworkers in the clothing industry who may have a grievance in that regard. As the majority of these workers are predominantly of Asian background with limited English speaking abilities, this bill is aimed at assisting them to obtain their rightful entitlements.

The interesting part is that it puts the onus onto the participants in the contracting chain. When a dispute arises, it will have to be determined exactly who the employer really is. Who is the apparent employer? Who is the legal employer? Who is the referred employer, or who is the real employer? No wonder it is confusing to people with limited English. Whoever the apparent employer is will be liable unless he can prove that the work was not done, that the amount claimed is incorrect or that the amount

has already been paid. This is a reversal of the onus of proof. Alternatively, the apparent employer can refer the claim to the referred employer within 14 days of receipt of the claim. I ask the minister to explain what happens when the apparent employer refers the claim to the referred employer within 14 days and the referred employer then denies any liability at all or denies partial liability. Do those two employers then go to court and fight it out? In which case it may take years and who pays the worker in the meantime?

Clause 37 expands the powers of inspectors to enter premises where outwork is carried out without the occupier's consent and without a warrant. This includes domestic premises.

This bill also introduces cultural leave, whereby an employee from the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture may take up to five days unpaid leave each year which the employer cannot unreasonably refuse. The bill also provides extra unpaid bereavement leave for people who have to travel long distances to attend a family funeral. The bill also introduces amendments to long service leave payments relating to certain commissions.

The bill also makes it harder for employers to dismiss short-term casual employees and employees engaged for a fixed term or task. I believe that will have a great impact on the general community. I am concerned about the way in which this amendment may affect cafe owners who may have someone come in to work for them for two afternoons a week or a farmer who may also have someone doing odd jobs for them for one or two days a week. This amendment raises issues about employers' willingness the option of hiring and firing as they are the ones paying employees' wages. After all, the employees have the option of leaving at any time if the conditions do not suit them.

These days industrial relations rules and regulations have become far too onerous for employers.

They have contributed to fewer regular jobs being available. I have a concern that extending those protections to the short-term casual sector may have a huge impact at a time when efforts are being made to encourage older people to stay in the work force and also to teach young people work ethics. It will not do any good to have jobs disappear because employers do not want to risk being stuck with an unsuitable or unsatisfactory worker. These amendments cut both ways.

Yet again in this bill we see the reversal of the onus of proof, which has been noted by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. It is mentioned in relation to the amendments to section 638 of the act, which deals with freedom of association and which, as I understand it, relates mainly to union activity.

The explanatory notes state-Clause 46 omits section 638(b) to assist in giving effect to Australia's international obligations in relation to labour standards, which is one of the objects of the IR Act.

In April 2004, the International Labor Organisation issued a report, 'The Application of International Labour Standards 2004', which noted that section 638(b) of the Act breaches the Convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize.

Australia is a signatory to this Convention. The removal of section 638(b) will bring section 638 into line with the Convention.

I was amazed to read in the explanatory notes that reversing the onus of proof in this instance was, in fact, desirable to protect 'such a fundamental right as freedom of association'. I understand why a Labor government would consider the right for workers to organise as highly important, but I do not believe that it is as important or as basic a principle as a person being considered innocent until the accuser can prove

otherwise. Since 2001, this bill is about the 54th piece of legislation in which the Beattie government has reversed the onus of proof. Clearly, the Beattie government has a very jaundiced view of the most basic rights of its citizens.

Back to News page