Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:668;Page:15396] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I come back to the combined effect of the provisions in Part 1 which is where all the substantive changes are. I believe that the consequences of this legislation—the changes that are being made to the Employment Relations Act—will mean that we will have multiple labour markets in which rights will be dependent on certain things. Highly skilled workers probably will not have the 90-day provision imposed. One will not tell a heart surgeon moving into one’s area that they will have to have a 90-day trial period. It just will not happen to those people. But for the many low-skilled or so-called unskilled people in the labour market it will be a “take it or leave it” scenario. It will be automatic. It will be in employment agreements. That will just be the reality and that will be the difference between those two labour markets. 
There will be a difference between unionised workplaces and non-unionised workplaces. As we heard clearly through the submission process the reality is that these 90-day provisions will not generally apply in unionised workplaces. The reality is that some of the employers who submitted on this bill are probably not that happy about it but it will not apply in those certain circumstances. We will see very different labour markets between those people who have work experience and those who do not have experience or recent experience. 
People coming back into work or who frequently move in and out of work—perhaps women who have primary childcare responsibilities and who come in and out of the workplace—will potentially have 90 days of no rights on multiple occasions in their working lives. Other people may have that only a few times or once even. There will be big differences between the experiences of men and women due to the provisions of this legislation. For example the Women’s Studies Association went into some detail about why it believes that the provisions of this bill will disproportionally affect women. It noted that women are more likely to have broken employment patterns and to change jobs more often. The association also noted that it is nonsense to argue that a young female worker desperate for a job has equal bargaining power with an employer in any business. It talked about the fact that preventing women workers access to their union by restricting the access of unions to worksites will restrict the right of women union members to secure advice and support. Many women are more likely to be working in the types of industries that are not yet unionised so this will undermine their ability to improve their wages and conditions of employment if the access provisions are abused. The association also went on to talk about the fact that women will probably be less likely to bargain with their employers over the 90-day trial period in circumstances where there is a choice about whether there is a 90-day so-called trial period. Other submitters have also noted that the effects of this legislation will disproportionately affect some workers rather than others. 
The Human Rights Commission took on the issue of what it called “constrained consent”. On the other side of the House members seem to think that a “take it or leave it” job offer is a choice. Well the reality is that that is nonsense and the Human Rights Commission said that the idea that the proposed legislation rests on contract and agreement and cannot be imposed on employees who do not agree to a trial period is “unrealistic particularly at a time of high unemployment and job scarcity”. The commission also went on to talk about the impact on women and on migrant workers. It looked at the Department of Labour evaluation of the 90-day period and said that even though most employers knew a trial period must be mutually agreed they generally did not seek employees’ acceptance of a trial period. Rather it was stated in the employment agreement along with other terms and conditions. Thus in practice the job offer was conditional on the employee accepting the trial period. 
The Human Rights Commission also noted the impact on employees of losing their job without reason and without recourse during that first 90 days. It could be for completely unfair reasons as that will be allowable. Who will ever know? The reality is that those people will then experience prejudice in seeking subsequent work. The Human Rights Commission made that point very strongly. I think that we will have multiple labour markets and that is of great concern to me. I think that fairness says there should be basic human rights that apply to all people in the labour market.