Source: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017B00035/Explanatory%20Memorandum/Text
Timestamp: 2020-01-28 15:44:04
Document Index: 385451789

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 4', 'art 2', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5']

The exploitation of vulnerable workers has been examined in a range of reports, including the Senate Education and Employment References Committee’s report entitled A National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders, March 2016; the Fair Work Ombudsman’s A Report of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s Inquiry into 7-Eleven, April 2016 and A Report on the Fair Work Ombudsman’s Inquiry into the labour procurement arrangements of the Baiada Group in New South Wales, June 2015; and the Productivity Commission’s Productivity Commission Inquiry Report: Workplace Relations Framework, No. 76, November 2015.
The Fair Work Ombudsman’s A Report of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s Inquiry into 7-Eleven: Identifying and addressing the drivers of non-compliance in the 7-Eleven network and The Fair Work Ombudsman’s Inquiry into the labour procurement arrangements of the Baiada Group in New South Wales, the Productivity Commission’s Workplace Relations Framework Final Report, and the Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment’s A National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders report, together have been certified as being informed by a process and analysis equivalent to a Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) as set out in the Australian Government Guide to Regulation and the corresponding guidance note. The amendments included in the Bill were informed by substantial evidence from these sources. These reports can be accessed at the following websites:
1. Clause 1 provides for the short title of the Act to be the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act 2017.
Item 2 – Subsection 539(2) (after note 3)
Items 3 to 12 – Subsection 539(2)
Item 12 – Subsection 539(2) (cell at table item 29, column 4)
Item 13 – After section 557
Section 557A – Civil contraventions of civil remedy provisions
27. New subsection 557A(4) clarifies that, in determining whether there is a ‘systematic pattern of conduct’, the ‘grouping’ of contraventions under section 557(1) should be disregarded. This allows the total number of relevant contraventions to be considered, so the entirety of the relevant conduct may be taken into account.
28. New subsection 557A(5) clarifies that, for the purpose of determining penalties, the ‘grouping’ exercise under subsection 557(1) is undertaken in relation to serious contraventions.
Section 557B – Liability of bodies corporate for serious contravention
32. A contravention by a body corporate is deliberate if it expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised the contravention. The authorisation may be given by an individual within the organisation (see section 793); or via a policy, rule, course of conduct or practice that exists within the organisation. The body corporate’s actions, however, must be considered as a whole. This reflects elements of Part 2.5 of the Criminal Code. The criminal framework has been adapted in the present context for use in a civil penalties framework: see Principled Regulation: Federal Civil and Administrative Penalties in Australia, ALRC Report 95, paragraphs 7.138, 7.139. It recognises that it may sometimes be simplistic to merely correlate the culpability of an agent with the culpability of the corporation without investigating the actions of the corporation as a whole.
7-Eleven franchisees, demonstrate more needs to be done by franchisors and holding companies to protect vulnerable workers employed in their business networks. A number of case studies are provided in the Senate Education and Employment References Committee’s report entitled A National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders, March 2016 and reports of the Fair Work Ombudsman.
Item 14 – Section 12
Item 15 – Section 537 (after the paragraph relating to Division 4)
Item 16 – Subsection 539(2) (after table item 29)
Item 17 – After Division 4 of Part 4-1
Section 558A – Meaning of franchisee entity and responsible franchisor entity
50. New paragraph 558A(1)(b) qualifies the definition by providing the term only applies to franchisees whose business is substantially or materially associated with ‘intellectual property relating to the franchise’. This may be evidenced by use of trademarks, advertising or commercial symbols that are owned, used, licensed or specified by the franchisor or their associate. The effect of this qualification is that the definition only covers businesses that are widely considered to be ‘franchise businesses’. This is consistent with the approach taken under the Franchising Code of Conduct contained in Schedule 1 of the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Franchising) Regulation 2014. This approach effectively limits the scope of the new provisions to franchisor/franchisee businesses which are appropriately associated by branding—and distinguishes it from other forms of arrangements – for example, distribution agreements or joint venture marketing.
Section 558B – Responsibility of responsible franchisor entities and holding companies for certain contraventions
58. These provisions mean that the responsible franchisor entity does not need to have actual knowledge that the franchisee entity’s contravention would occur. It is enough that the responsible franchisor entity could reasonably be expected to have known the contravention would occur, or that a contravention of the same or a similar character was likely to occur. Mere suspicion is not enough – there must objectively be reasonable grounds to hold the belief.
Subsection 558B(2) – Responsibility of holding companies for certain contraventions
63. New subsection 558B(2) mirrors the provisions in subsection 558B(1), but applies them in relation to holding companies and their subsidiaries. The term ‘subsidiary’ takes its meaning from the Corporations Act 2001.
558B(3)-(5) – Reasonable steps to prevent a contravention of the same or a similar character
Subsection 558B(6) – Civil proceedings in relation to contravention by franchisee entity or subsidiary not required
Subsection 558B(7) – Relevant civil remedy provisions
Section 558C – Right of franchisor entity or holding company to recover
Item 18 – Section 151
Item 19 – Subsection 253(1) (note 2)
Item 20 – Division 2 of Part 2-9 (heading)
Item 21 – Section 325 (heading)
86. Item 21 replaces the heading for section 325, which is consequential upon the amendments to subsection 325(1) made by this Part.
Item 22 – Subsection 325(1)
92. Any employee who has paid ‘cashback’ or made other payments which are unreasonable in the circumstances is entitled to have the amounts reimbursed by their employer (see section 327).
95. This was achieved by replacing the reference in subsection 325(1) to an amount being spent from the employee’s wages (i.e. ‘an amount payable to the employee in relation to the performance of work’) with ‘an amount of the employee’s money’.
Item 23 – Section 326
Item 24 – Section 327 (heading)
Item 25 – Paragraph 327(b)
Item 26 – Paragraph 557(2)(i)
105. The stronger evidence-gathering powers are subject to important safeguards to ensure the powers are exercised appropriately and consistently, and that people who are asked to respond to an FWO notice are dealt with fairly. They have been framed consistent with A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, September 2011 and the Administrative Review Council Report 48, The Coercive Information-gathering Powers of Government Agencies. Safeguards include:
106. The exercise of the new powers is subject to the general jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and judicial review under the Judiciary Act 1903. The powers are not exercisable by Inspectors generally (unless they are also members of the SES).
Item 27 – Section 12
Item 28 – Subsection 539(2) (after table item 32)
Items 29 and 30 – Subsection 683(1) and after subsection 683(1)
114. A note to the section highlights that the terms ‘SES employee’ and ‘acting SES employee’ are defined in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
Items 31 and 32 – At the end of subsection 685(1) and section 686
Item 33 – Subdivision D of Division 3 of Part 5-2 (heading)
Items 34 and 35 – Section 703 and at the end of section 703
Items 36 and 37 – Before section 708 and before subsection 711
Item 38 – After section 712
Section 712A – Fair Work Ombudsman may give FWO notice
125. New subsection 712A(4) clarifies that a person attending a place to answer questions in response to an FWO notice may be represented by a lawyer if the person chooses. This is an important safeguard that makes it clear that a person is permitted to be represented by a lawyer during questioning.
Section 712B – Requirement to comply with FWO notice
Section 712C – Payment for expenses incurred in attending as required by an FWO notice
Section 712D – Protection from liability relating to FWO notices
Item 39 – Section 713
Section 713 – Self-incrimination etc.
156. Other Commonwealth laws arising in a similar regulatory context, like the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, also only provide for use immunity. The FWO’s new examination powers have been modelled on powers currently conferred by these Acts.
Item 40 – After section 713A
Items 41, 42, 43 and 44 – Section 714
Item 45 – After section 714
Item 46 – Before section 715
Item 47 – Subsection 539(2) (before table item 31, after the subheading “Part 5-2—Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman”)
Item 48 – After section 707
Item 49 – At the end of section 535
Item 50 – At the end of section 536
Items 51 and 52 – Subsection 539(2) (table item 29, column 1)
Item 53 – Subsection 539(2) (after table item 33)
Items 54 and 55 – Paragraph 557(2)(n) and 557(2)(o)
Item 56 – At the end of Division 3 of Part 5-2
Item 57 – In the appropriate position in Schedule 1
Clause 15 – Definitions
Clause 16 – Application of amendments—unreasonable requirements to pay amounts
Clause 17 – Saving of regulations—unreasonable requirements to pay amounts
Clause 18 – Application of amendments—increasing maximum penalties for contraventions of certain civil remedy provisions
Clause 19 – Application of amendments—responsibility of franchisor entities and holding companies
Clause 20 – Application of amendments—hindering or obstructing the Fair Work Ombudsman and inspectors
211. This conduct may also fall within section 149.1 of the Criminal Code, whether occurring before or after commencement.
Clause 21 – Application of power to give FWO notices
Clause 22 – Application of amendments relating to self-incrimination etc.
Clause 23 – Application of requirement for reports not to include information relating to an individual’s affairs
Clause 24 – Application of amendments—false or misleading information or documents
The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 (the Bill) is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
The Bill will also enhance the Fair Work Ombudsman’s powers by including new formal evidence-gathering powers to facilitate investigations. New examination powers will provide the Fair Work Ombudsman with a greater suite of options to investigate potential non‑compliance with workplace laws. This will help achieve positive investigation outcomes where existing powers to require the production of documents fall short because there are no employee records or other relevant documents. This will enable the most serious cases involving the exploitation of vulnerable workers to be properly investigated—even if no documents are produced.
· Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) – Right to just and favourable conditions of work;
· Articles 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – Criminal process rights; and
· Article 17 of ICCPR – Right to privacy and reputation.
The purpose of these penalties is to encourage compliance with the Fair Work Act, which supports the implementation of a number of Australia's obligations under international law. This has been recognised in a number of cases including: Commonwealth of Australia v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46 at [55]; Fair Work Ombudsman v Shaik [2016] FCCA 2345 at [168]; Fair Work Ombudsman v Global Express Consultancy Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] FCCA 2446 at [82].
In order for an interference with the right to privacy not to be arbitrary, the interference must be for a reason consistent with the ICCPR and reasonable in the particular circumstances. Reasonableness, in this context, involves notions of proportionality, appropriateness and necessity.[1]
The FWO’s graduated approach to compliance and enforcement means that these powers will only be used where other co-operative approachs have failed or are inappropriate. The new powers support a legitimate end by helping to achieve positive investigative outcomes where existing powers have been demonstrated to fall short (as evidenced by the reports listed in the Outline). New powers will enable the most serious cases involving the exploitation of vulnerable workers to be propertly investigated and help ensure the lawful payment of wages (in promotion of Article 7 of ICESCR – see above).
The Act also makes provision for disclosure to the Minister and disclosure to the Department (subsections 718(3)–(4)).
Under Taskforce Cadena the FWO, DIBP and Australian Border Force share intelligence and data to identify strategic targets with regard to contraventions of the Fair Work Act and the Migration Act 1958. This enhances the ability of both agencies to target and disrupt criminal syndicates that seek to commit visa fraud and exploit foreign workers in Australia.