It was “a good day for Australia’s casuals”, the workplace relations minister, Tony Burke, said. That was his first line at a press conference on planned changes to make it easier for casual workers to “convert” to being permanent.
“What we’ve announced today is a right that most casuals won’t take up,” was his second line.
“It won’t be radical change,” he said later.
“Gobsmacking” is how the shadow minister for workplace relations, Michaelia Cash, described it. The Australian Industry Group chief executive, Innes Willox, described it as “a radical new restriction on the ability to engage casual employees to work regular and predictable hours”.
Asked how radical the changes are, emeritus professor David Peetz from The Centre of Future Work said it was “closer to the nothing-to-see-here end of the scale”.
“It’s important for the people who are going to take advantage of it,” he said. “[But] there aren’t going to be that many people willing or able to take advantage of it. You get the impression that anything that could be seen as improving the lot of workers will be opposed as if it’s the end of the world.”
What is changing?
Workers who are hired as casuals, but effectively act as permanent staff with regular or predictable shifts, will be able to ask their employers to convert them to permanent after six months on the job.
It’s a trade-off – they would voluntarily give up their casual loading (usually 25%) in return for leave and other entitlements and job security.
Burke says it’s all part of his broader plan to close loopholes in workplace laws that are not unlawful, but undermine the principles of a fair workplace.
The conversion would be voluntary, with an option to apply after six months and once every six months after that. Burke has promised “tools” for dispute resolution, with recourse to the Fair Work Commission.
“Under the law as it stands, if an employer signs you off as a casual on day one of your employment, and says in writing, ‘there is no firm advanced commitment to ongoing work’, but on day two gives you a roster fixed for the rest of the year, that rort of the system is legal,” Burke said.
“They are forced to be a permanent casual with all the expectations of a full-time worker but none of the protections.”
He said casual work will also be redefined to look at “what’s really going on” instead of the words written in a contract that may not reflect reality.
Peetz said there were cases where employers misclassified workers for years, then faced huge backpay bills when taken to court. The former Morrison government then stepped in to stop the bills that arose from employers’ own “misbehaviour”.
“The employers went bananas about the prospect of having to pay backpay for misclassified people, so that was the principle pressure on the Morrison government to fix this up,” he said.
Under Morrison government changes, a casual was a casual if their contract said there was no firm commitment to ongoing work.
“That’s the loophole they’re trying to close,” Peetz said.
Burke has ruled out backpay.
While telling Sky News the shift was “gobsmacking”, Cash also highlighted that when the Coalition was in government, it brought in laws so workers could convert from casual to permanent 12 months in.
Who will it affect?
Burke said that of 2.5 million casual workers in Australia there are “more than 850,000 casual workers who have regular work arrangements, giving them greater access to leave entitlements and more financial security if desired”.
Of that 850,000 many will not want to convert or may be stopped from converting to permanent.
The chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Andrew McKellar, told the ABC that in practice, only 1 to 2% of people make that choice under the existing scheme.
Willox said businesses, employees and the economy were all at risk.
“Defining casual employment in a way that prevents or discourages an employer from offering a casual regular and predictable hours would be a mistake that would damage the economy and hurt both businesses and employees,” he said.
Burke said there should be “no net cost to business”. An employer should in theory be paying casual loading or leave entitlements, and those costs should be roughly equivalent.
Peetz said many will not take up the option because if there’s a big power imbalance they’ll be afraid they’ll lose their jobs, or because they need the extra money more than the entitlements.
“People will be afraid of the consequences, of saying ‘make me permanent’ … a lot of workers will think ‘in theory I might be protected, but the reality is I don’t have much power’,” he said.
“The other problem, of course, is for a lot of low-wage workers, they’re reliant on the loading to have enough money to get by.”
Is it an attack on casual workers?
Cash told ABC Radio the changes were part of a campaign to undermine casual workers.
“Ultimately, Labor primarily opposes casual work because they find it more difficult to unionise this workforce,” she said.
In contrast, the unions say it will protect workers.
“What the government is proposing is sensible and fair, it will put the decision in the hands of workers … right now, too many workers are working jobs that are casual in name only, denying workers both pay and rights,” the ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, said.
Peetz said much would come down to the wording of the legislation, due by the end of the year, and the protection of workers who want the change.
