# data[].attributes.body
Privatisation is when a public entity controlled by the government becomes a private enterprise. The idea of making a public entity a private enterprise is based on the assumption that a private enterprise, which is motivated by self interest, will innovate and become more efficient than a public entity, which has no need to generate revenue and therefore has less incentive to reduce expenses or provide better services. This paradigm, popular in the 1980s, has led to multiple scandals and disasters, including Telecom Australia: the company sold off its assets and was liquidated just years after being privatised, and the government had to waste billions of dollars repurchasing these assets to develop the disastrous NBN project. This led to a mass reallocation of resources and the development of telecommunications infrastructure that failed to meet aggregate demand.

# data[].attributes.body
Defined what an casual employee was, meaning many employees previously considered casual would now be entitled to part time and full time entitlements and benefits.

# data[].attributes.body
Economists make our life worse

# data[].attributes.body
Increasing tarrifs and protectionist polices against internation competitiors allows domestic firms to increase production and increaseprofit as a result of less competitivness from foriegn firms.

# data[].attributes.body
The RBA has made some policy mistakes which have harmed our economy. By focusing on only one or two economic objectives at a time, which for the past 30 years has been inflation and economic growth the RBA has ignored the labour market for an extended period of time

# data[].attributes.body
Australia post answer coming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

The language used in industrial relations can be a dense forest of acronyms, initialisms and jargon-laden terms such as protected action ballots and industry-wide bargaining.

It can seem off-putting, but it matters because it shapes how we live and work and sets out how we distribute the results of our labour, how we try to achieve fairness in our market economy and how we drive productivity in our workplaces.

Teachers on strike in June. Credit:Brook Mitchell

At its heart, industrial relations is a way to manage inherent conflicts between the interests of businesses wanting to maximise profits and workers and unions wanting to pay the bills, increase pay and improve conditions. Different views on these matters have been at the centre of political conflicts between Labor and the non-Labor parties since Federation.

Currently, profits - the share of income going to business as opposed to employees - are at a 60-year high as a proportion of the Australian economy. Over the past decade, wages have fallen after accounting for inflation, leading to an almost unparalleled period of wage stagnation in Australia's history.

Now, with the election of a Labor government, unions - represented by their peak body the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) - will play a more significant role in these debates. Union membership has fallen over time, but they are still influential in how the Labor Party operates, from preselecting candidates to formulating policy.

At the Jobs and Skills Summit, the ACTU wants big changes to how the industrial relations system works. Judging by its public comments and summit agenda, Labor is receptive. But what does it all mean?

What is enterprise bargaining, and why is it failing?

Introduced in the early 1990s by the Keating Labor government, enterprise bargaining meant that single businesses (or enterprise) and its workforce (usually represented by a union) could make industrial agreements. The intention was to unlock higher wages and higher productivity by meeting the needs of both employers and workers. A win-win. In its early years it delivered, and the expectation was it would, over time, become the dominant way to set wages and conditions.

A decade ago, 43.4 per cent of employees were covered by an enterprise agreement. The most recent federal government data shows that has fallen to 35 per cent. Contributing to the decline has been the shift to a more service-oriented economy with smaller workplaces, fewer big manufacturing companies, increased casualisation (and more lately gig work) and a big fall in union membership.

In the early 1990s, about 40 per cent of employees were in unions. It is now 14 per cent. This matters as it is harder for employees to find a way through the complexities of the system without a union. It has meant employees have far less power to negotiate higher wages through bargaining than they did a generation ago.

Gig workers have become far more common in recent years. Credit:Steven Siewert

Labor's Fair Work Act, introduced in 2009, was meant to breathe life back into the system. It hasn't. In the absence of an enterprise agreement, many workers' wages and conditions are set either by an individual contract or the workplace award, which remained in place under Keating's reforms as a "safety net". However, over the past decade, more than a million extra workers in Australia have had their pay set by the minimum wages of awards.

There are now 122 awards (reduced by the Rudd government from more than 4000 awards). They set minimum pay and conditions for nearly 3 million employees. But these workers have no ability to bargain or strike for pay rises. Their rates of pay are set each year by the workplace tribunal, the Fair Work Commission, in what's known as the national minimum wage case.

The consequence is that in some industries, a number of employers have enterprise agreements, but the rest are on a mishmash of staff paid via the award or even expired agreements dating back as far as 15 years. There can be pockets of good pay and conditions and other jobs in the same industry where low pay is commonplace or wage theft proliferates.

What is multi-employer bargaining?

With enterprise bargaining failing, the ACTU argues a shift to industry-based or multi-employer negotiations could increase wages. Under these arrangements, instead of talks occurring between a single employer and a union or workers, they could occur across a number of like-minded employers, a whole industry, or even a supply chain. It's also sometimes called "pattern bargaining".

The staff of all high-end restaurants in Melbourne or Sydney's CBD, for example, could try to negotiate for one single rate of wages and conditions. Such agreements could cover the whole childcare sector or regional nursing homes in South Australia. It would increase the bargaining power of people working in female-dominated industries such as aged care or healthcare and could mean higher wages.

A move such as this would be the most significant change to the industrial relations system in decades. To work, the law would need to change to allow unions and workers to take industrial action across multiple businesses or entire sectors - something that is currently unlawful. The ACTU says it is the only way to force employers to increase wages in some industries. But many business groups hate the idea of industry-wide bargaining and fewer restrictions on strikes, and will oppose it vigorously.

Some business groups do not oppose the idea. The ACTU and the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia have said they want to work towards multi-employer bargaining - there is currently negligible bargaining involving smaller businesses.

However, they say doing that would require a "simpler BOOT".

What is the BOOT, and why is it important?

The BOOT is the "better off overall test". It's a legal test that ensures that when an enterprise agreement is struck, every worker is "better off overall" than they would be if they were paid the minimum wage in the award.

Some employers argue the BOOT is unworkable and that the Fair Work Commission spends too much time considering hypothetical situations of how workers could be disadvantaged. It has resulted in delays and red tape, and has caused bargaining to collapse.

Part of the problem stems from 2016, when the full bench of the Fair Work Commission found that Coles, in a deal with the shop assistants' union (SDA), had struck a workplace deal that failed the BOOT as it paid some workers "significantly" less than the award. Coles' data indicated more than half its workforce was underpaid under deals the Fair Work Commission should never have approved.

Bargaining in retail and fast food ground to a halt as an Age investigation from the time showed these underpayments were prevalent at Australia's largest employers, including Woolworths, McDonald's, KFC and Red Rooster. It affected up to 250,000 workers and was Australia's largest wages scandal. The Fair Work Commission has since been far more stringent.

The ACTU is open to simplifying the test, as part of a previous deal it struck with the Business Council of Australia, to encourage more small businesses to bargain and to give faster approvals for union-negotiated deals.

But it is a fraught area. When the Howard government introduced its WorkChoices laws in 2005 and removed an earlier test (then called the "no disadvantage test"), it allowed employers to slash the pay and conditions of low-paid workers. What happened as a result contributed to an electoral backlash that cost John Howard both the prime ministership and his seat in parliament.

Is this all a return to the 1970s?

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has warned the proposals from ACTU secretary Sally McManus to allow multi-employer or "pattern" bargaining are a "throwback from the '70s" and an industrial relations system that would "cripple families and small businesses".

"The economy-wide strikes she advocates for, the increased taxation on small businesses, the inability for small business to have a final say about employees in their own business - this is an agenda of the Labor Party from the 1970s," Dutton said.

But the industrial relations and economic environment today could not be further from the 1970s. Then, Australia was a manufacturing-heavy economy with union membership in excess of half the workforce, and major strikes were common, including "general strikes".

In the past 15 years, Australia has endured minimal industrial action, though that has risen this year to its highest level in almost 10 years, as inflation drives pressure for bigger pay rises. Among these were the teachers' strike in NSW and industrial action in logistics and transport.

In the 1970s, Australia's economy was still mostly shielded from global competition through tariffs and industry protection. The share of the economic pie going to workers was at a record high, exceeding 60 per cent. In the early 1980s, metalworkers were able to secure pay rises of more than 20 per cent a year and wages were growing so fast they were causing inflation.

Now, Australia faces a very different scenario. In a service-heavy, mostly deindustrialised economy, wages as a share of the economy have fallen significantly. Real wages (wages plotted against inflation) have also plummeted as prices rise and wages stay stubbornly stagnant.

The imbalances in the economy have fed into income and wealth inequality, which has risen since the 1980s. Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe observed in 2018: "Slow wages growth is diminishing our sense of shared prosperity."

Connect via Ben Schneiders is an investigative journalist at The Age with a focus on workplace issues, politics, business and corruption. A Walkley award winner, he is a four-time winner of the Industrial Relations reporting award. Twitter, Facebook or email.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bargaining, the BOOT and a 1970s economy: Decoding industrial-relations speak

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size The language used in industrial relations can be a dense forest of acronyms, initialisms and jargon-laden terms such as protected action ballots and industry-wide bargaining.

# data[].attributes.body
The federal government was forced to stop the bulk of a "controversial industrial relations bill, failing to negotiate it through the Senate".

A reform was made to legally define casual work.

"The original reforms would have meant part-time employees could pick up extra work at their usual pay"

# data[].attributes.body
Question 3
Influences inflation to fall
Decrease Demand for houses rise

# data[].attributes.headline
How has the microeconomic reform led to changing efficiencies (positive or negative or a combination)?

# data[].attributes.subject
How has the microeconomic reform led to changing efficiencies (positive or negative or a combination)?

# data[].attributes.body
Changing efficiencies allowed Australia Post to run more like a normal business, with corporatisation and privatisation turning a privately owned corporation into a Govt. run organisation. Because of this, Australia Post has been able to run more offices with sufficient funding. Therefore contributing to a higher employment rate and promoting the use of its services in rural areas.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 2
Under the reform proposal people buying property will be able to choose between paying stamp duty or a much smaller annual tax. King & Wood Mallesons warns that long transition could entrench a less efficient ‘two-tier’ property tax system for decades.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1
change in annual property tax rate introducing an element of long-term uncertainty not now associated with most property purchases.

# data[].attributes.body
The RBA has not targeted unemployment for 40 years leading to unused labour in the Australian economy negatively affecting aggregate supply.

# data[].attributes.headline
how is the microeconomic reform discussed in the article related to aggregate supply?

# data[].attributes.subject
how is the microeconomic reform discussed in the article related to aggregate supply?

# data[].attributes.body
Media 2: Organisations have the role to provide a CEIS for casual employees in order to expand information regarding employment population statistics. A CEIS is not required on a more common basis than a 12 months period meaning data sets could be different depending on the time of year

# data[].attributes.body
The Australian government has recently considered the option of increasing tariffs on Chinese products in order to prioritise domestic producers within the Australian economy. In support of this decision, National party politicians have stated that "[It was] not healthy for China to have such a dominant position in so many key global commodities, including steel, copper, aluminium and rare earths". In opposition to these protectionist policies; economist have highlighted the successes of the Australian economy from FTAs in recent years and their importance given the geographical limitations of Australia's involvement in the global economy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I used to get very excited about the federal budget. Less so, nowadays.

Perhaps I've lived through enough economic crises - first the GFC and now COVID - to know budgets and budget-like stimulus packages, unlike Christmas, do not only come once a year.

Maybe I've simply been forced to miss enough formal lock-ups inside Parliament House in recent years - due to COVID or strikes - that I've come to realise life goes on outside the budget lock-up bubble.

Wayne Swan once described the budgets as "moral documents", revealing the true priorities of the government of the day. And I guess that's true.

But if you look through the political window-dressing, most of the budgets delivered by both Labor and Coalition governments in past decades reveal much the same thing: a lot of revenue raised from individuals and companies, and a lot spent on social security and welfare, health, education and defence.

Yes, there are important variations on the theme. But it is a fortunate fact of Australian life that we have a deeply embedded and largely bipartisan political commitment to raise and spend taxpayer money on ways to improve the lives of all Australians.

Budgets, like the one due in less than two weeks, can tell you the exact dollar amounts being spent on such things. But they tell you much less, if anything, about the quality of that spending.

These days, budget statements appear to me as relatively simplistic exercises in addition and subtraction. Spoiler alert: Treasury can add up.

Double spoiler alert: often changes in the total quantity of taxpayer money raised or spent have much more to do with the general health of the Australian economy than the deliberate designs of any Treasurer.

What we rarely, if ever, get to hear about at budget time is how effective the dollars spent were in improving the lives of ordinary Australians. That sort of assessment requires time, and careful tracking, and robust data collection and rigorous analysis.

Often, of course, we get to find out - too late - when spending has failed to produce the outcomes we desire. When fistsful of dollars spent on education or aged care, for example, fail to produce quality outcomes. But we rarely get a lockup for journalists on that.

On the tax side of the budget, we already know quite a lot about what works and what doesn't.

Successive inquiries have concluded that taxes on incomes - both of individuals and of companies - distort behaviour. Individuals respond to taxes by working less. Companies by shifting elsewhere or employing fancy accountants to dodge tax.

Better, say economists, to tax in ways that are harder to avoid, like taxes on land values or on consumption - demand for which is relatively less "elastic" (you still gotta buy bread).

Unfortunate, then, that personal income taxes make up almost half of federal tax collections. Doubly so that our tax system bakes in a tendency for this to rise each year, as wage rises push more workers into higher tax brackets.

Journalists and voters alike get stars in their eyes at budget time watching politicians announce the latest round of personal income tax cuts. But the truth is, the need for constant ad hoc tax cuts is built into the system. It's a bread and circuses game.

There are better and worse ways to do this, of course. And, by the way, simply extending the so-called LMITO (low and middle-income tax offset), worth about $1080 a year, would be one of the worst, retaining a complicating part of our tax system that the Henry Review argued should be abolished in favour of lower tax rates or thresholds.

Another reason I've become less excited about the federal budget is that I now realise it is just one of many government budgets that affect household finances. People often focus on their income tax rate, but when you factor in the 125 or so taxes Australians pay to all three levels of government, a typical tax burden is closer to half of a person's income, a recent study by the Australian Taxpayers' Alliance found.

Everyone remembers income tax, but don't forget alcohol and tobacco taxes, fuel excise, taxes on insurance policies, gambling taxes, stamp duty, motor vehicle registration, road tolls, council rates, and taxes on superannuation. You have to pay them all. It matters what happens to these too.

Importantly, many of these other taxes, particularly consumption and so-called "sin" taxes are regressive - hitting low-income hip-pockets much harder than higher incomes as a relative share of their household budgets.

That's why proponents of a "tax mix switch", of cutting income taxes and increasing more efficient taxes, like the GST, always warn of the need to fully compensate vulnerable households through increased welfare or lower tax.

COVID has disrupted our lives in so many ways. But it has not, so far, proved a burning platform on which to shape an overhaul of our increasingly outdated tax system.

It should be. If we are to sustainably grow our way out of this crisis, we need the best quality tax system we can have.

But a tax reckoning does loom. The government's Stage 3 tax cuts for upper-income earners, set to kick in from 2024-25, appear so unfair in isolation - delivering much bigger benefits to high-income earners - as to be politically untenable. Pressure will mount for some redesign and this should be done with a view to real tax reform.

Such reform, like increasing the GST while cutting income taxes, usually bleeds the budget because it requires losers to be over-compensated. But with the federal budget already deep in the red and the cost of borrowing so low, I ask: if not now, then when?

Now that would be a budget worth getting excited about.

Money with Jess newsletter

Practical tips and information you can trust from senior writer Jessica Irvine to help you budget, earn, invest and enjoy your money. Sign up to get it every Sunday.

Jessica Irvine is a senior economics writer with The Sydney Morning Herald.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tax reform is dead: long live tax reform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I used to get very excited about the federal budget. Less so, nowadays. Perhaps I've lived through enough economic crises - first the GFC and now COVID - to know budgets and budget-like stimulus packages, unlike Christmas, do not only come once a year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

Legal and accounting professionals have criticised the Berejiklian government's strategy to replace stamp duty with an annual land tax warning the slow transition to the new scheme may distort the property market and sap the state's coffers.

A submission to the NSW government by King & Wood Mallesons, one of Australia's biggest law firms, says the tax overhaul has the potential to create distortions and undermine the economic benefits promised.

NSW Treasurer Dominic Perrottet wants to replace stamp duty with an annual land tax. Credit:James Brickwood/SMH

Under the reform proposal property buyers will be able to choose between paying stamp duty (an up-front lump sum) or a much smaller annual tax. Once a property has been traded without stamp duty it will remain in the new annual taxation system for all subsequent owners. It is anticipated stamp duty will be fully replaced in NSW by the annual land tax by around 2050.

But King & Wood Mallesons warns that long transition could entrench a less efficient 'two-tier' property tax system for decades.

"Taxpayers who might, for any number of reasons, prefer to pay stamp duty upfront on their property purchase may be dissuaded from purchasing properties that have already been opted-in," its submission says.

"The property market is effectively divided into two types of property - with potentially different groups of prospective buyers."

King & Wood Mallesons partner, Katrina Parkyn, said while the opt-in nature of the proposed tax change was appealing, it created major challenges.

"This model seems to generate a lot of complexity that will undermine some of the benefits that the government is trying to deliver from the changes," she said.

A spokesman for Treasurer Dominic Perrottet said consultations with the community about the proposed reforms were ongoing.

Ms Parkyn said the annual property tax rate could change in future introducing an element of long-term uncertainty not now associated with most property purchases.

The submission warns the challenges of determining property valuations which underpin the new tax would mean "greater potential for costly disputes for landowners and the state." The proposed changes could also create uncertainty for developers who want to build on multiple parcels of land.

"We suggest that consideration be given to alternative options for transition," the submission says.

Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, which represents more than 120,000 financial professionals, has also criticised the lengthy transition away from stamp duty and called for greater transparency about the plan.

"We support moving from stamp duty to property tax but there is a real potential of the proposed transitional method having a negative knock-on effect on future generations," said Susan Franks the group's senior tax advocate. "The transitional method to 'opt in' is likely to be protracted and complex."

The overhaul will cause a significant short-term revenue loss but the government is yet to provide details on how the state budget will be affected.

Ms Franks said it may take decades to repay debts accrued during the transition.

"It's good to be bold, but let's know the facts," she said.

Treasurer, Dominic Perrottet, announced the reforms last November and released a consultation paper outlining the proposed strategy. No implementation timetable has yet been announced but Mr Perrottet has said the reforms "could be set in motion in the second half of 2021."

The changes will also apply to commercial property in NSW but awareness about the reforms in the business community is low. A survey by peak body, Business NSW, found 43 per cent of firms did not know anything about the stamp duty reforms. A further 30 per cent had heard about the proposal but didn't know how it would affect them.

Business NSW said the government has so far "failed to fully explain" the stamp duty reform plan.

Catch all the day's breaking news

At the end of each day, we'll send you the most important breaking news headlines, evening entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up here.

Matt Wade is a senior economics writer at The Sydney Morning Herald.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Warnings NSW stamp duty reforms could distort the property market

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size Legal and accounting professionals have criticised the Berejiklian government's strategy to replace stamp duty with an annual land tax warning the slow transition to the new scheme may distort the property market and sap the state's coffers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just weeks later, the government's family-friendly budget, with cash for all, also spooked many inside Labor's caucus.

But it was Foley's strong anti-privatisation stance in his budget reply speech that calmed nerves, according to several sources.

One senior Labor source said: "It would be fair to say we felt deflated after seeing their budget but I think Luke's [Foley] strong position on privatisation is his speech helped internally."

A senior MP said: "There was a proud sigh of relief from backbenchers when he spoke about no more privatisation." And another said: "We felt we were back in the game".

Along with its "schools and hospitals before stadiums" position, the Opposition sees its anti-privatisation stance as it biggest selling point ahead of the March election.

Opposition treasury spokesman Ryan Park says the party will not shift from its commitment that there will be "absolutely no privatisation" under a Labor government.

"I really think the community feels that this government has gone too far with privatisation, not just ideologically, but in terms of what this means for people," Park says. "They have seen an increase in electricity prices, an increase in the cost of property searches and I think they have now said loud and clear that enough is enough.

"Everyone accepts that a lot of money was raised from the selling the poles and wires but we lost a lot in dividend payments, which have always been a reliable and relatively stable income."

Park draws attention to a section in last month's state budget which said the NSW government will develop a new "Capital Planning Policy" that will improve the "efficiency of asset use".

Under the policy all "asset-intensive agencies" will be required to submit "Asset Utilisation and Recycling Plans" to ensure only assets required for service delivery are held and "surplus assets are available for future divestments".

Park says he expects the government has plans to sell its remaining stake in the electricity network, as well as Sydney Water and Hunter Water.

"It is pretty clear from what is buried deep in the budget papers that agencies are to look at what other assets can be sold and there is no doubt the first will be the remainder of the poles and wires."

The Opposition has also seized on what it sees as partial privatisation of key services in schools, including plans to turn to the private sector to deliver portable classrooms and air conditioning to schools.

"All power to the private sector but they are only there to make money, to not deliver services to the people of NSW," Park says.

Privatisation debate heats up

The policy of asset recycling has been a defining feature of the Coalition government since it swept to power in 2011.

There have been 20 separate privatisation transactions by the NSW government since 2012 with gross proceeds of over $40 billion. That includes the single biggest privatisation transaction in the state's history - l ong-term lease of 50.4 per cent of Ausgrid, the electricity distribution network that services much of Sydney, the Central Coast and the Hunter for $16.2 billion.

Despite Labor's claims, Treasurer Perrottet says the government has "no plans" to sell the remainder of the poles and wires, or Sydney Water or Hunter Water.

"We are very proud of our asset recycling program, that's why I call it the golden key, but we don't have any plans [for further electricity privatisation]" he says. "Our SOCs [state-owned corporations] are also running very effectively and we also don't have any plans in that space."

But Perrottet says he does not shy away from wanting agencies to sell "lazy property assets", with proceeds then invested in key services like schools and hospitals. "What we do not need is bureaucrats in CBD buildings with harbour views," he says.

"The problem with Labor is they are backward conservatives stuck in the 1970s and they run scare campaigns that are not based on truth. The reality is our state's assets have increased, our asset base is not diminishing."

But Perrottet says Labor's anti-privatisation election pitch will only harm the state. "They know that [electricity] network prices have decreased by 30 per cent and that electricity prices are not a NSW issue so they are just running another dishonest Mediscare claim.

"Labor just wants to turn NSW into Queensland, so what we would have under them would be higher debt and increased taxes. The reality is sometimes the public sector will the best placed to run a service and sometimes it will be the private sector".

The frequency of privatisation transactions in NSW has slowed since a peak in 2015 and 2016 but the proceeds from asset sales continue to roll into the government's coffers. Last week NSW received $4.2 billion from the Commonwealth for the transfer of the state's share of Snowy Hydro.

It has also announced the sale of a 51 per cent stake in Sydney Motorway Corporation, the company delivering the giant Westconnex roads project. That transaction is due to be finalised by the end of this year.

Among the obvious candidates for future privatisation are the remaining electricity sector assets in public ownership.

The NSW government retains a 49.6 per cent stake in both Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy, the state's biggest electricity distributors. The gross proceeds from the long-term lease of a 50.4 per cent stake in the two businesses totalled nearly $24 billion.

But changes in market conditions, such as interest rate movements, mean the NSW government would not necessarily get the same price should it offer leases for the remaining share in the two companies.

Some argue it makes little economic sense for NSW keep its stake in Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy now they are effectively controlled by private interests.

Why not lease the remaining stake and use the capital to fund more congestion busting infrastructure?

NSW has other asset recycling options. One recent government report called for the privatisation of the plantation business of Forests NSW. The long-term lease of state water and wastewater treatment assets are another possibility.

Economist Chris Richardson, from Deloitte Access Economics, says the recent surge in infrastructure investment in NSW is "desperately overdue" but he worries a lack of privatisation activity might result in less infrastructure investment.

"If you are giving up on privatisations you run the risk you will not put as much into infrastructure in [the] future," he says.

Richardson warns a blanket ban on well-executed privatisations might simply leave the "benefits on the table".

Adrian Dwyer, the chief executive of industry group Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, says that given continued pressure on state budgets and the population boom on the east coast of Australia, "it is now impossible to deny the benefits of asset recycling".

Even so, the politics of privatisation in NSW remain fraught.

Baird managed to win the 2015 election despite widespread opposition to his asset recycling plans. An opinion poll conducted a week prior to that ballot showed only 31 per cent of voters supported the partial privatisation of the state-owned electricity network businesses while 62 per cent were against. When asked their view on privatisation with the proceeds being used for infrastructure, voters remained evenly split, with support at 48 per cent and 47 per cent opposed.

It seems further privatisations will not be part of Gladys Berejiklian's pitch to voters in 2019.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the future for privatisation in NSW?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Just weeks later, the government's family-friendly budget, with cash for all, also spooked many inside Labor's caucus. But it was Foley's strong anti-privatisation stance in his budget reply speech that calmed nerves, according to several sources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
he biggest public relation misstep in Christine Holgate's leadership of Australia Post was not the decision to hand out expensive watches to senior executives, or the embarrassing revelation that the gifts cost nearly twice as much as was first claimed. It was her statement to the Senate that she had not used taxpayers' money to buy the watches, since Australia Post was a commercial organisation.

This statement would be odd even if it were made in relation to the shareholders of a private corporation - after all, the company's money ultimately belongs to them. When applied to a statutory corporation like Australia Post, it created a firestorm. Apparently, even Scott Morrison, not previously known as a staunch defender of public ownership, was furious.

Clearly, the claim that Australia Post should be a commercial organisation, with no obligations to the Australian public beyond those imposed by law is not a popular one. But how should Australia Post be organised? And what is a statutory corporation anyway?

To answer the second question first, it's worth recalling the history that gave rise to Australia Post. Until 1975, postal and telecommunications services were provided directly by the government, under the postmaster-general's department (PMG). The Whitlam government abolished the PMG and replaced it with two statutory authorities, Telecom Australia and the Australian Postal Corporation (which operated as Australia Post).

The statutory authority model, used at the state level for electricity, water, housing and a range of infrastructure services was highly successful for most of the 20th century. Statutory authorities operated with boards that were independent of direct political control and which were selected to represent a broad range of community interests, including employees and consumers. They were generally expected to cover their own operating costs and earn sufficient returns to finance new investment.

The reform wave that began in the 1980s included an assault on the statutory authority model, motivated by the belief that all market services should be provided by private companies. The reform process typically involved a series of steps, beginning with corporatisation, then partial and finally complete privatisation.

Telecom Australia went through all these stages, being corporatised as Telstra and then privatised. The result was such a disaster that the government was forced to re-enter the telecommunications market with the NBN, paying billions to the company it had sold off only a few years before for access to assets built almost entirely under public ownership.

By contrast, Australia Post was set up as a statutory corporation, a status intermediate between that of a statutory authority and a for-profit corporation set up under the Corporations Act. Statutory corporations retain some of the requirements for public accountability associated with statutory authorities.

For example, the Australian Postal Corporations Act (section 73) specifies that the board of directors must:

include a person who the Minister, after consultations with representatives of industrial organisations representing employees, is satisfied has an appropriate understanding of the interests of employees.

Looking at the set of party hacks and finance sector professionals who make up the Australia Post, it is hard to imagine who is supposed to fill this role. Perhaps Tony Nutt's years of service as an employee of the Liberal party is supposed to give him an appreciation of the interests of posties and mail sorters.

The advocates of privatisation have repeatedly failed in attempts to sell off Australia Post. The next best thing is to turn it into a quasi-private corporation, with lavish provision for its senior managers and an expensive lobbying effort aimed at securing favourable treatment from its public owners. The claim is that the rewards for the public will more than offset the costs.

The transaction that brought Holgate undone is an illustration of the weakness of this claim. The deal involved securing annual payments from major banks in return for Australia Post's provision of banking services in areas the banks themselves had abandoned. The extra money was a lifesaver for post office operators, who have given Holgate their enthusiastic backing as a result.

But as the Commonwealth Bank pointed out in announcing the deal, it was merely a continuation of an arrangement that dated back more than 100 years. For most of this long period, the Commonwealth Bank and Australia Post were publicly owned, and the idea that they could withdraw services from large parts of Australia was unthinkable. Similarly unthinkable would be a suggestion that renewing the arrangement on a regular basis, or arranging the financial transfers necessary to balance the books, was an achievement deserving of a luxury watch, on top of a million-dollar salary.

The Australian public has long since seen through the claims made for privatisation, even if the financial and corporate sectors (the real "inner city elites") continue to push the ideas of competition and choice. Australians want basic services to be delivered cheaply and reliably, by organisations set up to serve the public, rather than to maximise profits.

The statutory authority model, under which most of the infrastructure on which we now rely was built, is the best way to achieve this.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's not about the watches: is Australia Post a commercial operation or a public service? | John Quiggin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The biggest public relation misstep in Christine Holgate's leadership of Australia Post was not the decision to hand out expensive watches to senior executives, or the embarrassing revelation that the gifts cost nearly twice as much as was first claimed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Opinion

Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

Most economists are great believers in the need for "reform" - for other people, not themselves. Over the past 30 or 40 years, no profession has had more influence over the policies governments have pursued, but the results have hardly been flash.

Even the lightning speed at which an epidemic in part of China became a pandemic reaching every corner of the globe can be blamed in large part on the globalisation that economists long championed.

Illustration: Simon Letch Credit:

After the unmitigated disaster of the global financial crisis of 2008 - which the economists not only failed to foresee, but did much to help bring about by their advocacy of deregulated financial markets - many people assumed this would force the economists, shamefaced, back to the drawing board.

It didn't happen. But the poor performance of economies in the decade following the Great Recession hasn't allowed the more intellectually honest among the world's economists to delude themselves that all's well with their theories and policy prescriptions.

At present, politicians and policymakers are preoccupied with suppressing the virus and countering the coronacession this effort has led to. Economists are worried about the depth of this recession, and are warning politicians that they'll need to spend (and borrow) unprecedented sums to bring about a sustainable recovery.

A big part of the economists' concern arises from their knowledge that deep, structural problems had caused the rich economies to be in a weak state before the arrival of the virus. This suggests that, without an extraordinary effort by governments, the recovery is likely to be slow, with unemployment staying high.

Worse, the "normal" to which we return after the virus has been fully vanquished isn't likely to be nearly as good as the normal we remember. Not only will material living standards be improving at a glacial pace, but there'll be continuing, maybe worsening, social conflict (not to mention a worsening climate).

The good news, however, is that leading thinkers among the world's economists are still grappling with the embarrassing question of why their profession's advice over many decades seems to have made our lives worse rather than better.

I'm just back from a couple of weeks catching up on my reading. I noticed several books by well-known economists coming to similar conclusions about how the ideas of "neoliberalism", which dominated economic advice to governments for so long, led us astray.

In their book Greed is Dead, two leading British economics professors, Paul Collier and John Kay, both from Oxford, argue that the problem with what they (and I) prefer to call "market fundamentalism" - which oversimplifies and takes too literally the basic model of how markets work - is its overemphasis on the role of competition between self-interested individuals in generating economic progress.

Illustration: Andrew Dyson Credit:

By sanctifying selfishness, it has undermined community-mindedness and the role of co-operation in advancing our mutual interests. Voting has become a simple matter of "what's in it for me and mine", while businesses and industries have been licensed to lobby for preferment at the expense of everyone else.

"In recent decades the balance between these instincts [of competition and co-operation] has become dangerously skewed: mutuality has been undermined by an extreme individualism which has weakened co-operation and polarised our politics," they say.

In his book, The Third Pillar, Raghuram Rajan - a US-based Indian economist who did foresee the global financial crisis, but was told by his elders and betters not to be so stupid - argues that society is supported by two obvious pillars, the state and markets, but also by a neglected third pillar: the community. That is, the social aspects of society.

"Many of the economic and political concerns today across the world, including the rise of populist nationalism and radical movements of the Left, can be traced to the diminution of the community," he says.

"The state and markets have expanded their powers and reach in tandem, and left the community relatively powerless to face the full and uneven brunt of technological change. Importantly, the solutions to many of our problems are to be found in bringing dysfunctional communities back to health."

In his book, The Common Good, Robert Reich defines his subject as "our shared values about what we owe one another as citizens who are bound together in the same society - the norms we voluntarily abide by, and the ideals we seek to achieve".

Since the late 1970s, however, Americans have talked less about the common good and more about self-aggrandisement; less "we're all in it together" and more "you're on your own". There's been "growing cynicism and distrust toward all the basic institutions of American society - governments, the media, corporations" and more.

But the last, more hopeful words go to Collier and Kay: "We see no inherent tension between community and market: markets can function effectively only when embedded in a network of social relations.

"Humans are not selfish, maximising individuals, pursuing their conception of happiness; they seek fulfilment which arises largely from their interaction with others - in families, in streets and villages, at work."
Ross Gittins is the economics editor.

Trump Biden 2020

Our weekly newsletter will deliver expert analysis of the race to the White House from our US correspondent Matthew Knott. Sign up for The Sydney Morning Herald's newsletter here, The Age's here, Brisbane Times' here and WAtoday's here.

Ross Gittins is the Economics Editor of The Sydney Morning Herald.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Thinking economists are grappling with why their profession has made our lives worse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Opinion Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size Most economists are great believers in the need for "reform" - for other people, not themselves. Over the past 30 or 40 years, no profession has had more influence over the policies governments have pursued, but the results have hardly been flash.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When many economists speak their audience falls asleep.

Professor Wolfers says the Reserve Bank has made serious errors in the past

He says the RBA needs to be clearer about its view on asset prices

He says Australia's self-image as the land of the "fair go" is failing

But there are a few around the world who make people sit up and listen.

Australia's Justin Wolfers is one of them.

The 48-year-old professor was named by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in 2014, as one of the 25 brightest young economists in the world who were expected to shape the world's thinking about the global economy in the future.

Other names on that list included Thomas Piketty, Gita Gopinath (who is now the IMF's chief economist), and Atif Mian and Amir Sufi.

Professor Wolfers spoke to the Australian Business Economists on Tuesday.

Some of his presentation boiled down to this: The Reserve Bank is fallible, it has made severe policy errors in the past, it does not do a good job explaining itself, and its analytical framework should be subject to ongoing scrutiny.

The 1990s recession

Professor Wolfers said the Reserve Bank was responsible for the "recession we had to have" in the early 1990s, but that part of history was not well remembered.

"The great secret of that is it was a recession caused by monetary policy," he said.

"And an unacknowledged fact is that at the time the Reserve Bank was targeting the current account deficit, [but] it never said it out loud.

"People could go back and read the minutes, and I talked to people who were on the board at the time.

"There is no question they were targeting the current account deficit.

"That is an utterly intellectually incoherent, indefensible approach to monetary policy," he said.

The result was "tens or hundreds of thousands of Australian families" had directly suffered, he said.

A very quick history of a policy error

Just quickly, for anyone who is not familiar with this history:

Before the Hawke Labor government floated the dollar in 1983, Australia's economy operated for decades within a global system of fixed exchange rates.

During that era, historical experience seemed to suggest that large persistent current account deficits were unsustainable and could leave the economy vulnerable to sharp reversals in sentiment among foreign creditors.

How does this compare to the 'recession we had to have'?

It's close to 30 years since Australia's last recession, which saw vast numbers of people lose their jobs or struggle to break into the workforce, as another recession looms, writes Stephen Long.

The "current account" is the record of the value of goods, services, and income that flows between Australia and the rest of the world.

When the Hawke government floated the currency in 1983 and deregulated the financial system, it fundamentally changed Australia's macro-policy settings.

However, it took policymakers years to adapt their thinking to the new reality.

Many policymakers, including at the RBA, remained concerned with old problems that plagued the old fixed-exchange-rate system, not realising they were no longer an issue.

One of those "problems" was the size and persistence of Australia's current account deficit with the rest of the world.

It took policymakers ages to wrap their heads around the fact that under Australia's new system of floating exchange rates and deregulated financial markets, we need not worry about the current account deficit.

But in the early 1990s, almost a decade after the dollar was floated, the RBA was still behaving as though the current account deficit was an appropriate target of macroeconomic policy.

So, partly out of concern about the current account deficit, it jacked up interest rates to astronomical levels, and kept them at elevated levels for longer than necessary.

Full employment

Professor Wolfers said we should be questioning the analytical framework central banks began using 40 years ago in countries such as the United States and Australia.

Part of that framework assumes there is a "natural" rate of unemployment - for any point in the economic cycle - that keeps a lid on wages and inflation, and which supposedly allows an economy to grow sustainably.

'Voluntary unemployment'

One of Australia's leading economists, Ross Garnaut, says the government and economic policymakers have allowed unemployment to remain higher than it could be, leaving hundreds of thousands of Australians out of work.

He said policymakers had not tried for genuine full employment "for 40 years" and their assumptions about what the natural rate of unemployment had been were consistently wrong.

"We've always had extra capacity," he said, referring to unused labour in America's economy since the 1980s.

"We used to think we could have 6 per cent of the labour force unemployed, then we realised we could have 5, then we learned we could have 4, then we learned it could be 3-point-something."

"And the same thing happened in Australia."

He said when he worked for the Reserve Bank in the 1990s, he was part of the bank's "unemployment desk".

At the time, the RBA thought the "natural" rate of unemployment was 7.5 per cent and they were "certain" they were close.

"And that's obviously manifestly wrong," Professor Wolfers said.

"We learn these things slowly. Maybe you can run an economy hotter, bring more people in. But we haven't tried that in 40 years."

Why not try for genuine full employment?

Professor Wolfers said the counter-argument to running genuine full employment today might be that we tried it in the 1960s and it led to inflation.

However, he said macro-economic policy settings were extremely different today compared to the 1960s, because we no longer had fixed exchange rates, we had more open trade and deregulated financial markets, and the Reserve Bank had set inflation expectations.

If we pursued genuine full employment today, and inflation rose to 3.5 per cent, we would have a playbook to deal with it now, he said.

"Raise rates, bring [inflation] back down, and realise oh well [maybe] the natural rate [of unemployment] is 4 per cent rather than 3," he said.

Professor Wolfers's argument is similar to the argument made by economics professor Ross Garnaut.

Professor Garnaut, in his recent book, said the RBA's decision to "allow" hundreds of thousands of Australians to languish in unemployment in recent years to suppress wages and inflation, by accepting a higher than necessary level of unemployment, had immiserated people and cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic activity.

Last month, RBA governor Phil Lowe acknowledged that, over the past decade, official estimates of where the level of full employment could be (i.e. the RBA's "natural" rate of unemployment) could have been repeatedly revised downwards, both in Australia and overseas.

The land of the 'fair go' is failing

Professor Wolfers also touched on the share of national income going to Australia's workers.

Last year, in the June quarter, the labour share of national income fell below 50 per cent for the first time since 1959 after the federal government's emergency stimulus payments to businesses caused company profits to jump by record levels.

It exacerbated a decades-long trend where the share of national income going to Australia's workers has been declining steadily since the mid-1970s.

Professor Wolfers said the reasons for the trend were complicated, but it illustrated how much Australian society had changed in recent decades.

"Australia has a self-image as a fair place where everyone has a fair go," he said.

"That self-image, partly political and partly our history, is also failing."

Why is the RBA targeting asset prices?

Professor Wolfers said the RBA was not very good at communicating sometimes.

"I read a remark by Phil Lowe the other day, where Phil's really worried about asset prices," he said.

"In a domain where Australia's been [working] for ... 20 years trying to set up a regime so we wouldn't fly by the seat of our pants and screw up again, nowhere have they ever articulated an appropriate approach for monetary policy to target asset prices.

"And it's crystal clear that's what they're doing," he said.

He said Mr Lowe could be right to be targeting asset prices at the moment, given the runaway growth in property prices, "but shouldn't we have a public debate about it?"

"Shouldn't we, as economists, get involved in the stoush about the appropriate monetary policy regime?" he asked.

"I mean, you can't articulate one thing and do something else. Because the lesson from 1990 is that doing it by the seat of your pants is a really bad idea."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The RBA caused 'the recession we had to have' and it could make similar mistakes again, leading economist warns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When many economists speak their audience falls asleep. Professor Wolfers says the Reserve Bank has made serious errors in the past He says the RBA needs to be clearer about its view on asset prices He says Australia's self-image as the land of the "fair go" is failing But there are a few around the world who make people sit up and listen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COVID-19 and breaking down non-tariff barriers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Australian Government, especially in responding to COVID-19, is committed to maintaining open and connected supply chains, and to removing unjustified trade barriers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Australian Government supports Australian agricultural exports by facilitating trade. We negotiate bilateral and multilateral agreements with trading partners.

These agreements can include reduced tariff rate arrangements for certain products. These are administered via quotas. Exporters can get reduced import taxes on a certain volume of goods into a particular country. This can save money for Australian businesses.

Quotas can be administered by an authority in either the importing or exporting country.

What we do

We manage 40 quotas. The way we issue a quota certificate depends on the product and its destination.

For an allocated quota, we issue a certificate to exporters who have an allocation. The certificate covers the volume of the quota request (either in kilograms, tonnes, litres or pieces).

Some quotas are not allocated. We issue certificates on a first-come, first-served basis.

How to apply

Quotas are managed according to a schedule. Check our quota calendar for timeframes.

See how to apply to export these products.

European Union

Indonesia

Tariff Rate Quota - Bahasa translation

Bahasa translation of key information relating to tariff rate quotas for Indonesia are now available for citrus, vegetables, live cattle and feed grains. These documents are available for download below.

Download

If you have difficulty accessing these files, visit web accessibility for assistance.

Japan

United States

Reporting

Check our Australian red meat export statistics for end-of-month reports and meat export figures.

Contact us

For queries or assistance with quotas, contact the Quota Unit:

Phone: 02 6272 4068
Email: quota.admin@awe.gov.au

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Australian Government supports Australian agricultural exports by facilitating trade. We negotiate bilateral and multilateral agreements with trading partners. These agreements can include reduced tariff rate arrangements for certain products. These are administered via quotas. Exporters can get reduced import taxes on a certain volume of goods into a particular country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A split has emerged within the Australian government, with members of the junior Coalition partner pushing protectionist policies as a way of "fighting fire with fire" in the trade war with China.

National party MPs have called on the government to consider imposing tariffs and expanding subsidies to protect domestic manufacturers, but Liberal backbenchers told Guardian Australia on Tuesday it would be against the national interest to abandon free and open trade.

The Liberal industry minister, Karen Andrews, said the federal government would follow "our international obligations".

The Queensland Nationals senator, Matt Canavan, who is spearheading the push for a new approach, has acknowledged that some of the ideas "challenge the long-held belief that Australia should keep the faith with international trading rules".

But he argued other countries, including China, were increasingly flouting the rules with heavy subsidies for domestic producers.

It was "not healthy for China to have such a dominant position" in so many key global commodities, including steel, copper, aluminium and rare earths, according to a Nationals backbench policy committee paper published on Canavan's website on Tuesday.

The document calls for "brave policies" that challenge the economic consensus of the past few decades. While Australia should "not return to the policies of 'protection all around' of the 1960s", it should be prepared to walk away from "the economic rationalist policies of the 1980s".

The document urges the government to ramp up domestic subsidies for manufacturing, favour local suppliers as part of a new "Buy Australian Act", and order an investigation into subsidies provided by other countries in key strategic sectors.

The proposed investigation by Australia's Anti-Dumping Commission would give the federal government evidence to take "direct, protective action to support the development of home-grown businesses in these strategic sectors" - which could include tariffs on imports of those products.

"Given that some of these subsidies may restrict Australia's ability to export to other markets, these investigations may also provide weight for the need to provide like for like subsidies to Australian industries," the document states.

"Unless we are prepared to fight fire with fire, we are unlikely to grow strategic industries in the face of the massive subsidies that other countries continue to provide."

The document suggests Australia follow the example of the US, which "has achieved a remarkable resurgence in manufacturing off the back of low energy prices and the reintroduction of some protective measures" - an apparent reference to controversial tariffs imposed by the former Trump administration.

The federal Nationals leader, Michael McCormack, said he welcomed the contribution from his party colleagues and he looked forward to discussing the matters raised "with colleagues in government soon".

"This document highlights the feedback we have been receiving from our grassroots membership about the need for Australia to build domestic supply capabilities in some areas," McCormack said.

But NSW Liberal senator Andrew Bragg said it was "not in Australia's interest to pursue protectionism".

"We don't support protectionism. We're the 12th largest economy on Earth with a small population base because we've been nimble and canny traders - and most of all because we've been efficient and unsubsidised," Bragg said.

"The Trump administration toyed with tariffs but the US economy is far less trade-exposed than Australia ... We really can't afford to play games with protectionism."

Dave Sharma, the Liberal MP for the Sydney seat of Wentworth and a former Australian ambassador to Israel, said protectionism had "never served our country well".

"Australia has become a prosperous and generous country through open and non-discriminatory trade," Sharma said. "For a nation with a small population and geographically remote, free and open trade has allowed us to build the modern economy and society we have today."

Andrews, the industry minister and a Gold Coast-based Liberal MP, said the government had already announced a $1.5bn modern manufacturing strategy.

She argued making manufacturers more competitive and resilient "requires more than just reducing energy costs".

Without addressing the specific proposals on protecting domestic industries, Andrews said the Coalition government had always supported "a robust and independent anti-dumping system".

"Our system is similar to many of our key trading partners and ensures Australian industry can compete on an even playing field, while remaining consistent with our international obligations," Andrews said.

The Nationals' backbench policy document also revives the party's calls for coal-fired power stations to be built with government support.

It says while the Nationals still want a coal-fired power station to be built at Collinsville in north Queensland, the government should also support a new one in New South Wales's Hunter Valley.

Bragg said Australia was "past the point of having this ideological discussion around energy". Australia was on a pathway of transition towards a cleaner, renewables future, which would include more gas and less coal, he said.

"At the end of the day, if a private business doesn't want to build a coal-fired plant, why on earth would the commonwealth?"

The resource minister, Keith Pitt, who is a Queensland Nationals MP, said he supported the use of Australian resources, be it coal or gas, to provide reliable and affordable electricity.

"Boosting supply will help lower prices and support domestic manufacturing," Pitt said.

The Nationals' document has been published just days after the new trade minister, Dan Tehan, indicated he would take "a very principled approach" to trade liberalisation.

Tehan, a Liberal from regional Victoria, said in an interview last week: "We have to ensure that everything we do upholds our commitment to comprehensive trade and investment liberalisation and also protects the national interest."

Tehan vowed to push for dialogue with China to resolve trade tensions, while also pledging to pursue reform of the World Trade Organization so that it could "again advance the trade and investment liberalisation cause".

The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, used a speech to a virtual World Economic Forum event on Monday to argue the pandemic should not be used as an excuse to reverse globalisation in favour of "decoupling and seclusion".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australian government MPs push for protectionism in China trade war

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A split has emerged within the Australian government, with members of the junior Coalition partner pushing protectionist policies as a way of "fighting fire with fire" in the trade war with China.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Under recent changes to the Fair Work Act,small business employers need to give their existing casual employees (employed before 27 March 2021) a copy of the Casual Employment Information Statement (CEIS) as soon as possible after 27 March 2021.

All other employers have to give their existing casual employees (employed before 27 March 2021) a copy of the CEIS as soon as possible after 27 September 2021.

Read our summary of the changes:Changes to casual employment - industrial relations reforms.

Employers have to give every new casual employee a Casual Employment Information Statement (the CEIS) before, or as soon as possible after, they start their new job.

Employers aren't required to give casual employees the CEIS more than once in any 12 month period (for example, if an employer employs a casual employee temporarily at different stages in a 12 month period, they only need to give them the CEIS once).

The CEIS was first published on 29 March 2021 and was updated on 20 May 2021.

The updated version includes more information about the definition of a casual employee and minor changes to information about casual conversion for existing employees.

The CEIS has information about:

the definition of a casual employee

when an employer has to offer casual conversion

when an employer doesn't have to offer casual conversion

when a casual employee can request casual conversion

casual conversion entitlements of casual employees employed by small business employers

the role of the Fair Work Commission to deal with disputes about casual conversion.

Providing the CEIS

Employers can give casual employees the CEIS:

in person

by mail

by email

by emailing a link to this page of our website

by emailing a link to a copy of the CEIS available on the employer's intranet

by fax

by another method.

Employers need to give casual employees the version of the CEIS that is in place when they have to issue the CEIS. Employers should check back here regularly to make sure they give the correct version.

More information

For more information about casual employment see:

Source reference: Fair Work Act 2009 s.125A-B

Think a mistake might have been made?

Mistakes can happen. The best way to fix them usually starts with talking.

Check out our Fixing a workplace problem section for practical advice on:

figuring out if a mistake has been made

talking to your employer or employee about fixing it

getting help from us if you can't resolve it.

Page reference No: 10127

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Welcome to the Fair Work Ombudsman website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Under recent changes to the Fair Work Act,small business employers need to give their existing casual employees (employed before 27 March 2021) a copy of the Casual Employment Information Statement (CEIS) as soon as possible after 27 March 2021.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The federal government has been forced to abandon the bulk of a controversial industrial relations bill, failing to negotiate it through the Senate.

Only one measure in the government's suite of reforms has passed successfully

The government has been locked in negotiations with the Senate crossbench

Senator Michaelia Cash says the government agreed to make changes to get the most critical part of the bill through

The only measure in the wide-ranging bill successfully passed was to legally define casual work, in an effort to avoid leaving businesses liable for potentially billions of dollars in back-pay.

Employers will also be compelled to offer casual employees either permanent part-time or full-time work after 12 months of regular shifts - but Labor and the unions argue the provision is unenforceable.

The government was locked in negotiations with the Senate crossbench throughout this week, but came up largely empty-handed.

It had sought to make wide ranging changes in areas like enterprise bargaining, award simplification and wage theft.

The wage theft elements of the bill were particularly popular, enjoying broad cross-party support, but the government decided to carve it out of the bill once it became clear the bulk of the changes would not pass.

Acting Minister for Industrial Relations, Senator Michaelia Cash, said the government was willing to make changes needed to get the most critical part of the bill passed.

"Today as a government we recognise that we do not have the numbers in the Senate," she said.

"In order to pass legislation we must negotiate, and again I thank those in the crossbench that have negotiated openly and constructively with the government."

But some members of the crossbench, like Centre Alliance Senator Stirling Griff, were scathing about the decision to remove the wage theft provisions.

"Shame on you all for trashing such an important amendment," he told the Senate.

The bill must now return to the House for final passage.

Casual work to be legally defined for the first time

The genesis of the bill was an attempt to define casual work, and after months of work on the omnibus bill it is almost all that remains.

Casual work had not before been legally defined, until the Federal Court last year decided that anyone doing "regular, certain, continuing, constant and predictable" shifts was entitled to full-time entitlements.

It sparked fears that without a new definition, business could be liable for billions of dollars in backpay - despite paying employees a casual leave loading.

The bill defines casuals as someone offered work without "firm, advance commitment" of ongoing opportunities, and eliminates the risk of backpay.

The ACTU and Council of Small Business had, in a rare show of unity between the unions and the employer group, provided an alternative and more specific definition of casual work.

Some of the other changes to workers' rights have been left with an uncertain future.(
Flickr: Pam Loves Pie
)

It was eventually adopted by Labor and introduced as an amendment, but was voted down in the Senate.

Employers will also be compelled to offer their casual employees full-time or permanent part-time work where they have been working consistent, regular shifts for 12 months.

But it includes an exemption for employers who have reasonable grounds not to.

The final bill provides for employees to take disputes over those matters to small claims courts, within the Federal Circuit Court or state and territory courts.

Small businesses are exempt altogether, but employees can request a conversion in their contract.

Broad suite of IR reform abandoned - for now

The government introduced the legislation into the Senate on Tuesday, with an aim to have it passed before the end of this week.

If it did not pass this week, the concern was it might not be dealt with until June, after Senate estimates and the May budget.

The original reforms would have meant part-time employees could pick up extra work at their usual pay - if they and their employer agreed to the change - without having to change their regular pattern of hours.

Employers would have been able to apply to offer employees two-year pay deals that did not meet the "better off over all" test in "limited circumstances".

Acting Industrial Relations Minister Michaelia Cash said the government recognised it did not have the numbers it needed(
ABC News: Matt Roberts
)

The government said that was to help businesses hit by coronavirus, but was eventually scrapped before the bill was introduced due to significant backlash.

Businesses in charge of major "greenfield" projects could place employees on agreements of up to eight years.

It would have also meant a crackdown on wage theft.

All of those changes have been left with an uncertain future.

Labor claims government in 'crisis'

The government was forced to cut-short debate on the bill, in an effort to have it voted on early on Thursday.

Labor leader in the Senate Penny Wong said that move, combined with the gutting of most of the bill, demonstrated the government had lost control of the Senate.

"The Senate is seeing the consequences of a government in crisis, trying to ram this legislation through," she said.

"Trying to salvage some pride by passing a bill that on your own admission you're going to gut because you haven't got the numbers."

Recognising the possibility the government might withdraw the bill altogether, the ACTU and Council of Small Business earlier made a joint plea for some agreement to be found.

The two groups put together a joint suite of amendments they had agreed upon, addressing a range of the more contentious measures in the bill.

Labor Senator Penny Wong says the government has lost control of the Senate.(
ABC News: Luke Stephenson
)

The measures would have further tightened the definition of casual work, enforced arbitration if employers and employees could not agree on a transition to permanent part-time or full-time work after 12 months, and dealt with concerns around potential backpay.

Peter Strong from the Council of Small Business said they just wanted some certainty for casuals.

"We want change to go through," he said.

"What we're hearing is it's all or nothing, well that's just crazy, that means you get nothing.

"So we want these changes we're proposing to go through."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government abandons bulk of IR package in effort to save definition of casual work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The federal government has been forced to abandon the bulk of a controversial industrial relations bill, failing to negotiate it through the Senate.