The federal government has introduced one of its most ambitious — and controversial — bills into parliament since it took office earlier this year.
The government says its Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill will help bring a long overdue pay rise to lots of Australian workers, and particularly women.
But business groups are already mobilising to fight it, arguing it is a recipe for more strikes and more unemployment.
So, what does the government actually want to do?
There's a lot in it, but here are the key elements.
The right to flexibility
One of the key planks of the bill is less about pay, and more about working hours.
The government wants to grant more rights to employees to negotiate with their employers about working the hours that work for them.
That doesn't mean employees will suddenly be able to work when (and where) they want, or that employers don't get a say.
It will prevent employers unreasonably refusing requests from staff who are trying to balance responsibilities outside of work — like parents and carers.
Lots of Australian workers already negotiate hours with their bosses, for example, juggling school and childcare routines.
The government wants that to continue, and to encourage employers and employees to come to those agreements.
But where that's not possible, employees will be given the right to involve the Fair Work Commission, and go through formal arbitration.
You can't be forced to keep your pay a secret
This one is pretty straightforward.
Plenty of employment contracts come with "pay secrecy clauses" — rules preventing employees from talking with their colleagues about how much they are being paid.
It means employees cannot compare wages and salaries.
The new laws would ban those clauses, leaving it up to employees if they want to share that information with the people they work with.
Multi-employer bargaining
This one is much more complicated.
About 15 per cent of workers are currently covered by collective bargaining agreements, usually enterprise bargaining agreements.
They are basically a pay deal struck between employees and their employer and approved by the Fair Work Commission.
The government wants that number to be much higher, arguing getting more people onto those sorts of agreements will drive up wages.
What it particularly wants to do is smooth the process for different kinds of agreements, that cover more than just one employer.
The example often given is childcare.
The government wants to see workers in sectors like childcare, where there are a large number of similar employers, given a better opportunity to get together and negotiate a common pay deal.
That possibility already exists within the law, but those deals are extremely rare.
The changes being made here are pretty complex, and also pretty controversial.
Unions are supportive but concerned they don't go far enough, and business groups are deeply opposed.
Cutting back on fixed-term contracts
The bill tries to really cut back on the use of fixed-term contracts.
Lots of employees are employed for set periods (like six months, one year or two years) rather than on a permanent basis.
Those contracts are often renewed over and over again.
The government argues that result effectively places an employee on endless probation, with far too little job security.
Under the new rules, fixed term contracts could be used for no more than two years, or two consecutive contracts — whichever is shorter.
Stopping sexual harassment
This is a much less contentious element of the legislation.
It implements one of the final recommendations from the Respect@Work report, explicitly prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace under commonwealth law.
It means all workers, regardless of occupation, will have access to the same baseline protections from sexual harassment.
Why is the bill so controversial?
Some of the responses to the proposed changes — particularly around multi-employer bargaining, and the flexibility rules — have been very strong.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry labelled the bill "seismic" in its impact, arguing it would "increase strikes, create more complexity, and lead to higher unemployment".
Its primary concerns are that businesses might be compelled to join multi-employer bargaining processes against their wishes, and wind up tied to unsuitable deals.
And it says some of the provisions open the door to sector-wide strikes, the likes of which have not been seen for decades.
The government argues that while the bill does allow for workers across businesses to take industrial action, they are subject to the same rules as any worker negotiating a single-employer deal.
And it argues the bill adds steps that have to be taken — like mandatory conciliation — before workers take industrial action.
ACCI is similarly concerned about the flexibility rules, saying the rights of employers to set appropriate conditions for their employees is being taken away.
Unions are broadly supportive of the intent of the bill, but have their own concerns.
They are worried there is still too much red tape, and too many employees left out of the bargaining options for various reasons.
But they say the bill is a good first step towards pushing wages up.
