The people squealing in outrage at the proposed improvements to employment law labour under the misapprehension that all employers are bad and all employees are good.
They’re not. The changes are aimed at the few poor employees not the many good ones. That’s better than the existing regime which makes employing people harder for the many good employers because there are a few bad ones.
Employers aren’t going to request medical certificates, which they have to pay for, from every employee who takes a day or two off for illness once or twice. It will just be the few who abuse the system by regularly pulling sickies who are asked to prove they’re unwell.
When the law changed to allow workers to take up to three days off without needing proof of illness a meat company noticed a significant deterioration in employee health, particularly on Mondays and Fridays.
That came at considerable cost to the company and that ultimately impacts on its ability to pay its staff.
Homepaddock 
Alas the debate is now about politics and philosophy and nothing to do with the practical considerations of creating a new job opening that otherwise may not occur due to the perception that the risks out-weigh the advantages to the employer or making an opening for a job seeker who would not get past go in the real world for one or more perfectly valid reasons.
It is still a lot weaker than many other developed nations that have trial periods of up to a year or more.
As to the “sicky” problem, WA employment law allows for a Statuary Declaration witnessed by a JP to substitute for a Dr’s certificate. That aside, all the law change allows for is a simple remedy for an employer who suspects dishonesty in an employee’s sick leave applications, to attempt an assessment of the facts without falling foul of employment law. Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that there are problems with such open dishonesty occurring, the term “sicky” as a euphemism for a days skiing, surfing, long weekend or whatever is an indication surely.
LikeLike