Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link] It's interesting to follow the member for Dawson and his magical mystery tour of the mining sector and industrial relations. It appears the member for Dawson likes to have it three ways. He backs the workers, he backs the industry, he backs everyone. What he fails to understand, quite literally, is that this legislation would still allow you, as an employee—if, on day one, you were employed as a casual—to remain a casual for 12 months. Then, to assert your right to become permanent, if the employer wasn't willing, you'd have to lawyer up and go to the Federal Court. I think the miners that the member for Dawson has been talking to, if they are still casual, may find this a bit of an impediment on a journey to permanent work.

I don't question the member for Dawson when he talks about having spoken to workers who've been impacted by the scourge of casualisation in this country over the last eight years; I don't for a moment underestimate his sincerity in that. I do question his understanding of the legislation that's before him now—the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. I, too, speak as someone who speaks to workers in my electorate. In the outer suburbs, it has been clear over the last eight years that the scourge of casualisation and underemployment has overtaken many people's aspirations. I've spoken many times in the House about the many young workers in my community who have worked in the labour hire space for years. They have left school and got themselves a job through labour hire and have stayed in that system for years. I understand perfectly what that means for those young people. But I often wonder if members in the House understand—if they understand what it's like to spend every day of your life waiting for a text message that might come through at six o'clock, at dinnertime, when you've just got home from a shift, or might come through at 11 o'clock at night, or at one o'clock in the morning to tell you where and when you're required for work tomorrow. That goes on for years for young people in my electorate.

This was a chance for this government to do the right thing by those young workers and set them on a course for permanent employment—set them on a course where they could bank on an income and where their hard work was appreciated; a course where they could live the life that most of us lived decades ago, where a day's pay came with the permanency of the role and the capacity to plan around when you're going to be working and how much you're going to be paid. I don't think members of the House, particularly those opposite, quite understand how this all translates on the ground in the outer suburbs.

So I'm pleased to speak on this legislation and on the amendments presented by the member for Watson because, as I said, this is critically important to my community, and this is critically important across the nation. This is a once-in-a-hundred-years moment, brought on by the pandemic that has helpfully—it hasn't been helpful in many ways—shone a light on exactly these issues of casualisation and of underemployment. It has shown us that, as a community, we know now what is essential. It is clear that people in the caring industries, in the retail industries and in transport and logistics are absolutely essential to the rest of us being able to live our lives the way we like to, and it has shown that, in those sectors, this scourge runs rampant. We've seen aged-care workers and healthcare workers working across more than one site under different contracts. They have more than one job to get themselves what's equivalent to full-time work, with more than one employer, possibly in the same industry. This is an opportunity for this government to put forward legislation that would see these things change and that would see an industrial relations system that supports workers across this country and supports employers across this country. But, no, they've baulked. They've put before us the old ideology again and again. Yes, there are some clean-up things in here where members opposite can stand up and say, 'This bill addresses all of these issues.' The words may be in the bill, but the issues are far from addressed. I don't think we can afford to miss this opportunity to swing the pendulum back in our workplaces so that young people, people who are changing jobs, and people who have perhaps become unemployed and are now returning to the workforce go into the workforce under better conditions and, certainly, with the prospect of permanent jobs.

I want to go to what was a really important point that I heard the member for Fraser mention around the number of people who are currently coming into the workforce. On the one hand, the government claims that, in economic terms, the pandemic is over. The government claims that everything is back on track. We can cut JobKeeper; it won't matter to anyone. It will all be fine because the economy has recovered. Yet, when we look at the actual rate of people being employed, we find more people employed part time and more people employed casually since May 2020 than ever before in Australia's history. So it isn't creating a better future; it's actually locking in what was already happening. This legislation fails dreadfully to reduce that scenario. In fact, the figures tell us it's doing exactly the opposite. This legislation won't abate that. This legislation, although paying lip-service by using terms that seem familiar, doesn't cut it in terms of making sure that this changes. I think that's the crux of the matter for people in my community.

I've heard members opposite talk about small business. I have a lot of small-business owners in my electorate. Most of them begin small businesses to create something to support themselves and to create an income for their families. They create a business that they hope to employ others in, and most small-business owners do that in good faith. So attempts to make things simpler for small-business owners is something that Labor would always support, as employers in our communities and in communities that we represent. But, again, the government talks about that as a piece in this legislation, when the overall parts of this legislation that Labor disagrees with are clear. They are being twisted and obfuscated by members opposite. On several occasions, we've seen the Attorney-General claim in the House that Labor is not supporting penalties for wage theft, when this legislation—as the member for Watson has pointed out and as the member for Fraser has pointed out today—undermines the Victorian and Queensland state legislation in this space. So, yes, you can go out and say that this legislation brings in federal laws to punish people who are caught for wage theft, but it undermines the current Victorian and Queensland legislation that already applies. So, in two states, it undermines current legislation and, as the member for Watson so clearly pointed out, it actually reduces the penalties for wage theft.

Across the last eight years in this House, we have all seen the wage theft cases that have been highlighted in our national papers. We've seen committed journalists go out and find these stories. We were relying on the press to highlight something that should have been obvious to everyone, that should have been part of a system where it couldn't have happened in the first place but if it did happen there was a system that saw it undone as soon as possible. But, instead, we were relying on journalists to bring us that information. That in itself is an industrial relations system that has major flaws.

To put that in perspective, the Fair Work Ombudsman has been quoted time and time again saying that they don't have the workforce, they don't have the resources, to pursue these cases. This legislation doesn't change that structure fundamentally. It doesn't make it easier for prosecutions. It doesn't create a system where those things can get addressed. I have said this before in the House as well. Generally, Australians see the name 'Fair Work Commission' and assume that this body was set up to support workers, that it's there to ensure that there's an umpire and that the laws are being applied appropriately and equally. This legislation doesn't give me confidence that it will live up to that title under this legislation. In fact, workers may find themselves having to go to go to the Federal Court. So the legislation doesn't meet what Labor set out in the first place and said that we would support. It won't create secure jobs and decent pay.

The answer in December from Labor, when the legislation was first introduced, was no. The government thinks that will change because it adjusted one measure. Yes, it was the worst measure: the change to the BOOT. But it still doesn't meet the standards of creating secure jobs with decent pay in this country. This is an opportunity this government has missed. One could argue it's deliberately missed it because, when you go through the detail of the legislation, it seems to make it harder for workers, not easier for workers. It makes it harder for workers to seek to be part of negotiations. It makes it harder for workers to get representation in negotiations with business. Workers, according to the legislation, will be notified bargaining has started and they have a right to be represented a month after bargaining starts, putting workers behind the eight ball from the very, very beginning. They're stripped of the right to a comprehensive explanation of an agreement they are asked to vote on. The list goes on and on in the ways this legislation lets down workers.

It comes to the simplest of things. During COVID, what we saw from the Australian workforce was quite amazing. What we saw in terms of cooperation and flexibility was absolutely astounding. I think Australian workers in their absolute commitment to making sure that we all got through COVID deserve better than this legislation. I think the Australian workforce deserve some acknowledgement about what they understand flexibility to mean. They're prepared to be flexible when circumstances demand it. This legislation uses the notion of flexibility, but it's a one-way street. It doesn't create more flexibility for the workforce. It doesn't create more flexibility for casual workers. It doesn't create more flexibility for part-time workers. The government's spin on this legislation really is a slap in the face to all of the people that we've been calling heroes throughout this pandemic, to the people in communities like mine across this country who have shown up for work and put themselves and their families at risk to keep the rest of us safe. That's the bottom line for me here. This is an opportunity for this government to put forward legislation in good faith; to listen and to understand what's happening in the suburbs across our nation and the regions across our nation; and to understand that when it comes to industrial relations in its current form, the pendulum has swung too far away from workers and too far towards large corporations, and to fix that. Instead what we have before us is more of the same. Instead what we have before us is an attempt to quell concerns about casualisation and insecure work. It is an attempt to suggest that these things will be fixed in this legislation when, in fact, on paper they may be, but you'll need a lawyer to defend yourself. You'll need a lawyer to ensure that your rights are met.

So I stand with my Labor colleagues, opposed to this legislation until this government sees its way to being honest with the Australian public, to being honest with businesses and workers about what this legislation entails and what it suggests and what it seeks to make law today. I want to thank all of those people in my community who have spoken to me about their situations in casual work and part-time work. I say to them that Labor will continue to oppose this legislation until the government sees reason.

See this speech in context