Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for the Republic) Share this | Hansard source

A few months ago I met with a group of aged-care workers who worked in aged-care facilities across the country. Their story was a common one. These are a group of workers who told me that they were overworked and underpaid. Despite doing shiftwork and working on weekends, they still struggled to make ends meet and earn enough money to feed and clothe their families. As a result, many of them had a second part-time or casual job just to pay the bills. These are the hardworking Australians who our nation relied upon during the difficult period of the pandemic to get us through and to care for some of the most vulnerable Australians. I take my hat off to all of those working in our emergency services and care occupations, like aged care, nursing, teaching and child care, who helped us get through the pandemic. Most of these workers are working for award wages only. When I asked this group of workers why more of their colleagues don't join the union in their workplace, and why they don't get together and bargain collectively so that they can improve their wages and conditions, the response was common. Many of them felt scared that, if they did join the union, they might be dismissed by their boss and have to find another job. That's the reality of many workplaces throughout this country: low-paid, vulnerable workers are scared to join a union and are unable to make ends meet.

I want to read to you an email that I received last week from an IT worker that lives in the community that I represent. Helen wrote to me: 'I'm an IT worker stuck in an endless series of three- to 12-month contracts that don't provide the income security brokers want to see when shopping for home loans and have me constantly worrying. My current contract carries immediate notice terms, meaning I could earn zero dollars next week if the employer decides to terminate me that Friday. If that happens, I won't be able to make the rent and other bills, let alone save anything towards a home.' That is the reality for many workers in Australia at the moment—those without bargaining power, working in these vulnerable industries. They're in low-paid jobs. They're struggling to get by, living off award wages, with little or no job security, and they're unable to save for a deposit, much less get a home loan and begin to own their home.

I have to laugh at the campaign that's being run by the member for Goldstein and others opposite, saying, 'Home first, super second.' Australian workers should not have to raid their superannuation accounts to be able to afford to save for a home. We should have liveable wages in this country so that Australian workers have the necessary income to buy and live in their own home. It's not unreasonable! They shouldn't have to raid their superannuation. Yet, because wages growth has been so low under this government and because the government has cut penalty rates and is attempting to reduce workers' pay even further by reforms such as this one, you've got people like the member for Goldstein running around with campaigns saying, 'Just raid your superannuation.' Not only do these workers live in poverty during their working life, but the member for Goldstein and others opposite want them to live in poverty in their retirement as well. That is what this government is about: cutting wages and working conditions for Australian workers and making sure they don't have adequate incomes to enjoy their retirement after all of their hard work. That is why Labor is opposing this reform. It allows employers to cut the wages and working conditions of Australian workers, particularly those in jobs where they've served others and helped us get through this pandemic.

Currently there are two million Australians—that's not an insignificant number—who are unemployed or underemployed in this country. They're the hardworking Australians that we should have in mind when we debate this sort of reform in our parliament. We should be asking ourselves: 'Are we helping these workers with this reform? Are we providing more job security? Are we providing a liveable wage so that they can save for their own home and pay their bills?

Are we treating them fairly?' That's at the heart of it. Are we treating Australian workers fairly if this reform is implemented? On any objective analysis of this bill, the answer to that is no. We are not treating Australian workers fairly. We will not be providing them with more job security. We will not be providing them with the means to earn a living wage and therefore save for a home and the like.

This bill allows employers to cut wages and conditions, to ensure that vulnerable workers become more vulnerable and susceptible to losing hours in their workplace and therefore reducing their incomes. That is not on. Everything that this government has done when it comes to workplace relations makes it more difficult for Australian workers to get by. We saw that they supported cuts to penalty rates, so that now means that low-paid workers on award wages, who don't have any bargaining power, can't go to the boss and say, 'I want a wage rise this week.' For the lowest paid workers in the country, it means that their incomes have been cut and they take home less to their families each week. How is that a good thing? How is that fair?

Recently we've had Qantas, which received $880 billion worth of subsidies from this government in the form of JobKeeper and other subsidies relating to the airline industry, sack 2,500 of their workers and, in the ultimate insult to those workers, many of whom had worked loyally for that company for 20 or 30 years, they bring in a foreign corporation to take their jobs and employ people on lower wages and conditions. And what does this government say? 'Good on you, Qantas. Well done. That's the sort of thing that we want to see in a Morrison-government Australian workplace: cutting workers, causing them to lose their jobs, bringing in a foreign corporation and paying them lower wages and conditions.'

That's the reality of Australian workplaces under the Morrison government, even for people working in our mining industry. Those opposite like to pretend that they support people working in the mining industry. They prattle around in coalmines in Queensland, in high-vis vests, telling them how good they all are and how they support their workers. But if you have two coalminers working in the same jobs, in the exact same shift pattern, yet one is employed permanently full time by the company and the other is working on a casual basis, employed by a labour hire mob, then that's okay. How is that supporting coalminers or standing up for coalminers? When the union, on behalf of those coal workers, challenges a work arrangement like that in the courts, where do those opposite go? Are they up there, standing up for those coal workers? Of course not. They slink back to their electorates and hide and say nothing about supporting those workers in a case that's before the High Court.

This bill that we're debating here today will make things even worse and bring about further insecurity and lower wages, and that's why I'm voting against it. It brings in a change to the better off overall test for workplace agreement-making in this country and introduces a two-year suspension of that very important test. Now, for those that aren't au fait with this test, it's there to ensure—as the name suggests—that, when an enterprise agreement is made between an employer and a group of workers, the workers aren't worse off compared to the award and the National Employment Standards. This is the safety net below which no-one can fall in this country, and it's provided, and ensured that we have, livable wages and conditions in workplaces.

Well, this government want to suspend that test for the next two years. You can bet your life—you can't put enough money on it; it's odds on—on this: if they did get away it, after two years, guess what the employers would say? 'Oh, gee, Prime Minister, that test works so well. We think you should extend it.' You can bet your life that we'll be debating this again in two years time because the government wants to make it permanent. That's what this government does. It's never temporary when you're reducing wages and conditions for workers; it becomes permanent all the time under a Liberal government.

They want to suspend that test for enterprise agreements so that the parties no longer have to demonstrate that workers won't be worse off compared to the National Employment Standards and the award. They want to make workers worse off. They want to allow employers to cut wages and conditions for workers and make them worse off compared to the award. How is that fair? You'd have to have rocks in your head to think the Labor Party would support something like that. Of course we're going to oppose that! We're the party founded on the basis of defending and advancing the rights of workers. We're not going to support a reform that allows employers to cut wages and conditions of working Australians and make it legal.

And what does that say about this government's approach to, and credit for, those who helped us get through the difficult period of the pandemic? Many aged-care workers, nurses, childcare workers, public transport workers and teachers will be worse off if this reform goes through the parliament. What's the thanks they get from this government for working through this difficult period of time? I'll tell you what the thanks they get is—this fair work amendment law which allows those workers to be worse off in their employment. That's the thanks they get from this government. They sacrifice so much. They risked their own health and safety during the pandemic. And the thanks they get from the Morrison government? A cut to their wages and working conditions. Well, that's not on. Labor will not support that. We will not allow employers to use their power to cut wages and working conditions and leave workers worse off, all sponsored by the Morrison government. All Labor members stand for supporting Australian workers and will not support a reform that leaves some of our most vulnerable worse off.

Leading labour law experts have said this is a bad reform. They've said it will tear a hole in the safety net, increase casualisation and worsen wages growth at a time when pay rises are necessary for an economic recovery. It's a bad reform for our economy because it delays the recovery by ensuring that the lowest paid—a majority of workers in this country, unfortunately—receive less and have less spending power and capacity in our economy.

There are other elements of this bill that I want to mention, including the definition of 'casual'. If a worker agrees to be employed as a casual at the start of their job, they remain a casual despite their work pattern. They could be working full-time hours on a work pattern the same as a full-time worker, yet not getting the same entitlements as a full-time worker because they're classified as a casual and they agreed to that at the beginning of their employment contract. When you come into an employment contract, when you start a job, you have no bargaining power at all, particularly if you're a casual. You can't afford to say to the boss, 'I'll agree to be a casual now but, if the work pattern changes later on, I want to become permanent.' It doesn't work that way. But this government wants to ensure that, if you agree at the start, then that's it: you're a casual for the rest of your employment pattern.

And then there is casual conversion. On its face, it looks good: you can convert to permanent after 12 months. But, under this law, the employer can say no; if they have reasonable grounds not to agree to permanent conversion, they won't have to. The permanent addition of flexible work directions is proof that, under this government's changes to the Fair Work Act, they're never temporary. They want to make those changes about flexible work directions permanent. It goes to what I said earlier about the two-year change to the better off overall test. Of course it won't be two years. That's permanent. If this is passed by the parliament, that's permanent and workers are permanently worse off. That's why we won't agree to it.

In conclusion, I'm opposed to this reform because the thanks that this group of vulnerable Australian workers, many of whom worked hard in the pandemic, get from this government is a law that leaves them worse off and that allows employers to cut their wages and working conditions. I and my Labor colleagues will not stand for that. Labor stands for protecting Australian workers and their jobs and bettering them in the workplace. We announced last week a secure employment package. We should be supporting workers to ensure they have more job security and have better incomes and can spend in our economy. I and my Labor colleague will also oppose a reform such as this to the hilt.

See this speech in context