Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yet it's become clear that the Leader of the Opposition and those members opposite, some of whom are interjecting right now, intend to do all they can to delay action. They are fighting the reforms set out in this bill because they don't want this problem solved before the next election, not when they think they can get some political advantage out of it.

I have some gratuitous and unsolicited advice for members opposite. Australian workers aren't interested in who it is that makes the changes we need. They don't care who makes the changes. They just want the changes. They don't care who sets up an industrial relations system which will improve flexibility, regrow jobs and help them to secure better pay and conditions. They want to see us get this done, and they will not forgive those who hold back progress. The reforms Australia needs to get the economy going are already on the table in this bill. All members opposite need to do is vote for them.

The bill contains a statutory definition of what it means to be a casual worker. Employees and employers alike need a clear picture of what their rights and responsibilities are, and workers need to know exactly how to identify which category they fall into. Under this bill, an employee would be categorised as casual based on the offer of employment they accept. Employees will know what they can expect, and employers will avoid the risk of having to pay the same worker twice because their classification is not clear. This sort of double dipping is estimated to cost employers up to $39 billion, which they could be using to help more Australians into work. I don't know how many employers have spoken to me in the last 12 months about their concerns about the issue of double dipping. There are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of employers—small-business employers, mums and dads—who are worried about having to pay casual workers these additional costs, which and actually factored in to their casual rates of pay. That's of course as a result of a Federal Court decision. There are small businesses out there that will close the doors if this issue is not resolved.

In contrast, the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor government failed to provide any useable definition of 'casual worker' in the Fair Work Act 2009. In the 12 years since, Labor have failed to let Australian workers know what their definition is. In his so-called big speech last week, the Leader of the Opposition promised only that Labor would get around to writing a definition at some unspecified time in the future. There is a sensible, workable definition of casual work on the table right now in this bill. All members opposite need to do is vote for it.

The bill introduces for the first time a statutory obligation on employers to offer their ongoing casual workers the opportunity to become permanent employees. I would have thought those opposite would think that was a pretty good thing. Under the bill, this offer will have to be made after 12 months of employment unless there is a compelling business reason not to. Employers will also be required to provide new casuals with a casual employment information statement from the Fair Work Commission to ensure they are fully informed about their rights. In contrast, when they wrote the Fair Work Act in 2009, Labor provided no statutory path to permanent work for casual employees. Let me say that again: Labor provided no statutory path to permanent work for casual employees. And they make out that they are the champion of the worker. In his speech to the Press Club last week, the Leader of the Opposition said that Labor would offer contract workers a path to job security after 24 months. The Morrison government can do much better than that. In the bill before the House today, there is a plan to give casual workers certainty after 12 months. All members opposite need to do is vote for it.

The bill before the House introduces new flexibility into the industrial relations system to ensure that part-time employees under an award who want more hours can get them whenever they're available. Does that sound like a big deal to you, Assistant Minister?

It doesn't sound like a big deal to me. At present, many awards in sectors that have been hard hit by COVID-19 allow additional hours to be granted only to permanent employees when a formal alteration of the pattern of hours is agreed. This makes it cheaper for many employers to take on a casual worker rather than giving their existing employees the hours that they want. This bill would allow employers in retail and hospitality to give their loyal staff more work and make taking on permanent employees more attractive. Further, the bill introduces flexibility to ensure that new enterprise agreements can be made quickly and in a way that suits the specific circumstances faced by a given employer and their workforce. New enterprise agreements have been few and far between in recent years because of drawn-out approval processes and narrow technical assessments. Under this bill, agreements will be approved, where practicable, within 21 days. Procedural requirements will be simplified and employees' voting rights clarified to encourage more agreements to be made.

More enterprise agreements will mean there is the certainty that employers need to put on more staff as well as better pay and conditions for their workers. Of particular importance are the reforms this bill makes to greenfield agreements. More foreign investment in the construction sector could create thousands of new jobs in this country. However, the requirement to renegotiate greenfield agreements during the construction phase of large-scale projects is a major handbrake on these sorts of investments. They cause costly and unpredictable delays that many investors simply will not take the risk on. This bill will allow the Fair Work Commission to approve long-term major project greenfield agreements with an expiry date of up to eight years if the projects are valued at over $500 million or have declared national significance. At the same time, the bill stipulates that longer-term greenfield agreements must also guarantee annual pay increases, while the existing requirements for dispute settlement will remain in place so that these agreements will not only increase foreign investment but also help to create jobs and drive growth.

In contrast, Labor have a plan to impose a massive new investment-killing administrative burden on employers which would make hiring a casual employee significantly more difficult and ensure that far fewer jobs are available in our economy. Labor want to create an unnecessary and vastly bureaucratic portable leave system. They would give casual workers access to long service leave at the cost of making it much less likely that a job will be available for them at all. It's this pathological issue that Labor has with cutting off their nose to spite their face. They want to continuously say that they are creating all of these weird and wonderful things, but what they actually do is result in less jobs. There is so little detail available on Labor's big spending idea that estimating the cost of Labor's policy is difficult. However, the department of the Minister for Industrial Relations has calculated that Labor's scheme would cost up to $20 billion a year. There's a plan in the bill before the House to make creating jobs and increasing hours far easier and more attractive, ensuring that thousands of Australians will have the opportunity to get back to work, earning the income that they need. All that members opposite and on the crossbench have to do is to vote for it.

Finally, this bill will strengthen the Fair Work Commission and ensure that it can deliver a real deterrent against exploiting vulnerable workers. I wouldn't have thought that those opposite would be against that. When workers have been underpaid, the bill makes it easier and cheaper for them to recover their wages. The bill introduces a new criminal offence for dishonest and systematic wage underpayment, as well as increasing the size of civil penalties that apply for noncompliance with the Fair Work Act.

For employees who want to recover their entitlements, the bill increases the cap on small claims processes to $50,000, ensuring the Fair Work Commission can handle all but the largest of cases. In contrast, Labor not only opposed the Morrison government's efforts to strengthen the Fair Work Commission but also want to get rid of two of Australian workers' other strongest defenders—the Registered Organisations Commission and the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

If members opposite, and on the crossbench, are serious about strengthening the institutions that protect Australian workers from exploitation, the reforms we need are right here in this bill before the House. All they need to do is vote for the bill. But they won't. Ever since the coalition government was elected, we have acted time and again to protect workers' interests and defend them from exploitation. With the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the Registered Organisations Commission, JobKeeper and our Ensuring Integrity legislation, this government has stood up for workers time and time again. Labor have stood up only for themselves and their union mates like the CFMMEU, the same organisation that continues to bankroll the Labor Party, the same organisation that has been criticised up hill and down dale as being the largest recidivist organisation in this country for breaking industrial laws in this country.

In the bill before the House we have a suite of fundamental reforms, created through extensive consultation, which will see jobs created, more security and better pay and conditions for more Australian workers. Members opposite have an ill-judged thought bubble that won't do much for them and will do even less for the workers they claim to represent. It's time for Labor to put the interests of ordinary Australians behind their own political gain and support the much needed reforms in this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context