Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is about the power of the unions to dictate and decide how people work, on what terms and in what circumstances, because they are the beneficiaries of the Australian Labor Party's largesse. They use the power they have in this chamber to benefit the few rather than to empower Australians to make their own choices and make their own decisions about how they wish to live their lives.

If you believe the members of the opposition, labour hire is an incredible sector which employs millions of Australians and seeks to undermine workers across the board. The reality is nothing like that. Labour hire is a discrete sector of employment arrangements which has been stable at around two per cent of workers over the last decades. Critically, labour hire provides a pathway for some people to secure employment on their terms and for their circumstances. I have labour hire companies that operate out of the wonderful electorate of Goldstein and work to provide pathways for people to secure employment and jobs—again, for their circumstances and on terms that suit them, not union bosses.

We know that labour hire employees have exactly the same rights and protections as other employees when it comes to issues like unfair dismissal rights, award entitlements, general protections and, of course, workplace health and safety protections. What we make sure of, is that, when people secure employment on their own terms, based on their own circumstances, we empower people who may not otherwise be able to do so to secure employment. We provide a pathway where, for instance, women who may have particular circumstances to do with their family arrangements or their responsibilities to others can secure employment on their terms and in their circumstances, so they can stand on their own two feet. The same is true in any family arrangement. I know many people who, because of the casualised nature of other issues they face in their lives, may not want the rigidity of a nine-to-five job on terms that suit law but don't suit them. Ultimately, the focus of what this government is seeking to do is to make sure it provides pathways for every Australian who wants a job to be able to get a job—to have a go to get a go.

Labor wants to stand right in the middle of any pathway that enables people to freely choose the terms and circumstances of their employment. This is the direct consequence, in part, of a significant decision made by the courts. We have introduced a new statutory definition of 'casual employment' that makes it clear that a casual employee is someone who has no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work. Doing this, and providing a pathway for universal casual conversion entitlement, means casual employees now have more opportunity to convert to permanent employment. This just requires employers—except for small businesses—to offer full-time or part-time employment to eligible casuals after 12 months of employment, unless there are reasonable grounds not to do so. What we have done is provided a pathway for people to be able to convert their working behaviour based on their interests. We've worked with small business and employees to be able to provide choices that seek what they want.

But, of course, we know full well that that has been opposed every step of the way by the Australian Labor Party. Why? Because it empowers workers and it doesn't empower unions. In February 2021, Anthony Albanese and Labor voted against providing casuals with a more secure pathway to permanency and removing the $39 billion double-dipping liability on business. I was wrong, actually, in my comments before about the reason Labor voted against these initiatives being because they thought it would empower workers and not empower unions. It is because it would empower workers to be able to make choices and decisions about their own employment arrangements. But the reason they voted against it wasn't because it didn't empower unions; it's because it didn't empower union bosses, who are their mates, who are the people, just like superannuation funds and others, whose terms they want to dictate and empower—at the expense of average Australians.

See this speech in context