Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I've learnt in this place that there are rarely simple solutions to complex problem. The other great red flag for me when I hear those opposite making contributions is that, whenever I see a solution in search of a problem, I know the motivation for the actions of those opposite lies somewhere else. The reality here is that this so-called same job, same pay proposal is a solution in search of a problem. Why do I say that? I say that because we know that the incessant claims of those opposite of secure work don't stack up. They don't stack up because, according to ABS data, the average hourly earnings for casual employees paid by labour hire firms was a full 12 per cent higher than the average hourly earnings for all casuals generally. The reality is that this proposal isn't about same job, same pay. What this proposal will ultimately end up creating is 'no job, no pay'. Because, of course, what will occur here is that this will be a disincentive to create these jobs. We heard from Deloitte Access Economics on this. When this proposal was put to the Australian people at the last election, it was considered by Deloitte and assessed. It was said that it would cost 6,400 jobs and $15.3 billion. Or, breaking it down to these large employer sectors, picking up the member for Bendigo's point, in the mineral resource sector it was 4,900 jobs, or $6 billion in lost economic activity. In the construction sector it was 4,000 jobs. Like I said, this isn't same job, same pay; it's no job, no pay for labour hire workers.

Why is that materially significant? I'd suggest that it's preselection season. Whenever it's preselection season for those opposite, they need to come in here and beat their chests on behalf of the union movement, because, of course, the union movement has a disproportionate say about who gets to sit on the benches in this place for the ALP. Thankfully, for more than three-quarters of the last three decades, they've sat on the opposition benches. But why is this significant? It's significant because those opposite want to drive people, on behalf of their union movements, into the union movement itself. They haven't been very successful in recent times; they should come in here and be honest that their business model is failing. We've seen a decline in union membership from 40 per cent in 1992 to 14.3 per cent in August 2022. The member for Cowan, in the interjection earlier, said, 'What's happening to Liberal Party membership?' I'm here to tell you, Member for Cowan, that memberships in the South Australian division of the Liberal Party are booming. It's boom time. It's boom season. The member for Cowan doesn't want to hear this, so she leaves.

The reality is that those opposite are simply having their strings pulled by the union movement, a business model that's failing. I'll tell you why it's failing. It's failing because the union movement of the 1980s no longer operates in this country, just like those opposite are a pale shade of the Hawke-Keating era. Former Prime Minister Hawke would look at those opposite and say: 'You need to take up the fight on behalf of all Australians, not just those in the union movement, because the people of Australia have worked you out. You no longer represent labour in this country; you represent just those people who sign up to unionised labour. You just represent organised labour in this place.' The people of Australia, equally, have worked out unions, quite frankly. The ABS data makes it clear that Australians have a higher opinion of themselves than you have of them, because the Australian people are confident that they can negotiate on behalf of themselves. They value things like flexibility, and the ABS data bears out that they are much more successful in negotiating pay and conditions than the union movement. That's why those who sit with the labour hire firms are 12 per cent higher paid than the average worker on casual arrangements. The unions have failed the workers of this country, and they've worked you out.

See this speech in context