James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023, and I commend the contribution from our lead speaker, the Manager of Opposition Business, who outlined the coalition's position on this bill, elements of which we are very supportive of. But the title of the bill—'Protecting Worker Entitlements'—is perhaps not the best summary of every element of this bill, particularly schedule 5, and I want to make a brief contribution on our various serious concerns regarding schedule 5.

The summary of that is that it expands the circumstances in which employees can authorise employers to make valid deductions from payments that are due to employees where the deductions are principally for the employees' benefit. Now, what exactly does that mean? And what would that apply to? Well, very clearly we're talking about, in particular, union fees. This bill creates a circumstance in which a union can change—and we all know that means increase—the fees they charge to an employee, which the employer may well deduct automatically from the employee's pay packet, which is the standard way that union fees are levied, without the authorisation or permission of the employee. If that is 'protecting worker entitlements', then I'll go he.

We absolutely oppose this element of this bill. First and foremost, the surreptitiousness of it is outrageous. As I said, in a bill that purports to be focused on protecting workers' entitlements—and it has measures in it that we support—to put in place this special little payback deal for the union movement, to allow them to up the fees on workers without telling them and without getting their authorisation to do so, is completely disgraceful and outrageous. It is also I suppose thoroughly predictable. It is just another one of these paybacks that this Labor government owes the union movement for all the support, particularly financial support, that they gave them during the election campaign.

These little things that are hidden in legislation under cosy titles like 'Protecting Worker Entitlements'—designed to take money away from workers and give it to the union movement, which will indeed provide a dividend to Labor Party campaign coffers into the future—are the sorts of things we see time and time again. These little changes are clearly on some kind of list the union movement has provided to the Labor Party, saying, 'Don't forget, these are all the things you need to do for us in exchange for the extreme financial support we provide you to get you into government.' It's a very cosy little pyramid scheme that's going on, and this is one of the best examples of it. And of course it's an example of putting the interests of workers last and looking for an opportunity to take money out of the pay packets of workers.

Make no mistake, what this does is say: 'We don't want the permission of workers to take more money out of their pay packets. We're going to change the law so that it is not required to say to an employee: "Hey, the union fee that we take out of your pay packet every fortnight is going up; are you okay with that? Can we have your permission to take more of your hard-earned money out of your pay packet and give it to the union movement?"' That's what has to happen at the moment. You need permission to take someone's money from them. It's not an unreasonable principle in this country, society and economy. The government want to change the law and say, 'No, the union movement can take money without authorisation, and can take additional money out of the pay packets of hardworking Australians without their permission,' which is absolutely appalling and outrageous.

I don't begrudge people having the free right to join a union, and I've said that there have been important things in decades gone by—particularly in the 19th century, which is a long, long time ago—of benefit done by the trade union movement. Obviously, we take very seriously the importance of workplace laws, workplace safety and workplace protections, and they are enshrined in our statutes. Some of the elements in this bill indeed lead to improved outcomes for the entitlements of workers, but this provision is absolutely disgraceful. It is absolutely appalling that a Labor government called the Labor Party, which purports to be for the working classes, are repaying their union masters by changing legislation to disadvantage workers and to put workers in a position where they can have money taken secretly from them without their permission.

What would be wrong with a circumstance where, if it's all very reasonable and sensible that the union movement have to increase their fees, they get permission from their members to do so? Why is that in any way an objectionable position? Why is it not the case that unions, before they donate the funds to political parties, should go to their members and say, 'Hey, all that hard-earned money of yours that you've paid to us, we're looking to give a lot of it to a political party—do you approve of that or not?', like shareholders have votes on remuneration of senior executives and board directors. Why is it that the hard-earned money of—and let's be honest—in many cases some of the lowest-paid workers in our society is used so frivolously by the union movement and, if this legislation passes, taken from workers in greater amounts without their permission. Why would it be that the union movement requires of the Labor Party, as part of a quid pro quo for the enormous financial support that they provide them, this ability to secretly take extra money from hardworking Australians without their permission? We all know that the more money that goes to the union movement, the more money comes back to the Labor Party through donations from the union movement. Not only is it payback for the financial support that the union movement give to the Labor Party but the Labor Party also clipped their ticket in this whole process anyway.

The union movement can surreptitiously take more money from workers without their permission, facilitated through legislation, which says you don't have to tell workers or get their permission to take more money from them. You just tell the employer, 'Hey, I want to take an extra five per cent going forward in union fees from all the following employees who are members of my union that work for you,' and with this legislative change the employer will need to abide by that ruling, taking the understandable chagrin of workers who might call the payroll department of the company and say: 'Why did I get less money this week? Why have you taken this extra money from me?' Well, the unions have increased their union dues and they don't need your permission to take it from you. That's why you're getting less money in your pay packet this fortnight—without your permission, that Labor government have legislated to allow the union movement to increase union fees and just take it from you without permission.

The good thing for the Labor Party is that they get a return on that because, as union funds increase, so does—as night follows day—the amount of money that the union movement can donate to the Labor Party to help them win elections so that they can come back into parliament and pass more laws that benefit the union movement. What a fantastic, virtuous circle it is! We of course abhor that principle and abhor this specific measure that says money can be taken from workers without their permission. It is a disgraceful proposition, and I cannot understand how anyone can say they are a member of a party called the 'Labor Party' when part of the policy platform that they're implementing is to try to surreptitiously and without permission take money from workers. What could be more the antithesis of what a party that is meant to represent the working people and the working classes should stand for.

Another element that we have covered is additional changes to the National Employment Standards. I appreciate the opportunities that we've had in the past to enshrine additional protections in the NES. That was certainly the case around certain leave entitlements that were put in place recently in this parliament. We have further changes to the NES. It is certainly appropriate that we have in the National Employment Standards the same entitlements that are established within the award structure. The Fair Work Commission has always adopted the recommendations that the NES should give a proper national standard of entitlement across a whole range of things, such as leave et cetera. We've had the chance to pass bills previously in this place regarding family and domestic violence leave.

Of course, the genesis of those provisions were decisions or determinations within the fair work process that applied to awards. Of course, we know that not everyone is on an award. Most people are not under an award structure, so the National Employment Standards are an opportunity to say that, if we are creating and applying entitlements for workers within the award structure and if they're good enough for people on the award structure, then we should expand them to anyone who is employed under Australian employment law. It's the purpose of the National Employment Standards to ensure that we have a situation where an entitlement for workers that we believe is due and proper, in the case of award determinations, applies equally to those not employed under awards. Paid family and domestic violence leave is an excellent example. It progressed. It was initially five days unpaid leave, but it has now become 10 days paid leave. It was good work through the Fair Work Commission process that applied that through the award structure. The benefit and the sense of it was properly and fairly identified through that process. Having seen it applied to the award system, there was no excuse whatsoever for not enshrining that entitlement more broadly across the National Employment Standards, so that it applied not only to those employed under the award structure but equally to those who are employed in any circumstance whatsoever.

I also note important provisions regarding superannuation that are addressed in this bill. My colleague the Manager of Opposition Business has made important contributions on those changes and how they will be impacting not just the workers involved but also more broadly the circumstance and the strength and the rigour of the superannuation system in our country.

I commend the Manager of Opposition Business's contribution on this bill. We have foreshadowed and outlined where we stand on elements of this bill and which elements we oppose. We'll be voting accordingly when divisions come upon this. With those comments, I conclude my contribution to this second reading debate.

See this speech in context