Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

And there is the clincher: 1 February 2024. That is what this is all about. This is not about a committee. This entire motion is about delay. When I introduced the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill, I made clear that there are three things that people do when they have no confidence in an issue: they complain about the consultation, they talk about something that the bill is not or they ask for a delay. And now, for the second day in a row, the Manager of Opposition Business has come in here formally to get us to vote for delay. It's quite interesting. He'll run off now because he is meant to prepare a speech on the bill.

I've never seen someone so reluctant to deliver their own speech on a piece of legislation, because the one thing that won't happen if this were to be carried—and this makes me a little bit tempted—is we would all be spared a speech by the Manager of Opposition Business. It wouldn't happen. But interestingly, he has chosen the time of day to move this. Instead of moving it yesterday, he has chosen to move it now, which means we can't have the division until after question time because we are in the no-divisions period right now. What will actually happen is he will probably end up being halfway through his speech on the bill when we vote on whether we should hear the second half after question time and after the MPI today. That is the process we are going to have.

He went through a number of issues about the consequences. The consequences that he wants are for every loophole to remain, and every extra day they can get every loophole to remain is a good day as far as they're concerned. As I say, this is not about whether or not it goes to a House of Representatives inquiry. They know full well that the stakeholder organisations they just quoted don't want to have to deal with and make submissions to and appear before two separate inquiries. That is why, on every piece of legislation, we have always had the convention that we have a single committee process here, which ordinarily is done in the Senate but is sometimes done through joint committee. That is why House of Representatives inquiries don't tend to deal with legislation but deal with issues. The reason is really simple: because otherwise you just put a burden on every stakeholder organisation to have to duplicate. It is parliament creating red tape for every single stakeholder organisation, where they need to go through the exact same process twice, once for the people who sit on green chairs and then again for the people who sit on red chairs.

Although the Manager of Opposition Business in his speech refers to 'the process that is normally followed', the process that is normally followed is not what he is proposing right now. The process that is normally followed is these inquiries are held through the Senate inquiry process for good reason: to avoid that form of duplication. That process will happen. They haven't set it up yet, but fair bet they will set up something this week and fair bet Senator Cash will do exactly what the Manager of Opposition Business just did, which is the critical amendment won't be for the form of inquiry. The critical amendment won't be to the issues that are being dealt with. The critical amendment will be: how long can we delay this?

Well, the delay they're talking about carries a cost. The delay they are talking about carries a real cost: a cost in worker benefits, a cost in how long you let underpayments go on and, for some sections of the act where there are fixed start dates, actually crunching the time between the legislation potentially being proclaimed and the start date. To delay the process of the legislation when some parts of it have fixed start dates in fact creates a crunching of the time for the compliance burden for small business. For anyone who might have to reorganise some part of their business, based on the legislation, it makes the situation much, much tougher, because the long time frames that have been put there in the legislation disappear because of the political tactics of an opposition that sees a benefit for workers, and their instinct is this: can they stop it; and, if they can't, can they at least delay it?

This legislation does not have the Fair Work Commission going out and creating new standards above what Australia has already decided should be normal minimum standards. What it does is say that, where, because of loopholes, workers are missing out on the minimum standards that would ordinarily be applied in Australia, we should close those loopholes and protect those workers.

Those opposite still, to this day, have not defended a single one of the loopholes. So I say to those opposite: let's start the debate, but start the debate honestly. Don't start the debate with 'Can we have a delay? Can we do something we never do for any other bill? Because it's about the rights of workers, we'd just like to put it off for a bit longer.' Defend the loopholes if you want to keep them open. If you think it's reasonable, and maybe you do, that people who work in the gig economy, because there are not technically employees, have every single one of their workplace rights fall off a cliff and have none of the rights they would have if they were an employee—if they think that loophole is fine, then defend it. Have the debate. For all the talk of secrecy, what we're advocating is an open debate, on the floor of the House of Representatives, which as elected representatives is our job. To those opposite: don't come here with some technical excuse for a delay; do your job.

We've been talking about the issues in this bill for years in this House. The concept of gig workers having no rights at all, no minimum standards at all, was an issue in the last term of government. I remember, here, where I stand now, my predecessor in this portfolio having no answer to the concept of whether there should be some workers who don't even have the guarantee of the minimum wage and just said, 'It's complicated.' It's a bit more than complicated for someone who's trying to make ends meet, running red lights and trying to drive an extra lane between the official lane of the traffic and the parked cars, knowing that if at any moment a car door opens they'll be lying underneath the traffic instead of riding through it. It's a bit more than complicated for them. But, if you think the loopholes of no minimum standards for those gig workers are fair, then start the debate and defend them. Defend them if you think it's fair that there are casuals who are working identically to permanent workers, and some of those casuals want to switch to a permanent job but have no rights to be able to guarantee that transfer.

We had someone in the gallery yesterday who'd been working 30 to 40 hours a week for something in the order of six years, wanting to transfer—clearly eligible, on the face of it, for it to be a secure job—and the employer refusing to do it. If you think that loophole's fine, then come to the dispatch box during the debate and defend it. Explain why it's okay for workers needing some sort of job security because their rent's not casual, the bills they have to pay aren't casual—and try getting a mortgage if you've got a casual job. For those workers who want to transfer, who, instead of loading, would rather have the security of guaranteed hours—if you think the loophole's fine and they shouldn't have that right, then start the debate and defend it. Don't keep looking for excuses to avoid the debate.

Similarly, if you think enterprise agreements matter at all—there were all the arguments when we talked about multi-employer bargaining last year, and those opposite kept coming forward and saying, 'No, the best form of agreement is an enterprise agreement.' But then they want to protect a loophole where an enterprise agreement is agreed to and every single rate of pay can be undercut by the next person through the door so long as they're employed by a labour hire firm and not by the host. So everything that was agreed to falls away because of a loophole. These loopholes have been allowed to exist, without the parliament acting, for a decade.

There is no excuse for further delay. There's no casual worker wanting more security and saying 'Can you please wait?' There's no gig worker saying, 'I love this because I get no minimum standards.' There's no-one being underpaid from an enterprise agreement who likes the lower rate of pay. Those opposite might be addicted to the loopholes; we're not and we should start the debate on closing those loopholes today.

See this speech in context