Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak in support of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. I just heard the member for Bowman talking about how this legislation is taking us back to the 1950s. That was the era of the coalition and the Menziantorpor, when Australia's economy was a mess. Labor was in opposition at that time. I'm really surprised he would attack Sir Robert Menzies in that way.

At the outset, I want to say in this speech that the Albanese Labor government was elected on a pledge to get wages moving after a decade of the coalition keeping wages low as a deliberate design feature of the previous government's economic and IR policies. To do that we need to close loopholes that undermine wages and conditions for workers. That's what this set of workplace reforms are about—getting wages moving and helping workers deal with inflationary pressures in the economy, something those opposite conveniently leave out when they lecture us on the cost of living. Each day, the impact of a decade of wage stagnation under them is felt by households trying to make ends meet.

This bill contains four main elements: cracking down on labour hire loopholes that have been used to undercut pay and conditions, criminalising wage theft, properly defining casual work so casuals aren't being exploited and making sure that gig workers aren't being ripped off.

I listened to some of the speeches yesterday, and even the speech before. They're not defending their position. They're using every form of smokescreen to say they won't support this legislation, but they're not actually addressing the heart of what this bill's all about. We announced all four of these policies in opposition more than two years ago, and we took them to the Australian people at the election and won the election.

Ultimately this is about dignity, human dignity—dignity at work and dignity in our work. I'm reminded of the earliest modern description of human dignity in Australian law from a High Court case in 1919. Appropriately, it was in the context of employment law. The case involved the council of the City of Melbourne and the Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union, MEU. I note that became part of the union of which I'm proud to be a member, the great Australian Services Union, in 1993. The case concerned the scope of conciliation and arbitration in relation to section 51(xxxv) of the Constitution. The court referred to the suffering and degradation that followed the industrial revolution. The court found labour disputes were increasingly 'founded on the practical view, that human labour was not a mere asset of capital but was a co-operating agency of equal dignity—a working partner—and entitled to consideration as such'.

I wish those opposite looked at a bit of history and legal history in some of their speeches. This followed a 1913 judgement of Justices Isaac and Rich, who were the same judges, by the way, in that 1919 MEU case. They wrote:

… we should be blind to everyday facts and events, if we failed to observe that the aim of industrial struggles is to raise the personal status and condition of the workers.

This formulation of human dignity in the workplace aligns very much with what has been described by legal philosopher Professor Jeremy Waldron, who described it as referring to the legal standing or the moral presence which a person has in society and in dealing with others. He explained dignity as 'the idea of a certain status that ought to be accredited to all persons and taken seriously in the way they are ruled'. This accords with article II of the International Labour Organization's Declaration of Philadelphia from 1914. Have a look at a bit of history, those opposite! It states:

all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity—

and—

of economic security and equal opportunity …

That's what this legislation is about. It's been referred to in international law again and again.

I want to congratulate Senator Sheldon in the other place for the work they did in his Senate Select Committee on Job Security, which reported in March 2022, not long before the last election. That inquiry found, before the last election, that insecure work had a strong, detrimental impact on workers' physical and mental health, often negatively affecting family life, social connectedness and their interpersonal relationships. Insecurity in work affects every aspect of a person's life, from their self-esteem to self-worth and the decisions about family planning, education, homeownership and retirement. Insecure work affects work health and safety, sometimes with tragic consequences in workplaces. It can lead to depression and suicide. Insecure work makes people sick and reduces our productivity. I just heard a speech from those opposite denying all that.

This legislation is about the economic development of the country, economic justice and material wellbeing, leading to people's physical health because of job security. That is what this legislation and previous legislation we brought in is all about. If we've got insecure work, it affects children's ability to learn and to thrive. It hampers low-income earners trying to save for a dignified retirement. Those opposite have never supported superannuation in this country. They have continually, during the time I've been here, voted to cut superannuation for workers. Insecure work increases the Medicare burden for the taxpayers of this country.

This is about a whole-of-society reform. It's not just about economic reform. The committee found that secure, ongoing work and reliable, predictable income are protective factors against physical health problems, like heart disease, hypertension and depression. Participation in a stable workplace can increase a person's social connectedness and decrease their isolation.

Those opposite should have a look at that report delivered by the Senate in March 2022, before the last election. If they had done so, they might have done a bit better in the election.

We've undertaken extensive consultation—notwithstanding the protestations of those opposite in relation to this—including with business groups. I know there are a lot of small businesses and businesses that work with their employees in the workplace in a collaborative, constructive way. I was in business for 20 years before I was elected to this place in 2007, and you work with your employees to pursue common goals, make sure their jobs are secure, make sure they get their fair share, in terms of wages and conditions, of the productivity and profitability of your business. That's what good employers do. Those opposite deny the fact that we've got people here who worked in the workplace as employers. They are blind. They should have a good look at the history of the people on this side of the chamber, to understand that we've been both employees and employers. We've got real-life experience. Don't give us lectures from those opposite, from staffers and other people who have never been employers. I've been there for 20 years and built a multimillion-dollar business. So I know what I'm talking about when it comes to working with workers in the workplace.

During the election campaign, the now Prime Minister talked about the need to ensure, in the annual wage review, that wages didn't go backwards. He talked about the need to do that. We were told by our opponents that what we were doing was reckless and dangerous. When we brought in our Secure Jobs, Better Pay legislation last year, those opposite were saying that we were going to bring in socialism or communism, that the economy was going to collapse. The jeremiads were there. It was like some Old Testament prophet. Everything was going to fall apart. And what happened? It didn't.

Yesterday we heard and today we're going to hear lecture after lecture from the pulpit of those opposite about the doomsday that's going to happen with this economy because of what we're doing. But you know what? We've seen wages rise. We've seen wages improve in terms of minimum wage increases. We've seen wages increase for aged-care workers, the heroes of the pandemic. Those opposite opposed this stuff. They never did it. They would not support rises in aged-care workers' salaries. They would not support minimum wage increases. Those opposite are condemned by their own words. They don't understand about business. They don't understand about unions. They don't understand the workplaces of this country. They should go and visit them. It would do good if they did that more often. It's very, very important to have secure work, and we've seen a rise of hundreds of thousands of new jobs created by this government in the last just over 12 months. Eighty-five per cent of those are new jobs—secure, full-time jobs. So the doomsday sermonising that we're going to hear from those opposite today and for the next few weeks cannot be listened to and taken into account, because it is simply rubbish. That's what we're going to hear from those opposite again and again.

On this front, can I just say: under those opposite, we saw 128,000 days lost to industrial action; in the most recent quarter, we had 7,000 days lost to industrial action. If you work with unions, if you work with their representatives, if you work in a constructive way, you get better outcomes for wages and conditions and you get more productive employees. If they're healthy and well, if they're connected to their family lives, if their children can thrive, if they feel they can go to that football match, if they feel they're getting paid a fair wage, they will do better. That's really, really important. That's why legislation like this is not just about stopping pay and conditions from being undercut; it's about improving family lives. Those opposite will give us sermons about family values. Family values are important for economic justice in the workplace. They're intimately related. They're absolutely connected. Family values are not just about what happens in people's bedrooms. Family values are about what happens in the workplace. That's absolutely critical to the wellbeing of our society and our economy. Legislation like this is absolutely vital.

We're cracking down on the labour hire rorts in this country. Labour hire has a legitimate use—we know that—but it is being exploited, and it shouldn't be. On wages theft, I guarantee you that those opposite won't talk about the egregious examples of wages theft we've seen in the public. They will not talk about that. I guarantee you won't hear one word from those opposite about that.

It's absolutely crucial that workers who are ripped off by bad employers—and not all employers are bad employers. Most employers are good employers. But, where there are examples of that, why shouldn't it be criminalised? It's been done in Victoria and Queensland. It should be done nationally. It's really crucial. An employer shouldn't steal money from an employee. That's not acceptable.

As the British would say, the man on the Clapham omnibus—the person walking down Brisbane Street in Ipswich in my electorate—would not think that's acceptable. I am convinced that the Australian public thinks that that is wrong. If those opposite believe that it is not wrong: defend it. Defend it today and defend it in the next few weeks. I guarantee they will not, because they know we're on the side of justice and the angels on this one, and they did nothing about it for nine years. There was example after example in the public about rip-offs, and the unions were at the forefront of exposing it. Whether it was the SDA, the AWU or the TWU, many unions were doing it. They were exposing what was happening in our workplaces where there was wages theft.

What did those opposite do? Did we see them make sure that legislation came into this House? Did they make sure it was passed? No, they did not. They collapsed on this issue like they collapsed on so many other issues. They had nine years to address this, and they failed to do so. They did not criminalise wages theft. It is wrong to steal from your workers, so we are doing the right thing. They tore up draft laws because they couldn't get support to cut wages and conditions elsewhere. Whatever legislation or draft bill they had, they tore it up and threw it away and didn't pursue the criminalisation of wage theft. What those opposite did during their period of time was wrong.

What we're going to do is create an offence carrying a maximum of 10 years imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of the greater of: three times the amount of the underpayment if the court can determine that amount; or, for an individual, 5,000 penalty units, which is $1.565 million, or, for a body corporate, 25,000 penalty units, which is $7.825 million. There are civil breaches as well. There will be a grouping rule included. Where an employer is found guilty of committing two or more offences that arise from a course of conduct, the employer will be taken to be guilty of a single offence and punished accordingly. There are important criminal sanctions. There's a whole range of things that are important in terms of making sure that there's security at work. For example, we're standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent workers.

Those opposite didn't do that. They had nine years to make sure this was done. They didn't do it. There are many people who work casually and want a flexible arrangement. We acknowledge that. But many of them, when they want to apply for a loan—a personal loan for a car or a loan for a house—want the security of permanency. There are so many things we're doing in this legislation that will improve economic security and economic justice in our IR system and the domestic lives of Australians today. Those opposite have failed monumentally in this space.

See this speech in context