Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to speak to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, I thought it would be good at this point of the debate to give a few examples—workers stories, stories of people that I've met, people's stories that I've heard firsthand—of why this bill is so important and how the loopholes that exist in our industrial relations are affecting them. It's not something that is new to me; it's something that has been occurring in our labour market for the best part of two decades.

Yes, once upon a time if you were employed to work as labour hire in a workplace it was considered surge workforce. You'd come in; you'd get paid a premium above what those working on the site would get paid; you worked for a short period. It was incredibly important for some of those workers. They really enjoyed that short burst of work, particularly if they were uni students and they did that surge work during their holiday period or if they were people at that point of time in life working in that capacity. But there was reward for doing that insecure work. That was what happened, and organisations and firms would pay that premium to those workers to make sure they could get their jobs done.

However, what happened at some point in our industrial relations, particularly in organised industries where we have long-standing collective agreements, HR teams and companies started to work out that you could pay workers less if you went to labour hire firms. This happened in the mining industry. This happened in the manufacturing industry. And what happened next was it wasn't just for short periods anymore. People were engaged for long periods on these labour hire arrangements.

I'd just like to let people know what was occurring. I visited the site of a well-established bakery in my electorate—you might have heard of the brand Tip Top Bakeries. As a union official it was part of my job to meet workers and talk to them about what was going on. They had a few labour hire workers on site. One of those workers had been there for a decade on a labour hire arrangement. It wasn't a short-term gig; it was a decade. They were being paid less than their co-workers, who were on the collective agreement. This isn't uncommon. Unfortunately, this isn't rare. What we were seeing happen across our economy, particularly in manufacturing and in mining industries, were collective agreements that were negotiated by the employees employed under that agreement, but then as new workers came onto the site they weren't being directly employed. They were being employed by a labour hire company or a labour firm and they were employed on a different rate of pay, which quite often fell below the award. So they were doing the same job but not getting the same pay.

This wasn't just happening in manufacturing, and it wasn't just happening in my electorate; it was also happening at some of our big food manufacturers. I do want to acknowledge the efforts that some of our food manufacturers made to say to their labour hire firms: 'Look, we want to do the right thing. We want to see site rates be paid.' I want to acknowledge an abattoir in my electorate tried to address this issue when it was raised with them, but not all have done that. They saw the savings. In one particular case, they saved a dollar for the company and a dollar for the labour hire, and that worker literally got paid $3 an hour less than the other workers. And it was completely legal.

It is legal in this country to employ somebody on an award, and it is legal in this country to employ somebody under a collective agreement, and it's an employer relationship that is recognised. We have seen, in a number of industries and a number of workplaces, employers deliberately using a loophole to recruit new workers by having these labour hire arrangements in place. That is why this bill is so important. It's not just in manufacturing; it's in mining—it's rife in mining. It's in transport: one of the big gripes and concerns we have about Qantas is the fact that they went from directly employing all their workers to using subsidiaries and different companies, paying their workers less and breaking up the way in which they bargained. This has become such a common issue in our workplaces and in our community that it's really changed the traditional notion that we all have of what is a workplace, who is an employer and who is an employee. That is why we're working hard in this bill to close those loopholes.

We talk about wage theft. This is why I cannot believe the opposition's opposition to this. How many stories do we have to hear of migrant farm workers being exploited before we do something about it? We hear about $4 an hour for blueberry pickers around the Coffs Harbour area, some workers not being paid at all, and the Fair Work Ombudsman working overtime to try and recover money for these workers. When it becomes so systemic, we have to do something legislatively about it. You cannot expect there to be a Fair Work Ombudsman on every farm and in every cafe trying to clean up the fact that migrant workers aren't being paid properly. We need reform, and that is what our job is.

One of the other key areas that this bill is seeking to address is making sure that people are aware that if you steal from your workers that is a crime. If you knowingly and deliberately take money from your workers' pay, that is not allowed—that is a crime. We would say obey the law, whether you're that worker or that employer. Too many examples have gone through. These aren't rare cases; these are multiple systemic cases. It's occurring in some industries specifically, but it is widespread. We know that from the work that the ombudsman does. We know from the reports and the inquiries that were done under the previous government how big a problem this is. That is why we are looking to close the loopholes and make sure that people know that they cannot take from their workers.

There are changes to casuals. Once upon a time, casual was casual. I say 'once upon a time' because there was a period in Australian employment law when employers respected a casual was someone who came in infrequently—who didn't have that regular roster. The previous government said that they fixed it, but the problem is that they made the rules so hard that nobody has been able to successfully challenge their casual employment status. I do accept there are a few workers out there who like to have that flexibility on their roster, but there's a whole bunch that don't, and they are trapped in insecure casual relationships. If you get a regular roster every single week and you have that roster for 12 months, it is no longer irregular. It is a set roster, and you should be able to exercise your right as being a permanent employee. That is another loophole that we are trying to change in this bill.

On the transport industry and food delivery drivers: this is where we have to modernise our industrial laws to recognise the changing nature of work. People like to have delivery to their doors. Uber Eats, particularly, during COVID became a really big thing. I don't think there's anybody here, unless they live in an area where there isn't Uber Eats, who hasn't often used it. Yes, we do struggle sometimes to get those drivers in Bendigo, but those drivers are workers. Those drivers are workers, and they should be paid properly. Maybe if they had a minimum standard we'd get more of them in regional Queensland, in Shepparton and in regional Victoria, because it could be a job that guaranteed a minimum pay. That is what we're talking about: a group of workers who rely on an app for their work. It is the new form of lining up, waiting to be picked: 'Do you have work today?' It's now done remotely on an app. Those workers deserve minimum standards. That is the role of this parliament and what this bill does. It's modernising our laws to reflect the changing nature of work and saying to a predominantly migrant workforce, a group of workers who might be here studying or on another visa arrangement: 'You too are workers and you have minimum rights.'

In my part of the world a lot of these workers can be parents that are picking up extra money to help pay the bills. They're not that demographic that you sometimes assume it is when it comes to your Uber Eats delivery driver and so on. But they quite often turn over very quickly in these roles because they realise how exploitative they are. This bill says that those workers deserve a minimum standard, that they deserve a minimum rate.

I want to very quickly touch on the idea that this will scare small business, that this will create such a shock and horror for them. No, it won't, because, if you're doing the right thing by your employees, then it won't affect you. That's the critical point that those opposite always seem to forget. They seem to assume that every small business is exploiting these loopholes, exploiting employees. They are not. The vast majority of small businesses have a great relationship with their workers, and they get frustrated when big firms use their lawyers and their very expensive HR resources to undercut them, and they lose contracts. It happens in cleaning. It happens in security. It happens in hospitality. It happens across the board. So I say to you that small business, when they understand what these changes are, will be on our side, because these changes go after corporate Australia, who are exploiting workers, using their knowledge to manipulate the IR system—and shame on them for doing that. Shame on Qantas. Shame on BHP. Shame on all these big firms who implemented it as a business model to pay workers less. I know the fear campaign they are running. They are saying to those vulnerable workers, 'If this reform goes through, you will lose your job.' That's exactly what they are saying in those workplaces. The unions and workers can see it a mile off.

This is about restoring fairness and respect and saying to that insecure worker, 'After a decade of working in that mine, you deserve the same rights as the person who's been working there a decade and a day longer than you.' Quite often, the difference between being directly employed and being employed by the labour hire firm is the day that you started. Some of these labour hire arrangements go back that long. It goes back to when the corporates decided, 'Here's how we can save some money.' Quite often, the old-school workers who have worked in that mine for three generations can tell you exactly when that day was and how it broke the back of good, secure jobs in those regions.

We want to be a country that makes things. We want to be a country that has secure jobs in health, in education, in cleaning, in security, in hospitality, in every industry. These changes before us help bring back that job security and restore that relationship that so many employers and employees want: you turn up, you do a job, same job, same pay. You know who your employer is. If you get that direct relationship, you can have a decent conversation. That's the other thing on small business. They directly employ their employees. If you are a labour hire employee, it's really easy to get rid of you. You just get told that day that you are no longer required to be at that site, and then you're waiting for the next engagement—and that does happen when people raise issues.

Finally, on the changes that are happening around union officials being able to enter workplaces: it used to exist, and the world didn't collapse. You used to be able to go in and inspect the books and make sure people got paid the for the hours that they did. We used to do it. The world didn't collapse, and we had a lot fewer underpayments going to the Fair Work Commission. Quite often, that union organiser, or that delegate, sitting down with the supervisor was able to point out to them that they had missed an allowance, that they had applied the wrong rate and that was worked out. The world did not collapse.

See this speech in context