Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Skills and Training) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, because this is a very important piece of legislation being proposed by the government and it's consistent with our view before the election to ensure greater security of employment for working people in this country. Indeed, not only does it reflect the commitments we made prior to the election, in some respects some of the provisions of this bill reflect commitments we made years ago, because we wanted to ensure that working people had decent, secure employment and that we did not allow technology to be a justification for changing what have been traditional relationships around minimum conditions of wages in this country, and to some extent that's what's happened.

Of course, we don't expect much from those that were supporters of WorkChoices legislation. We do expect them to oppose any piece of legislation that supports the rights of workers in this country. We do understand, and I happily concede, that I'm sure there are genuine concerns raised by some members of the crossbench in this place and the other place. However, I think they're unfounded, but I do respect there's a sincerity behind some of their concerns. But I have to say I don't at all believe that the opposition, the coalition, the 'noalition' are genuine when they say they're interested in the needs and aspirations and employment conditions of Australian workers, because their record shows otherwise. They have forever sought to diminish the standards of employment for workers in this country.

Yes, WorkChoices was one obvious piece of legislation where they illustrated their enmity towards working people, but, even through the entire time they were in government, the last nine years, they clearly set out to reduce in real terms the conditions and wages of Australian workers. When I was in the portfolio, I do recall the former finance minister Senator Cormann really let the cat out of the bag when he made it clear in an interview that the arrangements that were leading to wage recessions in this country was a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture.

(Quorum formed) I was reminding the House that the previous government had, as its modus operandi, a policy that was ensuring wages were low. In fact, the former Minister for Finance made clear that it was a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture to keep wages low. That's why we saw a decade of wage growth falling in real terms. We saw, in many sectors of our economy, wages going backwards for the entire period of the previous government—for the nine years. It was the worst decade for wage growth in many a decade, because nothing was being done to attend to the problem in workplaces, where workers were not getting their fair share of the dividend.

We need to make sure we have profitable and productive companies, and a profitable, efficient and productive labour market. We also expect that working people get their fair share of that dividend. To do that, we have to make sure that there's some balance and capacity for them to bargain in workplaces, and that there are minimum conditions in this country. We're a relatively wealthy country. If people put in, invest and work hard, they deserve a decent wage and a decent life. That's what the Labor Party has always been about: ensuring that working people and their families have a decent standard of living, a decent quality of life and an opportunity to move forward.

I'm afraid to say that we watched, over the last decade, a deterioration of minimum conditions for too many workers in this country. That's why we made an election commitment to attend to the adverse impact on workers by the previous government by introducing legislation that would attend to those concerns. This bill is, of course, a significant part of our commitment to working people in this country, to ensure that we don't allow arrangements to be put in place to obviate obligations—in other words, to avoid awards or industrial instruments that apply to other workers.

Take, for example, the same work, same pay provision. Of course, if a person has the same skills; similar or the same experience; is undertaking the same work; and is working next to another worker, it is demonstrably unfair that they're receiving a significantly lower wage in that same workplace. It is quite unfair for that to happen. Labour hire was not originally used in that manner. Labour hire was there to supply additional labour during the peaks and troughs of work. For example: the principal employer could not employ people for the entire period because of the seasonal demands of the business or industry, and may well have brought in seasonal labour hire. Or they would bring in labour hire for expertise to meet a particular niche need of the company. But, over time, labour hire started to be used in a way to undermine the enterprise agreement or the industrial instrument—possibly an award—of those workers employed directly by that employer. That was cultivated and supported by the previous government for the entire period. No, they did not introduce WorkChoices again during the last nine years—but they didn't have to, because there were changes afoot within the economy that were allowing exploitation to occur and, provided they did not deal with that in this place, it would continue and get worse. And we have seen that occur in relation to too many workers in this country. The idea that, just because you sell labour over a digital platform, you can now avoid minimum conditions of employment is an anathema to the Labor Party and to this government.

So, as I say, this bill is an election commitment, we are absolutely behind it and we made this commitment. In many respects, we made the commitments that are contained within this bill prior to even the last term. In some cases these commitments were made some years ago. So it is entirely proper that the government seek to undertake the commitments it made to the Australian people to make sure we lift wages and that we improve security of employment where we can in this country, and that we provide opportunities for casuals who have been working for a significant period on a permanent roster to at least be able to request a conversion to permanent employment.

We know that there are casual employees who don't want to convert to permanent, and nor should they have to. But we do think that, if, for example, an employee is working on a casual basis but has a permanent roster, there's a point in time, if they're going on indefinitely, where they should have every right to expect and to seek some level of security of employment. These are people with full-time families and long-term mortgages, and they want to get some guarantee of employment. I believe that's a reasonable thing to be requesting.

We know also that there are casual employees who, because they're not converted to permanent, cannot get mortgages. We know the housing problems at the moment. We know there's a shortage of housing supply in this country, but even in those circumstances, or in better circumstances, casual employers are so often unable to get loans from banks because they are not able to say to a bank that they have a permanent job. In some instances it is people who have been in the same job for years and years and years. We don't believe that's a reasonable approach to the labour market and to the rights of working people in this country, and we want to get the balance right by ensuring a right to request a conversion from casual to permanent, in order to provide a decent standard of living and a decent, secure job for Australians in this country.

This bill is seeking to deal with these loopholes. It's almost by accident that you could find yourself without minimum conditions of employment, just depending on where you work. If you're working in some areas where there's an enterprise agreement in place, you've got conditions of employment. If you're working in some industries there's an award with minimum conditions. If you're in certain occupations, at the very least you're getting the minimum wages in this country set down by the Fair Work Act. But in other areas which are unregulated there are people being paid a third of the minimum wage per hour in some instances. That is just unacceptable. So we want to make sure that we define casual in the way it was always intended, which I think is a balanced approach, both for businesses and for workers.

We want to see two workers with the same experience, the same skills, undertaking the same work and working side by side, getting the same conditions of employment. What is wrong with that proposition? How could anyone disagree with that? We can have all the semantic arguments about, 'We're not sure how this will work and how that will work,' but, ultimately, it's a stalling game by the opposition.

I do accept that the crossbench here and in the other place have some legitimate questions. I'm not suggesting they are motivated in the same way as the opposition.

See this speech in context