Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What we have here is a bill that has been a long time coming, in so many respects. The main pillars of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 were announced whilst we were in opposition over two whole years ago. Those pillars, of course, were taken as policies by us at the last election. Despite this extensive foreshadowing coupled with extensive industry consultation after the election, the opposition feel that they have been blindsided. Businesses have been blindsided, almost as if they were one homogenous entity, which is quite a contrast from their approach during the formulation of Jobs and Skills Australia, not to mention the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation and even the nature repair market framework.

But it is the allure of digging a trench and forming a battleline as part of the old war—the long war that those opposite have waged against those who earn a living wage and go about their working life, hoping to avoid suffering from unscrupulous, unjust or unsafe practices by their employers. You'd like to hope that that isn't too much to ask for. Despite what those opposite would portray of this side of the chamber, this bill is not a battle waged in some great eternal war or a struggle between employers and employees. Those opposite prefer to substitute employees with unions, as if that somehow makes it more palatable to a wider audience outside their own echo chamber. It literally took a global pandemic event for those opposite to entertain bringing in representatives from the union movement to consult on policy. That in itself demonstrates the gulf of difference between the approaches of two parties of government in this country. They'd obviously prefer to avoid like the plague—until there is one—speaking to unions.

Our government, the Albanese Labor government, takes a very different approach. It is one of collaboration and tripartisanship, working with employer groups, employee groups, unions and other stakeholders, which are all working in concert to further the national interest. This is a reality those opposite refuse to accept.

What is vividly at the forefront of my mind is the disgraceful display in this chamber on Monday, particularly by the member for Bradfield and the member for Page. It was little wonder that they were so angry when faced with the prospect of reading a couple of hundred pages of explanatory memorandum, because you'd have to wonder whether they've read House of Representatives Practice after the several years that they've been in this place. But it was their words as part of the debate rather than the procedure involved that got my attention. They spoke to the urgent need to pass four parts of this bill. They were saying how generous they were for passing these bills before Christmas.

But these provisions are not just uncontroversial; not doing so would be a kick in the guts to all those workers these bills set out to protect. I had to look up because I wanted to see them say these things whilst they relived their school debating glory days on the floor. I certainly couldn't hear any sincerity in their voices. I couldn't see any in their actions either. I fear that even to this day their copies of the explanatory memorandum are collecting dust on the bookshelves in their offices somewhere in the building, a bookmark sitting somewhere inside of them. If they had even bothered to do their reading, they'd have seen that their argument is one that completely rejects a lot of other measures in this bill—a lot of loopholes that are going to have a whole bunch of negative consequences for thousands of the workers that the members for Bradfield and Page seem to have overlooked as part of their first day of attempting to convey empathy toward workers.

What are they overlooking? It is a very long list. They seem to think that there is zero requirement for urgency in the need to introduce the provisions concerning industrial manslaughter. But, of course, they wouldn't see urgency. I know that a good number of members have echoed the sentiment that everybody deserves to return home safely after heading to work each day. Frankly, this should be something that goes without saying and doesn't need clarification as to whether both sides of the chamber see eye to eye on it. During their nine years in government, they showed no urgency on that front either.

What they also continue to show zero urgency on is wage theft. Seriously, if the roles were reversed, we'd have employees locked up indefinitely and charged with theft. Oh, wait—that is what happens! Why shouldn't everyday mums and dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters have the right to expect that, when they go to work to earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, they get paid correctly? It's not that unrealistic to expect this. Unfortunately, I have seen on far too many occasions that wage theft is a business model. I have represented countless workers in the road transport industry, helping them to claw back unpaid wages. It's not just unpaid wages; it's unpaid overtime and unpaid superannuation. We are talking about the difference between paying the rent or not, retiring with dignity or not. Wage theft has real consequences, and I make no apologies in supporting the closing of this loophole. But it is little wonder those opposite have no appetite for criminalising wage theft. It is an absolute disgrace that we have seen Victoria and Queensland criminalise wage theft on their own because they couldn't wait any longer. You know who else can't wait any longer? Australian workers.

On that note, another group that can't wait any longer is the road transport industry. It's an industry that carries Australia. It's an industry united in purpose to deliver reform to its sector through closing loopholes. This is a sector delivering between four and five per cent of Australia's GDP. The reason I say 'industry' is for clarity to those opposite, that I don't just mean—#triggerwarning—'unions'. I know this because I was part of the dialogue within our industry long before I came to this place. I have seen the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation, the National Road Freighters Association, NatRoad and others, along with the TWU, come together to discuss meaningful resolutions to save our industry, make it viable and save lives in the process. This is represented by 575 transport companies, 30,000 owner-drivers and over 650,000 transport workers across Australia. The simple fact is this: the current regulatory framework doesn't provide for viability within the sector. It is why the empowering of the Fair Work Commission to set fair minimum standards is so important. This will lead to a safer, more sustainable and viable industry.

We need to stop companies like Scott's Refrigerated Logistics from going into administration, with 1,500 workers waking up to find out they have no job. That is what this bill seeks to fix. Owner-drivers are being pushed to the wall, where a tyre blowout ruins their chance of breaking even for a trip. That is what this bill seeks to fix. Just last year there were 185 truck related fatalities, which included 44 truck drivers who lost their lives. That is what this bill seeks to fix. As to why the member for Bradfield and the member for Page don't believe in addressing this as a matter of urgency—it beggars belief.

The member for Riverina dismissively referred to these measures as nothing more than a means for greater union membership coverage within the road transport sector—this, despite the vast majority of both employer and employee organisations and business groups in this sector calling out for these reforms. But the member for Riverina, as he regularly says, was a union member for 21 years, and now he joins in the chorus on the other side of the chamber, which sees a whole industry united and discounts their joint position that widely supports these provisions in the bill. It's almost as if more workers joining a union is a price they feel isn't worth paying in order to avoid more blood being spilt on our roads.

The member for Riverina has probably attempted to see if he can refund his union dues over these long years. We all know he has better things to spend his money on, such as antique books. It was no surprise that the member for Riverina did not join his colleagues in their tantrum over the number of pages within this bill and its explanatory memorandum. The members for Gippsland and New England may prevent him from coming here to lead, but the member has certainly come here to read instead. I can vividly recall the member for Riverina holding aloft a very old leather-bound book in the Federation Chamber as a part of a point he was making on the Murray-Darling Basin. Instead of being armed with the latest data, he prefers to refer to a book published back in 1888—the good old days to some, perhaps; a simpler time. It's a hallmark of a true conservative if I ever saw one. Unless a book was printed by the dutiful hands of a monk—'No, I don't want to know about it.'

It's now my turn to explore a little. I might take a page out of the member for Riverina's book—though not from his antique book; from a slightly more contemporary book, the ninth edition of the Macquarie Dictionary. I do so because our use of language is important. Definitions are important in ordinary use but important still when prescribing legislation. The word in question I am reading the definition of right now is 'casual'. We hear a lot about what it means to be a casual worker, with those opposite and business lobby groups making further distinctions by coining contradictory terms such as 'regular casual'. It just didn't sound right to me in every way that I know casual work to be taking place in workplaces across Australia. The dictionary here defines 'casual' in a number of ways, including 'happening by chance', as in a casual meeting. The example given is: 'appointed to join the Senate to fill a casual vacancy'. The dictionary also gives 'unpremeditated, offhand or without any definite intention' and 'irregular or occasional'. The example used there is:

She was excellent at her job and she was willing to accept casual employment without any allowance for the time she must inevitably take off.

Other definitions include 'participating in activity occasionally' and:

Employed for a short period of time on a rate that is high compared with permanent staff rates but which does not include benefits such as holiday pay.

Lastly, it gives 'a worker employed only irregularly'.

It really makes you wonder, when reading through submissions and statements from the business lobby. Is it big business or is it our government that is making the radical departure from what we understand casual to mean?

The business lobby sure talk a big game about flexibility in the workplace, but, the second you draw the Uno reverse card on them, they suddenly appear quite inflexible with the nature and extent of their flexibility, which should be of no surprise to any of us, regardless of one's overall perspectives on industrial relations. I recall the member for Menzies's initial contribution to this debate, including a quote he gave from Jennifer Westacott, the former CEO of the Business Council of Australia. She stated:

Australians should have safe jobs, well paid jobs and rewarding jobs, but the government's radical shake-up of the industrial relations system will not deliver that.

The real radical notion is that the business lobby and their parliamentary proxies on the other side of the chamber walk a very fine line with casuals. They have casual disdain not for casualisation itself but merely for those that have pipedreams of having a stable and rewarding job. They had me in the first half of that—I'm not going to lie.

The Business Council have even attempted to do a bit of astroturfing, with their own special-purpose website, casualworksforme.com.au. It is very informative if role-play is your thing, and far be it for me to judge. Scrolling through the page, there are a number of examples of workers whose lives are about to be destroyed by the very prospect of obtaining secure full- or part-time work. We can see once more the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse showing itself after not quite making the cut in the Book of Revelation—'Conquest, war, famine, death and secure and stable employment.' It doesn't quite have the same ring to it as the others.

In one of the examples we meet Nick, a casual retail worker who is saving for a holiday. I hope Nick is a proud member of the SDA. As the website I mentioned states:

Nick's saving for an overseas holiday and his higher hourly rate as a casual is helping him reach his goal quickly.

But we skip to Nick somehow magically becoming part time and losing his dreams. His life is ruined. This scenario also fails to mention that Nick being on holiday, if he still were a casual employee, would be earning zero dollars and zero cents—nothing—for that entire time. This goes for casual workers on a holiday, but equally so when they are sick. We all know bills aren't casual. We can all remember the height of COVID-19, when many casual workers were left with a choice to make about whether they tried to mask their illness and spread it or stay at home and earn zero, nothing, nada.

The craven motives behind the stances and tactics of those opposite on this legislation are basically the only forms of transparency they are capable of consistently displaying. These loopholes need to be closed urgently and frankly. We need many of them closed yesterday, and much sooner than that too. For these reasons and so much more, I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context