Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate the Senate crossbench, particularly Senators Pocock and Lambie, for ensuring that the mammoth Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 was split. This bill in front of us now has some positive changes in it. It provides clearer rules around small business insolvencies, simplifies compensation for first responders, expands the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency and improves protections for employees subjected to family and domestic violence. I support these elements of the bill as I supported attempts to have these elements passed through the House when they came here as private senators' bills. But I don't want to see schedule 1 part 7, expanding union powers, in this bill that we're passing today. The government knows that this part of the bill is controversial. When we debated the omnibus bill in the House, I spoke and proposed amendments to ensure that the bill goes no further than closing loopholes.

In my second reading speech, I noted that there were some instances in which the expansion of union powers went further than required to close a loophole, and an example of this has reappeared in the bill. By including division 2 of part 7, this bill introduces a series of new rights for union delegates employed in workplaces. I note that there's no limit on the number of union delegates permitted within a workplace. Additional benefits for union delegates include uncapped time off for union training; making employers engage with delegates on any matter they wish to raise, even when the matters are fanciful or unrepresentative of the priorities of the majority of employees on site; allowing unions to demand their delegates be given subsidised access to various benefits; and inserting union delegate terms into all modern awards and agreements. In effect, these provisions give union delegates preferential treatment over other employees.

The case has not been made for these changes. They've not been backed by any identified problem to be solved or by specific difficulties experienced by delegates which could not be addressed by working with employers or using the enterprise bargaining system. That's why I support the member for Wentworth's amendment to limit these increased union powers. I encourage the coalition to support that amendment, too, and act according to principle, not according to politicking.

I'm also very concerned about the inclusion of part 6, relating to labour hire. The government says it's closing a loophole that allows business to engage labour hire providers in order to save costs by paying these contractors less than employees being paid to do the same job. I agree that this is a bad practice. Throughout all our briefings and discussions, it seemed clear that this change was aimed at certain businesses and labour hire companies. I'm glad to see that service contractors have now been excluded from this change, which I spoke about a few weeks ago, although the process is still cumbersome and difficult. I still have concerns about the additional complexity created by this, and the potential impact on employers beyond the two or three employers at which the government says this legislation is aimed. These changes still add complexity to an already complex framework. The additional admin burden for labour hire and host employers, as they try to wade through EBAs and previous agreements to find the correct rate of pay, adds yet another degree of difficulty. There's also a risk that this change affects competitiveness and productivity, as pointed out by numerous business and industry groups today. I'm especially concerned for my state of Western Australia and the potential impact on the mining industry.

I would prefer to wait until after the Senate inquiry is complete to debate these changes. They are significant and they deserve proper scrutiny. Pushing this change through prior to the Senate inquiry doesn't send the right message about the government's willingness to hear reasonable voices and fully understand the consequences of these big changes. Removing the parts of the bill relating to delegate rights and labour hire, as per the coalition's amendment, would address my concerns and allow me to vote in favour of this bill, but the combination of overreach, driven by union interests, and lack of scrutiny by the committee process in relation to labour hire means that, despite being supportive of some parts of the bill, I'm not able to support it in its entirety in its current form.

See this speech in context