Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to stand up for the workers of the Hunter, who the Morrison government has left behind. I'm pleased to be supporting the Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021, because this bill goes to the heart of the issue. Labor has a plan to help deliver secure work and fair pay. We know workers who are shoulder to shoulder deserve the same pay for the same job. We on this side know just how hard Australians work. We really do. You need to look no further than my electorate of Paterson for endless examples of hardworking people making a profound difference every day. Indeed the Hunter region is home to so many hardworking men and women who want to provide a good life for their families and do their bit for our nation and our economy.

I want to speak a bit more about the miners in my region. They are proud people who take so much pride in their work, and they do because they understand that their contribution makes such an incredible difference to our national economy. They know that their industry builds our hospitals, our schools, our roads, just to name a few. But these workers, like many, are being exploited because of the failings of this Morrison government. These workers often go to the very same worksite and work shoulder to shoulder with other people doing exactly the same job yet get paid thousands of dollars less per year—exactly the same job but not the same pay. Why? Because the Morrison government has bastardised the labour-hire system. This government is allowing the exploitation of workers. Let's be clear about this: this government doesn't want to legislate and regulate. It wants to turn a blind eye to the issues for working Australians, and this is one of the biggest ones: getting the same pay for the same job. This government allows cowboy operators—and that's all they are—to exploit workers, allows them to be anticompetitive, and continues to stand by while Australian workers are cheated out of a fair go. That's the bottom line.

Labour hire is an important system and it plays a vital role, particularly in periods of high demand and supporting that high demand. You might need to hire some workers in, but it's not meant to be a perennial, perpetual situation where people's wages are lower day in, day out, year in, year out. It wasn't designed to enable workers to be exploited; it just wasn't. The definition of 'casual worker' shouldn't be used to take away people's pay and their entitlements—or, frankly, their job security, which is the other big problem. When you're a labour-hire worker you can lose your job just like that.

That's why Labor will legislate to create a fair test to determine when a worker can be classified as casual. That's why Labor will restore the Fair Work Commission to the centre of our workplace relations system by abolishing the discredited and highly politicised Registered Organisations Commission and the Australian Building and Construction Commission. That's why Labor will extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission so that it can create minimum standards for gig economy workers as well.

Voters in the next election will have two very stark choices: they can support a Labor government to deliver job security and ensure that you and your family take home more pay; or they can support the Morrison government, after eight years, who allow penalty rates to continue to be cut, launch an attack on super and won't even add the words 'job security' to the Fair Work Act. That's what this government has done. Like Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese said, Labor is determined to shape Australia's recovery in the same spirit by which we got through this pandemic: together—and that's what we need. The intention of the bill is to bring Australians together with, in this case, a very straightforward concept: same job, same pay. And we know that life can be better with Labor; it is the choice for same job, same pay.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two very simple reasons why we won't support the Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021. The first is that it is simply a reheated concept Labor already took to the last election which was comprehensively rejected by the people of Australia—in particular, the people of the member for Paterson's electorate. Five per cent of people in that electorate swung towards the Liberal Party despite this policy being what the member proposed. The people of her community rejected it with a five per cent swing. Her continuing to prosecute this policy warms the cockles of my heart, knowing that Labor will take to the next election the same approach they took to the last election. It's good to see the Albanese opposition adopting more and more of the Bill Shorten positions as we come closer to an election. The definition of insanity is 'doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result'. No doubt Labor will prove that time-honoured phrase incorrect and show that taking to the next election the same policies they took to the last election will miraculously result in a different outcome for them!

The second reason to not support this bill is that it is, of course, on instruction from the union movement that the Labor Party are bringing this forward. As union membership is collapsing around the country, the union movement will do all they can to seek to rehabilitate their falling numbers. No doubt they hope that removing flexibility in the workplace, such as what labour-hire firms provide in surge industry capacity et cetera, will result in higher membership for the union movement. Just because it's good for the union movement does not mean it is good for the people or workers of Australia, hence my opposition to the bill.

The purported problem that we are suggesting would be solved by this doesn't even exist. The ABS statistics are very clear. They break down average earnings across different types of employment, including those in labour hire, at an economy-wide level. We can see that people in labour hire earn more than the average economy-wide, particularly in casual; and we can see that labour hire average earnings within the mining sector are higher than the overall average. So this is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Instead, what it will do is cost jobs. The modelling is very clear that this will cost thousands of jobs and potentially even more jobs indirectly.

Effectively, the Labor Party are trying to remove the flexible solution which labour hire provides. It helps in the mining sector in particular, where periods of surge demand can be met by surge capacity. When you remove that, or seek to remove that, which is what their objective is here—clearly, they don't like labour hire; they don't like these businesses and don't want them to exist. That was the contribution that was made by the previous member: 'We don't want to see people working in labour hire firms instead of working directly for mining companies.' That means the jobs—which you'd think the Labor Party would care about—will simply no longer exist. The whole point of the labour hire firms is that they provide something that the mines themselves can't provide within their business model: surge capacity. If, and when, global commodity prices et cetera put the mining companies in a position where they can increase their operations and expand what they're doing at a dramatic, quick rate, which labour hire as a solution provides, then they will do so. If that solution isn't there, they won't, which means the jobs in labour hire, particularly in the mining sector, purely will not exist.

We on this side of the House don't think that now is the time to introduce any more complexity, confusion, red tape or bureaucracy for businesses that are employing Australians. That's the last thing we need with the challenges that we have had over the last few years and equally the challenges that will continue into the future. The last thing we need to be doing is putting any handbrakes on our economy and making changes to legislation that the Labor Party themselves put in place. The model that we operate under is Labor's model, and now they're saying that it needs to be changed. By their admission that's a reflection on their own failure when they legislated, if that is their contention. But we believe that the current system should not be changed. It is not the time to introduce confusion or complexity into a system that is working well, employing thousands of Australians and growing our economy, creating jobs both in the sector and indirectly.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address the House about this very important private member's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021. This legislation would ensure that workers employed through labour hire companies receive no less than workers employed directly. I do not understand what is so offensive about that to those opposite. It will also remove barriers to career paths and secure employment opportunities for on-hire work. Insecure work is a scourge in this country. If the member for Sturt doesn't think it's a problem maybe he needs to get off his shiny pants and go out and talk to the workers and actually ask them about this.

I have four children. They are grown up now and have children of their own. As a parent I did many things to prepare them for the adult world of work and responsibilities, but I can tell you one thing I never did: I never gave one of my twin girls $5 a week for doing the dishes and the other $10 for doing the same chore. No siree! Same job, same pay. As you may already know from experience, children are innately wired to recognise fairness and unfairness. They can be excellent little arbitrators and witnesses for unfairness and injustice. If I had paid one of my children more, or less, than the other, they would've been on top of me as fast as any union I've worked with.

The unfairness of the labour hire schemes is absurdly obvious. It defies the logic of any reasonable adult and the optimistic and observant logic of a child. I bring up my own household because this issue is not only a workplace one but also a household one. Underpayment at work is felt in the home. It is felt in the family. It is felt in the way these workers are short-changed by a system that doesn't value their needs, their financial responsibilities or their skills. It's felt in the stomach and the spine of workers who know they are being underpaid while working next to co-workers who are treated better. The unfairness of the system is also felt by others in the industry as the impact of labour hire workers destabilises the whole workplace and sector. There is growing uncertainty about pay and conditions and an increase in sometimes less trained, cheaper workers replacing the permanent workers. There are very real occupational health and safety concerns when there's a high turnover of staff through labour hire who do not have long to get to know the safety regulations and requirements for their position. Any workplace that operates like this can be incredibly corrosive and bad for morale.

Peter should not be working next to Paul knowing that their workmate in the mine is taking home hundreds of dollars more per week. Saleema should not be frustrated that she's being short-changed by the aged-care facility she's placed at knowing that her permanent employed colleagues are taking home more money and benefitting from better conditions. Those who are being underpaid are still facing the same rental and mortgage stress. They are facing the same bills, paying the same for groceries and reeling at the same high petrol costs. Their work is the same, their costs of living are the same, but their salaries vary dramatically. When workplaces have embraced the labour hire model, they've made it more difficult for workers to stand up for themselves. While there are some labour hire firms that operate ethically, there are many that are inherently exploitive. Our legislation targets them. Some employers use cheaper labour hire workers as an opportunistic way of increasing profit while paying workers less, and it undermines the workplace enterprise bargaining system by creating two streams of workers. Put simply: it returns all power to employers while exploiting workers.

Labor has always fought against the exploitation of workers. We've always fought for equality and fairness in the way workers are treated, from Labor's role decades ago passing legislation granting women equal pay for work of equal value to work by men to the crucial role of unions in fighting for equality and fairness for Australian workers. We know that labour hire has expanded as a practice far beyond its initial purpose of providing short-term or temporary labour to get through surge periods. The lack of regulation has allowed labour hire to expand, and its significant presence in the market is putting workers and their hard-fought rights at risk. Labour hire has contributed to the increase in casualisation in Australia, which we know makes it hard for people to get the security they are looking for. Imagine if I'd invited a neighbour or cousin into my home some 20 years ago and paid them a paltry $4 for a week's worth of dishes. My children would have staged a coup. Those opposite need to tap into the sense of fairness that all eight-year-olds seem to have. We need to call a spade a spade: workers working side-by-side doing the same job deserve the same pay. Only Labor wants to do something.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite have to stop telling untruths. Yes, that's right, Ged. That's what you want to do to all Australians everywhere you go.

Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will address people by their proper title.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member opposite wants to point her finger at ordinary and average Australians and tell them who to work for and what to work for and where to go and how to go there. What she hates the most about this is the fact that Australians don't need unions, that Australians want to get out of your industry super rort which you have created and which you forced them into. You talk about fairness. You talk about casualisation. Why don't you look at your own figures. Why don't you look at the Productivity Commission figures that show there has been no increase in casualisation since your failed Fair Work Act came into place. There is one thing that we can agree on in this chamber: Labor's Fair Work Act is a failure. It has failed. Everyone at the Fair Work Commission you appointed has failed to increase real wages for working Australians. Guess what? It's centralised control that you want to bring in. You will not be satisfied until you literally have control over everyone's lives. You think you're the smartest people in every room you walk into. That's right—she's nodding! She acknowledges that Australians should not be allowed to decide how to spend their money, where to spend it, where to work and what to do.

You think you're the smartest people in the room and Australians are idiots. I'm here to tell you they're not. They see through all your front groups. They see through all the carry-on. They see through the camera crews out the front asking all the questions. They know what you're really up to. If there been a more dehumanising motion before this House, this is it. The whole idea is that all Australians are the same Australians and must be told what to do by those opposite. Until the union movement has control of our alphabet—as we've seen with the CFMMEU—and until they have controlled everything they possibly can, those opposite will not be satisfied.

We on this side believe in Australians. We on this side believe that they have the capacity to choose and to know what to do. I agree with those opposite; they haven't seen a pay rise under the Fair Work Act, they haven't seen a pay rise under the Fair Work Commission, and they haven't seen real wage increases under your law. That's why half of them are trying to get out of all the enterprise agreements that you have forced upon them. Shake your head as much as you want; it doesn't change the fact that what you have done to workplace law in this country is a disgrace. You have condemned average Australians to lower wages and less interesting jobs, and you have made sure that they have to suffer.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lalor on a point of order.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is: could you please ask the member to make his comments through the chair.

Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar will make his comment through the chair, and they will be polite to the chair.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Seriously, this is what Labor has lowered itself to: 'Now we are going to make technical points of order because we don't want to hear the truth.' The truth is obvious to any Australian with two ears and a brain, and that is that under your Fair Work Act their wages have gone down, they haven't been able to find new jobs, and companies have been hampered and constrained by red tape. The whole idea is that four wise men—I notice those opposite appointed all men—in Melbourne doing the best they possibly can, though they are not artificial intelligence yet, can design work that applies equally to someone working in a cafe in Broome and someone working in an aged-care centre in the southern suburbs of Hobart. These are discussions best left to those working at those sites and their employers. The whole idea is that all Australians are the same according to those opposite and their industry super mates who are now enforcing enterprise agreements—which, by the way, is unlawful under their laws that they operate. I call on APRA to enforce the law that they are meant to be regulating, not just look after their mates in industry super. I urge them to actually start enforcing the law and to allow Australians to get better jobs and better pay. But there is one thing they know: it's never going to happen under those opposite. (Time expired)

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021. I think it might be a moment to take the temperature down in this place. The member for Mackellar, on a Monday morning, likes to come into the House and yell and scream across the chamber. We are here this morning to debate a very simple proposition before the House, and that is that if you do the same job you deserve the same pay. It really is simple, and it goes to the very founding of this country. We were founded with an egalitarian spirit. We were founded by workers coming together across the colonies and determining what a fair and just society would look like. The proposition before the House today speaks to exactly that. It speaks to the egalitarian nature of the society that we have striven to build: that people who do the same job should be given the same pay and conditions. It is not too much to ask. I imagine that members opposite want to see the same pay for the same job in this place. Individuals within this chamber, when given the opportunity to negotiate their way to a lower pay deal, might find that difficult to stomach, but it's okay for everybody out there.

I've got some things to say about labour hire and the impacts it's having on communities like mine, in Lalor. The notion of same job, same pay has absolutely gone out the window for lots and lots of people, particularly young people, in my electorate. I speak to young people of 27, 28, up to 33, who have not yet had a permanent job, who have gone from labour hire to labour hire, from site to site through various labour hire companies, and they are unable to plan for their future. They find themselves working on the same job site as someone else and earning considerably less. On top of that, they have no job security. This is a travesty for the young people in my electorate, an absolute travesty. They can't plan. If this continues and these young people start families then their children will live in what I know, from my experience working in schools in the western suburbs of Melbourne, is a chaotic household where people can't plan for next week, can't financially plan to ensure that they can meet commitments. They are put into anxious states when a bill comes in because they don't know if they are going to be able to pay it next week. There are families in my electorate for whom, because parents working in labour hire don't have permanency, it is difficult to commit to children playing sport, because they don't know, week to week, whether they're going to be able to allow that to happen.

This is not some big conspiracy on our side, unlike what is being purported on the other side. This is simply about fairness. It is simply about ensuring that we build a society where everybody feels that they are making a contribution that is valued, that is valued by their government. Young people in my electorate are asked to make a contribution, pay their taxes, but what do they get in return from this government? This government has been in power for eight years and it has ignored this rise. We hear a lot about the surge workforce and we hear a lot about flexibility—but at what price to the families and young people in my electorate? The electorate's onto this government. They're figuring this out. They know that, under this government, the notion of flexibility has become a con job. They know that they will pay the price for the flexibility those opposite think suits them. They know they will spend their days waiting for a text message to say they've got work tomorrow, waiting for a text message to find out where they'll be working tomorrow. You've got to understand that, when you're working for labour hire, you might be working in Corangamite one day and Bendigo the next. The text message can come through at 11 o'clock and you've got to try and plan your life around that. This is not a way to build a fair society. It is not a way to build a society where workers feel valued and where people can plan for their future.

Those opposite should support this legislation. They should support a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. (Time expired)

Julian Simmonds (Ryan, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't try to match the lofty heights of the contribution from the member for Mackellar, who said it so well. I understand his passion. It is jarring to sit here and listen to Labor members opposite try to justify how they want to put more red tape and more bureaucracy on, in particular, the small businesses of our nation. As somebody who grew up in their mum and dad's small business and saw the efforts that it took to keep that afloat and make it successful, I understand that what we need to do as a government is, as much as we can, stop telling small businesses what to do and how to run their businesses and make sure that we entrust them to make the best decisions that they can make to keep their businesses successful, which will in turn lead to them employing more people. But it's the same old Labor Party, who can't be trusted when it comes to creating jobs. They can't be trusted when it comes to the economy. They simply want to tie up our economy with as much red tape and bureaucracy as possible. At the end of the day, that will only cost jobs. It will see fewer new jobs being created and it will mean businesses reassess the jobs that they are currently creating. Not content with creating the Fair Work Act, which, as the member for Mackellar has said, is essentially the framework that is operating at the moment, they are here railing against their own act. Well, they're right. We'll join them in saying it could use some sensible changes. If they ever want to join us in passing some legislation that would create some sensible changes, we would be very happy to deal with it. But sitting in here and raising their own bills and their own motions to rail against their own legislation that's been operating for some time just smacks of total hypocrisy and a fair bit of playing politics.

The previous opposition leader tried this at the last election. Just because it's a new opposition leader now doesn't mean that Australians will cop it any more than they did at the last election. The Australian people didn't buy it then, and they are not going to buy it now just because it's a new leader. It's the same old Labor Party. The last time Labor proposed this, analysis by Deloitte showed that Labor's 'same job, same pay' policy would cost 6,400 jobs every year and $15.3 billion in lost economic activity. The so-called party of workers has fallen so far that they are willing to sacrifice 6,400 jobs a year if it means they can dance to the tune created by their masters in the unions. This is all this is. When Sally McManus calls those opposite and says, 'Jump,' they simply say, 'How high?' The bar that she set this time is 6,400 jobs out of the Australian economy every year and to repeat the failed Labor policies that the people of Australia rejected at the last election.

Labor has conveniently forgotten to mention that union membership fell from 40 per cent in 1992 to just 14.3 per cent in August 2020. What do we put that down to? I put it down to Australian workers wanting choice. Australian workers want the choice to negotiate with their employers, they want the choice to make the decisions that are best for their families and they want the choice to talk to their employers about the job conditions that best suit their own circumstances. They don't need the unions coming in and telling them what circumstances are best for their families. They don't need the unions coming in and pretending like they can negotiate better for those workers' families and the workers themselves. They are just not buying it anymore. They are not buying what the Labor Party are selling. They are not buying what the unions are selling. They are leaving in droves, just to hammer home that point.

The amendments Labor are talking about in their bill will effectively strip the rights of labour hire workers to negotiate their own pay and conditions directly with their employers and cost thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to the economy. Why? Because Labor think they know best. The member for Mackellar was exactly right: Labor members opposite, just like they want to tell Australians how to live their lives in so many other aspects, want to tell Australian workers how to negotiate with their employers and what terms and conditions are best suited for their families. This one-size-fits-all approach doesn't actually work in the real world. The only place it works is in the boardroom very high up on Macquarie Street where all the unions hang out and have their executive meetings. That's the only place, theoretically, where it works. Those workers working in different jobs around the nation know that they need to have the power in their own hands to negotiate the best conditions for their families.

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

I am proud to stand and support Labor's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021, before the House. I suggest to the government members who are speaking on this bill that they read the bill before coming in here to make a contribution. If they had actually read the bill they would realise that it doesn't actually apply to small businesses, businesses with 15 employees or fewer, as defined by the Fair Work Act. This applies to those bigger than that. I know they kind of think that any business is a small business, but it's not. This bill applies to the big businesses and the medium businesses in our country that are misusing labour hire.

Another myth that the government's trying to suggest is that this will just get rid of labour hire. It will not. This bill is about redefining the original relationship that we all thought existed with labour hire. A while ago—many years ago—labour hire was used as the surge workforce, and employers and businesses paid a premium. So some people who would choose to be labour hire workers knew that they didn't have fixed working conditions—they didn't have a fixed time or secure employment—but they traded it off for higher pay, and for some workers that worked well. But what we've seen explode under this government is the misuse of labour hire, and it's completely legal. That's what this bill tries to clean up.

We here know of workers working for big businesses—working in manufacturing facilities, including food manufacturing facilities and large heavy-metal-manufacturing facilities—where they're doing the same job as a person on the union collective agreement, but, because they work for a labour hire company, they're paid much less. The government is saying that those labour hire workers can go and negotiate their own pay and conditions. They can just front up to the boss, who determines which hours they get, and say, 'Pay me the same as the union worker.' It doesn't happen. The moment workers on labour hire raise an issue, many of them are told, 'Your services are no longer required,' and they don't have access to unfair dismissal arrangements, because they're casual, because they're labour hire. They are 'transferred offsite', as it's called.

During this government's time, it has turned a blind eye to what's happening in labour hire. It isn't just happening in large manufacturing sites; it's happening in our mines. In our mines, what's happening is that some of the workers are called 'full-time equivalent'. They do the same job as a full-time worker who is working on the union collective agreement, and they wear the same uniform, but they're called a full-time equivalent because they're actually employed by a labour hire company and paid much less. In some cases it's hundreds of dollars a week less.

The government says, 'Don't get involved in the lives of individual workers; let them bargain on their own.' The moment a worker puts their hand up and says something about it, that worker is transferred offsite. This government, by not supporting this bill, is all about big business. It is not about the workers in any way whatsoever. It is not about correcting the mistakes. Yes, Labor introduced the Fair Work Act, but we acknowledge that, as time has gone on, amendments are needed. If the government were genuine about supporting workers and returning to the Fair Work Act—the original definition of what we thought labour hire was about and not this manipulation that we've seen—they would support Labor's bill.

It is happening across the Australian economy. It is happening in manufacturing. It is happening in mining. It is happening in cleaning and in security. Here at Parliament House, we have contract cleaners, outsourced many years ago. Sometimes the contractor in the contract cleaning industry will then subsubcontract. Sometimes you will meet a cleaner—not necessarily here at Parliament House but cleaning big office towers—who is so far down the line when it comes to outsourcing that they are paid almost in cash, below the award conditions. That cleaner then has to fight to get what they're entitled to. They have to individually pursue it. The problem is that, if every individual labour hire worker lodged a case with the Fair Work Commission, we would still be here in 100 years trying to clean it up.

When you have a systemic problem such as we have, widespread across the economy, with the underpaying of labour hire workers, reform is needed. That is what is in this bill. It inserts a new division 11A, 'Same job, same pay,' it defines the host in the labour hire business, and it says to all those workers who are working side by side with workers who are usually on a union collective agreement and being paid more: 'You will get paid the same. You will have the same rights and the same opportunities.' (Time expired)

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've learnt in this place that there are rarely simple solutions to complex problem. The other great red flag for me when I hear those opposite making contributions is that, whenever I see a solution in search of a problem, I know the motivation for the actions of those opposite lies somewhere else. The reality here is that this so-called same job, same pay proposal is a solution in search of a problem. Why do I say that? I say that because we know that the incessant claims of those opposite of secure work don't stack up. They don't stack up because, according to ABS data, the average hourly earnings for casual employees paid by labour hire firms was a full 12 per cent higher than the average hourly earnings for all casuals generally. The reality is that this proposal isn't about same job, same pay. What this proposal will ultimately end up creating is 'no job, no pay'. Because, of course, what will occur here is that this will be a disincentive to create these jobs. We heard from Deloitte Access Economics on this. When this proposal was put to the Australian people at the last election, it was considered by Deloitte and assessed. It was said that it would cost 6,400 jobs and $15.3 billion. Or, breaking it down to these large employer sectors, picking up the member for Bendigo's point, in the mineral resource sector it was 4,900 jobs, or $6 billion in lost economic activity. In the construction sector it was 4,000 jobs. Like I said, this isn't same job, same pay; it's no job, no pay for labour hire workers.

Why is that materially significant? I'd suggest that it's preselection season. Whenever it's preselection season for those opposite, they need to come in here and beat their chests on behalf of the union movement, because, of course, the union movement has a disproportionate say about who gets to sit on the benches in this place for the ALP. Thankfully, for more than three-quarters of the last three decades, they've sat on the opposition benches. But why is this significant? It's significant because those opposite want to drive people, on behalf of their union movements, into the union movement itself. They haven't been very successful in recent times; they should come in here and be honest that their business model is failing. We've seen a decline in union membership from 40 per cent in 1992 to 14.3 per cent in August 2022. The member for Cowan, in the interjection earlier, said, 'What's happening to Liberal Party membership?' I'm here to tell you, Member for Cowan, that memberships in the South Australian division of the Liberal Party are booming. It's boom time. It's boom season. The member for Cowan doesn't want to hear this, so she leaves.

The reality is that those opposite are simply having their strings pulled by the union movement, a business model that's failing. I'll tell you why it's failing. It's failing because the union movement of the 1980s no longer operates in this country, just like those opposite are a pale shade of the Hawke-Keating era. Former Prime Minister Hawke would look at those opposite and say: 'You need to take up the fight on behalf of all Australians, not just those in the union movement, because the people of Australia have worked you out. You no longer represent labour in this country; you represent just those people who sign up to unionised labour. You just represent organised labour in this place.' The people of Australia, equally, have worked out unions, quite frankly. The ABS data makes it clear that Australians have a higher opinion of themselves than you have of them, because the Australian people are confident that they can negotiate on behalf of themselves. They value things like flexibility, and the ABS data bears out that they are much more successful in negotiating pay and conditions than the union movement. That's why those who sit with the labour hire firms are 12 per cent higher paid than the average worker on casual arrangements. The unions have failed the workers of this country, and they've worked you out.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021. At its core, this amendment is all about fairness and decency for workers—workers who are our sons, daughters, friends and families. What we all want for these people, and for workers across our nation, is equal pay, a reasonable wage and secure work. These are the values of the Labor Party. It's about a fair go for all Australians.

The Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021 will update the Fair Work Act to ensure workers employed through labour hire companies will receive the same pay as workers employed directly by the host company. It's grossly unfair that in Australia today there are workers doing the same job as other employees in the same big companies who are paid up to $500 less a week and do not have the same rights as the workers standing right next to them, alongside them, in the workplace. These workers have the same skills and the same experience and work the same hours. The only difference is that they are employed through labour hire contracts instead of being employed directly by the company. Labor will not stand for this exploitation, which undermines our wage structure and the ability of a worker to earn a decent wage, put food on the table, pay for the school shoes and get ahead in life. We've worked hard for decent wages and conditions—rights that have been fought for for generations and are being eroded by the Morrison government. All workers should have fair wages for work of equal value, equal opportunity to be promoted and holidays with pay, as well as pay for public holidays. Under this amendment, those workers employed by labour hire companies will be treated as equals to workers they work alongside, who perform exactly the same duties. This bill is about protecting the human rights of workers and giving everyone a fair go.

While most labour hire and host companies do the right thing, we've seen labour hire being used by large companies to cut costs and increase profits. The Fair Work Act in its current form allows big companies to avoid legitimate regulatory standards and undermine workers' rights. The objective of this amendment is to protect all workers. It will benefit workers in the meat processing industry, construction, coalmining, the maritime industry and the retail and hospitality sectors. Currently, as I said earlier, many workers in these industries, employed by labour hire firms, are being paid up to $500 less per week. These workers don't get paid if they're sick or if their children are sick. They don't get paid if they need to take a day of leave. Many labour hire workers can barely afford to pay rent, and it's impossible to apply for a mortgage if you're a casual worker. The pandemic has also shed a light on the terrible challenges that insecure workers face when they are forced to choose between working in different places of employment—potentially spreading the virus—and not paying the bills. We need to do better—so much better.

The Morrison government has shown it doesn't care about Australian workers. This government doesn't care about their insecure work and low wages. Casual work in its place is good, but we do not want the majority of people across our nation in insecure work earning low wages. Labor cares about workers because we know that workers are the engine room of our economy. Paying people fair wages and ensuring they have secure work brings economic benefit to our nation. Not only is it right and fair that workers receive the same pay for the same job; this amendment will make our economy more robust, resilient and strong. We know that people in secure work earning a decent wage will inject money back into the economy. We know that the decline in real wages and the increase in a casualised workforce have affected workers across the country, causing them stress and a lack of confidence in the future.

The Morrison government is big on rorts. Labour hire rips off workers across multiple industries. It's a government that thinks it's just a made-up issue; it's red tape; there's nothing to see here. This government refuses to listen to Australian workers and refuses to give them a fair go. Enough is enough for this government which seeks to exploit casual workers, undermine job security and undercut wages. It's time for the same pay for the same job for all Australian workers. Workers want the security, pay and conditions of the permanent workers who are doing exactly the same job as them. The Morrison government has shown they don't care about them. Only a Labor government will deliver better pay, secure work and a fairer system for all Australian workers. (Time expired)

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be an order of the day for the next sitting.