Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Last Thursday the minister told the House in question time that a small business located in a shopping centre with a large supermarket would not be compelled to bargain together with that supermarket. Given the bill specifically mentions geographical location as establishing the common interest that means a business can be dragged into multi-employer bargaining, will the minister now admit she misled the House in giving this incorrect answer?

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I did not. It's correct, and I'll hand over the workplace relations minister.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The example given is wrong for two reasons. The first reason is in terms of common interest. To claim that a small shop like that has a common interest with a company like Woolworth really beggars belief. And if that's their concept of what a common interest is then they have no understanding of small business on that side. If their view of small business is, 'Oh, it's just the same as Woolies,' then that's a really extraordinary argument. The other concept, if they paid attention over the weekend, is one of the additional amendments that the government has agreed to as to whether or not businesses are reasonably comparable. So, even if you got over the hurdle—and I don't know logically how you could get over the hurdle—on common interest, to claim that they're somehow reasonably comparable would just a beggar belief.

It's not like the Fair Work Commission is stacked with Labor Party appointees at the moment. That's not exactly who's adjudicating this. But the example given would not pass the common interest test, would not pass the reasonably comparable test but, obviously, would pass the scare campaign test. Keep going, keep shouting at the moon—that's what they're going to do—but anyone who looks at this with common sense could not reach any of the conclusions that those opposite are trying to draw.

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

My question is for the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What will change for Australian workers when the secure jobs, better pay bill becomes law?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for the question. In terms of what will change, it's clear that quite a lot will change because I heard from Senator Cash that these laws are, literally, the most radical changes that this country has seen. The most radical ever is what we're talking about. Two years after the entire nation went into lockdown, apparently people getting their wages moving is the most radical thing the country has ever seen. What will happen? Let me go through what will happen immediately on this legislation passing. Immediately, you will find that job security and gender equality become objectives of the Fair Work Act. That will happen straight away. The sunsetting of zombie agreements will start. We talk about zombie agreements: what are they? There are still people today working under AWAs from the Howard era. There are still people today working under AWAs, and what has happened is that, even though the hourly rate is protected, every penalty rate has disappeared. So there are people now under agreements that would never pass any form of no-disadvantage or better off overall test. They are working on sub-award conditions now. This bill about which those opposite say, 'Everything within it is terrible,' will make sure that people catch up again with what's meant to be the legal rate of pay in Australia. There'll be a ban on job ads which advertise less than the legal minimum rate. Apparently, those opposite think everything in the bill is terrible and that it's okay to advertise for less than the legal minimum rate. In the Senate, as they already have in the House, they'll be voting to keep that rort open.

At the moment, if you have a pay equity case, you need to run the case on the basis that you can find a male comparator. So early childhood educators, in trying to argue that their work should be more valued, had to argue that their work was similar to being engineers. It was an impossible hurdle, and they failed. That's part of the reason that we continue to be unable to close the gender pay gap on these various awards. This bill will allow the gender pay gap to be closed, when you no longer have to argue using a male comparator.

We'll be prohibiting pay secrecy clauses. Those opposite want to maintain a situation where you are not allowed to tell your fellow workers what you earn. We know exactly how that has been used.

Secure jobs and better pay should be possible in Australia. We'll be voting for it. There'll be a majority in the Senate voting for it, and those opposite should own up that they just want to keep wages low.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I refer to the example of a Goulburn Valley fruit grower that employs 25 casual and part-time farmhands throughout the year and an additional team of 30 regular seasonal pickers and packers. Under Labor's industrial relations changes, if a representative for fruit pickers from that farm and the neighbour's farm successfully applies to the Fair Work Commission to bargain a single-interest employer agreement, could all similar fruit growers be forced into multiple-employer bargaining?

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you so much to the shadow minister for his question. I, too, given it is an industrial relations question, will refer to the relevant minister, but I do want to start with this: is the proposition that you are putting to this parliament that regional Australians don't deserve a pay rise? Is that the proposition that you are putting to the parliament?

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, people on my right!

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the proposition that you are putting to the parliament that people who work on farm communities should be paid lower? That is basically the proposition you are putting.

Opposition members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the Nationals has asked a question.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not supporting regional Australians. By putting this question, you are saying that anybody who works for farm communities and anybody who works for agricultural and regional businesses does not deserve a pay rise. I'll ask the industrial relations minister to answer the specifics of the member's question.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for joining me to answer the question. I will say two things on the example that's been given. First of all, in terms of the final line, people don't get forced. Either the employer opts in or the workforce vote to be part of an agreement. That's what happens. People don't get compelled in the way that he's just described. Those opposite think the only person at the bargaining table is the employer. That's essentially what's at the heart of this. That's why they can say 'forced'—because they fail to acknowledge the right of the workforce to be able to have a vote as to whether or not they want to be part of something.

But of all the industries about which to come to this House and say, 'Here's an industry where it's outrageous to get pay rises,' he chose horticulture!

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will pause. I'll call the Leader of The Nationals on a point of order.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is on relevance. The question is very specific. The minister is going off in terms of the representative for fruit pickers, which means that he is venturing away from the actual bill and what a representative involved in those negotiations—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You may resume your seat. The question was about employment bargaining. The Leader of the Nationals has asked his question. He may not like the answer, but the minister is being relevant regarding employment bargaining.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't blame the farmers for this. I don't blame the horticulturalists themselves, because, principally, they've been paying rates to labour hire firms that they had a right to believe were properly paying people. But what has been happening, the worst examples of people being underpaid that we've seen in Australia, has been in that exact industry. The Leader of the Nationals can scoff at it and say it doesn't matter, but, when people are being paid $4 an hour, it matters. When people are being paid as little as that, it needs to be fixed. When people are being paid absolutely appalling rates of pay, such that they end up fishing out of bins to get food at the back of supermarkets, yes, absolutely, we make sure that we will act on those areas. Those opposite, why don't you have one question at some point that encourages pay rises—just one. There have been plenty of questions on industrial relations but not one that has encouraged rates of pay in this country to go up.