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

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the Government's commitment to stand up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees;

(2) recognises that this:

(a) will help more than 850,000 casual workers who have regular work arrangements, giving them greater access to leave entitlements and more financial security if desired;

(b) delivers on the Government's election commitment, ensuring that where a worker's pattern of work is no longer casual, they have the choice to move to permanent employment and gain the benefits of secure employment; and

(c) forms part of a broader set of reforms to be introduced into Parliament later this year aimed at closing loopholes that undermine wages and conditions; and

(3) acknowledges this is just part of the Government's commitment to deliver a better future for Australian workers, building on the strong foundations in the Secure Jobs, Better Pay legislation passed in December 2022.

The latest figures show that there are approximately 851,000 casual employees with regular working arrangements. These workers do not receive paid leave entitlements. They may struggle to make financial plans for the future. They are more likely to expect to lose their jobs for involuntary reasons, with 22.5 per cent of casual workers expected to move jobs, expecting to lose their jobs for economic reasons or expecting their seasonal, temporary, fixed-term casual jobs to end, compared to 11.6 per cent of permanent employees. They're more likely to be underemployed—17.3 per cent of casual employees are underemployed, compared with 2.3 per cent of permanent employees. They are more likely to be female—53.4 per cent of all casual employees are female, and 23.7 per cent of female employees are casual. The problem is: currently, the definition of casuals within the Fair Work Act is based only on the original offer of employment made to the employee, without taking into account any subsequent conduct of the parties.

It is always a surprise to me, when I am talking to young people in my electorate who are in their first job, when they say to me that they are permanent casuals. I take the time to tell them that they don't exist—that 'permanent casual' is an oxymoron. But they are told by their employers that that is the status of their employment. We know that's not the case, and this government is going to do something about it.

There are employers exploiting the loophole where any subsequent conduct of the parties is not taken into consideration, treating employees as casuals even if they work regular and predictable hours for long periods of time. There are plenty of casual workers who have been stuck in casual employment arrangements for too long. They are being used as though they are permanent workers, without the security of permanent employment, just because of what is written in the employment contract.

The former government compounded this problem. They institutionalised job insecurity for casual workers. In 2021, while the courts were considering the question of how to determine employment status, the previous government introduced legislation, as part of an omnibus bill, to legitimise a blatantly unfair definition of casual employment. Then, extraordinarily, the coalition government voted down the other provisions in its own bill. The minister at the time, Senator Michaelia Cash, and the coalition government voted against all the other parts of their own legislation. They voted against their own legislation that would have criminalised wage theft and they voted against their own legislation that would have modified the better off overall test, because the only commitment that ultimately mattered that day was to make sure that they got the section of the bill through which would take rights away from casual workers. We know what they did with penalty rates. The pattern was set. What was left was an unreasonable definition that has now been in effect for two years, a definition that effectively disregards whether or not a casual worker was objectively working in a permanent job. If the contract said you were working as a casual, that was the end of the story, even if you were being told that you were a permanent casual. This government will seek to change that this year.

The Albanese government is standing up for casual employees and will introduce a fair, objective definition of 'casual' to provide clearer pathways to permanent work. As part of the government's next set of workplace reforms, we will close the loophole that leaves people stuck with being classified as casuals when they actually work permanent, regular hours. The government will introduce a fair, new definition that will restore the traditional understanding of casual employment—that is, casual employment will be determined by considering whether there is a firm advance commitment to work, but this concept is to be understood by reference to the totality of the employment relationship, including post-contractual conduct and non-contractual mutual understandings.

This is an area of industrial relations that needs action. We need to ensure that people aren't staying casual employees, without entitlements, for longer than the employer actually sees them as casual employees. This needs to change. It needs to change for young people and it also needs to change for a lot of older people who are now being employed under this definition.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for Lalor for the opportunity to speak about industrial relations reform and how best to support Australian workers, including casuals. The Financial Review reported that the minister has declared that the next round of IR reforms will be a contest on wages. If you're listening, Minister, I'm up for that contest.

Let's start where we agree. Wage growth has been too slow for too long. This is something that workers have experienced not just under the coalition government but also under the previous Labor government. Both sides need to do better. To do that, we need healthy, productive policy debates which focus on the outcomes that will deliver for workers, as well as the consequences and trade-offs of each option. We shouldn't fight about who does or doesn't care about workers or families, or who is or isn't in the pocket of businesses or unions. Let's keep the focus where it belongs: on policies and outcomes.

So what is the government's policy? It's to raise wages by striking at underpayment, giving workers more bargaining power, converting more casual workers to permanent work and cracking down on platform operators with more flexible working arrangements. There are a number of trade-offs here. First is that it prioritises wage growth over everything else. For some workers, a wage rise is vitally important and, understandably, trumps all other considerations. But the Susan McKinnon Foundation has shown recently the diversity of what matters to workers. Almost a third say higher pay is the most important consideration for them, but 21 per cent rate job security, 17 per cent prefer flexibility and seven per cent say a shorter commute is more important than more pay. It's notable that almost two-thirds of part-time workers rate shift flexibility as more important than pay. For workers who value things other than wages, forcing employers to focus on pay ultimately means neglecting other important values.

The second trade-off is that this change is essentially a one-off benefit. Workers will enjoy wage growth while the economy adjusts to the new rules, but it doesn't provide the foundations for ongoing wage growth. If IR reform makes workplaces less flexible and less dynamic, it will be harder for firms to grow and harder for employers to fund pay rises in the future.

The third trade-off is that cracking down on new forms of work reduces competition for workers. You can protect workers' rights legally with rules and courts or economically by ensuring unhappy workers can easily and quickly find employment elsewhere. We certainly need basic rights to be protected, and I support the government's efforts to ensure this protection, but the overall balance of legal and economic protections will vary by workers and industries. We shouldn't neglect the upsides of having a lot of competing employers, and the Labor members for Fenner or Fraser know all about the dangers of monopsony.

Labor market competition isn't just an issue for digital platforms either. Small businesses are a huge source of employment, and each tranche of IR reform has imposed significant burdens on them. The smallest have been carved out, but many small businesses such as local cafes, gyms and retailers are still affected. If we keep adding to the regulatory burden, we shouldn't be surprised if small-business owners decide to call it quits and we end up with fewer opportunities for Australian workers.

I can respect the government's position, but we need to ensure that the trade-offs are worthwhile. The best thing is for workers to have a dynamic labour market that supports choice, flexibility and ongoing wage growth—one that accommodates the different preferences of different employers and employees and ensures healthy competition for workers, which drives improvements in wages and conditions.

This debate is just getting started, and I look forward to engaging more with stakeholders on all sides. I hope we can have a positive and constructive debate which focuses on the policy options and their trade-offs, weighs up what is practical for businesses to implement and focuses on how to better support outcomes for Australian workers and Australian businesses.

Sam Lim (Tangney, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We live in uncertain times. A decade of economic mismanagement, war raging in Eastern Europe and the enduring consequences of global pandemic put pressure on our economy—pressure that is felt the hardest by working families. Last year there were 2.7 million casual workers in Australia, 300,000 more than the previous year, and 800,000 working regular hours. These are not just numbers; those are real Australians experiencing job insecurity in an already uncertain context. Having to worry about the possibility of losing your job contributes to the anxiety of providing for your family. Casual workers don't get paid leave. Casuals may struggle to plan for the future. Casuals are twice as likely to change jobs, whether because of economic reasons or because of seasonally available vacancies.

I don't know this because I have seen the statistics; I know because I have experienced this myself. When I arrived in Australia, my first job I had was security guard. I found myself in this situation, waiting weekly for the roster to find out if the last pay slip was going to be enough. In addition to this, how many of these jobs are in industries that more often than not pay minimum wage? They are retail workers, hospitality workers, warehouse and logistics workers.

We must not overlook the fact that casual workers are more likely to be underemployed and that they are more likely to be female. Over 23 per cent of female workers are casuals. How are we going to close the gender pay gap if more women are experiencing job insecurity? I have a huge respect for casual workers. I know how hard it is going to work worrying about not being able to provide for your loved ones—those loved ones that you barely get to see because these jobs often include rotating rosters, night shifts and weekend work.

We have a responsibility to stand up for those who are doing it tougher and to care for those who are under the heaviest pressure because those before us were incapable of empathy. Today, the coalition sit across this chamber and accusingly talk about the cost-of-living crisis and inflation, and they expect us to believe that they are the people's champions. Well, they are not. They institutionalised job insecurity. In 2021 they introduced a bill with the purpose of legitimising an unfair definition of casual employment. They did it with that sole purpose because they later voted against every other part of this legislation. They voted against criminalising wage theft. They voted against workers' interests.

The Albanese Labor government will do things differently. We are putting workers rights as a priority, and we are committed to improving their working conditions. We will introduce a fairer definition of casual employment with clearer pathways to job security. We will close the loophole that leaves people stuck as casuals, even if they are working regular hours. It will be at the employee's discretion to express their intention to become a permanent employee. Many will not, and they will not be forced to convert either. We are not against businesses; we are here to work together—government, business owners and workers—to get the best outcome for everyone.

There will be no net cost for businesses. As it is now, they will either pay casual loading or leave entitlements. They will not have to pay both. We are not doing anything special. We are just sticking to our word. We are doing what we promised, and we are making sure that no-one gets left behind.

Gavin Pearce (Braddon, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health, Aged Care and Indigenous Health Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for Lalor for putting forward this motion. It provides me with the opportunity to advise the House on why I think the member's sentiments are misplaced at best. Again, it boils down to the Albanese government's failure to listen to the needs of rural Australia and to listen to the bush. It's another classic example of Canberra trying to ram city bureaucracy down the throats of hardworking rural businesses and their workers.

It's little wonder that small businesses right across the north-west, the west coast and King Island are frightened. It's little wonder that our advanced manufacturers are frightened. It's little wonder that our building sector, our transport sector, our ag sector and our fishing sector are worried about the impacts of Labor's IR agenda and the ongoing viability of their businesses. These businesses are the lifeblood of our region. This is something that Labor struggles to understand. In rural Australia, a lot of the time it's just one or two of these businesses that form the very backbone of an entire community. The government must continue to support these businesses to keep them viable, not to tie them up and reduce their productivity with more red tape.

If Labor had bothered to ask anyone in the bush about managing workforce challenges then they would have known that flexibility is key. I think it's important to remind the Canberra bureaucracy that not everybody clocks on at nine and knocks off at five. Across the north-west, the west coast and King Island we can't afford to have a 'clock on, clock off' mentality. We'd go broke. In our region, we've got a 'do the job' mentality—a 'complete the job and get it done' mentality. I could spend the next three minutes listing the names of business owners that have never clocked off in their working lives. They work 24/7, around the clock.

In that vein, I recently went along to a regional meeting of our Master Builders association in Devonport. It was a great meeting. There were a roomful of builders, and if they tell me that they've got a problem then I listen. The problem is Labor's proposed IR reforms. In the electorate of Braddon, there are just over 1,000 small building and construction businesses. Between them they employ around 4,000 tradies. That's about nine per cent of the population. For the benefit of those opposite, I feel obliged to explain how the building and construction industry actually works. We have a building sector that is a very complex, very finely tuned, well-balanced and highly efficient system of business owners, apprentices, independent contractors and subbies. That's right: subcontractors.. Yet Labor believes this successful, time-proven model needs changing—changing from a model that is flexible, independent and responsive to one that is rigid, beholden to union movements and bound by red tape.

At this meeting, I was told that Labor's proposed IR reforms are one of the worst possible things that could ever happen to the building and construction industry in the state of Tasmania. Independent contractors and subbies could find themselves subject to changes which would ultimately force them to relinquish their autonomy and become employees. This would mean they would lose their freedom to choose their working hours, their projects and their clients and their ability to negotiate their own fees and conditions. One subcontractor said that he hopes that 'the people responsible for bringing this new legislation will be held 100 per cent accountable when the construction industry is totally destroyed'.

It's never a good time for government to make it harder for business owners. It's never a good time for governments to make it harder for workers or jobseekers to find flexible employment that suits their specific needs and their own requirements. Yet that is exactly what the Albanese government is proposing. Well, I'm proposing more utes and fewer suits.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many businesses need the flexibility of casual workers, especially small businesses. In fact, many employees need the flexibility of being casual. Musicians and artists, students, mums, carers, microbusinesses and a whole lot of other workers don't always want to be locked into a permanent part-time roster. They want the ability to pick up more shifts when their commitments allow or to move between a couple of employers when there is demand.

But there are other casual workers who are only casual because they haven't been able to move into permanent employment, even though they might have been working the same shifts for many years. There are about 850,000 casual employees with regular working arrangements. They don't have access to leave entitlements and are, in fact, in a much less stable situation than permanent workers, with job insecurity hovering constantly. It's hard to make financial plans. They're twice as likely to expect to lose their job for involuntary reasons. They're also more likely to be underemployed, and they're more likely to be female. Fifty-three per cent of all casual employees are female, and 23.7 per cent of female employees are casual.

We're committed to standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees. What we're doing is saying that, if a worker's pattern of work is no longer casual, they should have the choice to move to permanent employment and gain the benefits of secure employment. It won't be something that everyone who's in that situation actually wants to do. It means being paid a lower hourly rate in return for access to sick leave, holiday pay and other entitlements.

I think there are a couple of things to clarify here. Casual workers already have some of the same entitlements as permanent part-time or full-time workers. For instance, under the superannuation guarantee legislation, all employers must already pay a minimum of 11 per cent super for all eligible staff, whether they're full time, part time or casual. This legislation ensures that working Australians are guaranteed to have some level of retirement savings, and we were very pleased to make that change. The 10 days domestic and family violence leave that's come into effect this year is payable to all workers, whether they are casual or permanent.

These are things that we have already implemented to provide greater security for casual workers. But we're also going to close a loophole in the Fair Work Act that's being exploited by some employers. Currently, the definition of casual is based only on the original offer of employment made to that employee. It doesn't take into account any subsequent changes that might have occurred, or what is known as the 'subsequent conduct of the parties'. So even if people are now working regular and predictable hours, they're still treated as the casuals they were when they were first hired. They're being used as permanent workers without the security of permanent work because of what's written in their employment contract.

The former government compounded this problem by legislating an unreasonable definition for casuals, and that has now been in effect for two years. It basically disregards whether or not a casual worker was objectively working in a permanent job. We're going to seek to change that and introduce a fair and objective definition of casual to provide a clear pathway to permanent work. That is, a casual employment will be determined by considering whether there's any firm advance commitment to work. But this concept has to be understood by reference to the total employment situation. And there will be clear processes for changing employment status from casual to permanent which will be at the employee's discretion. When a boss expects someone to work guaranteed hours as though they were an permanent employee, the worker will have the option to say, 'I would rather be a permanent worker'.

For the vast majority of casuals, nothing changes: no forced conversion and no giving up the casual loading. There's no net cost to business: employers pay a loading if someone is casual and they pay a leave entitlement if someone is permanent. They don't pay both to the same person. Most people will sort this out at the workplace level, but we'll ensure that Fair Work can arbitrate binding decisions where necessary.

We don't expect a large number of casuals will choose to be permanent, but there are people for whom a conversion to permanent would be life changing. It may appeal more to older workers, or to workers supporting a family, than it will to students, for instance. It's a fair approach, and it's another step to increasing security for workers.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion, which demonstrates Labor's interventionist approach to industrial relations in this country. This motion concerns the casual workers of Australia and is a concerted effort by the government to restrict casual work and demonise those employees who, for various reasons, choose this form of work.

The Australian labour market is diverse and provides various forms of work for people of different circumstances and different needs. There are currently 2.7 million casual employees in Australia. This represents approximately 23.5 per cent of all those employed. This percentage has essentially been unchanged for more than 25 years. In my electorate of Hughes there are approximately 15,000 casual workers. Casual workers receive an immediate 25 per cent leave loading on their wage instead of various forms of leave. The government is now proposing to redefine the notion of a casual employee, making it more difficult for Australian workers to choose higher take-home pay and flexibility when needed.

A new test on how a casual worker is defined could mean that people who have a regular work pattern can no longer be a casual employee. The casual work options are critically important to provide job opportunities for hundreds of thousands of students, parents, carers and others wanting flexibility in how and when they work and who prioritise higher take-home income over entitlements like leave. Casual work works particularly for our young, for those aged 18 to 34. Casual work works for them.

The government, however, and particularly unions, increasingly object to casual work as part of a campaign against insecure work. However, this argument makes no sense when, at present, with almost full employment and skill shortages, Australians who do not want to work casually have rarely had more options to pursue ongoing full- or part-time work. Casual work was, until recently, plagued by legal uncertainty and messy backpay risks. However, this was considered and then corrected by the High Court in 2021, resulting in the parliament legislating a clear and reliable definition of casual employment. That definition should remain. It is baffling to understand why the Labor government now wants to act against the interests of casual workers, the businesses in which they work and the wider community to deliberately recreate that uncertainty.

It is now easier than ever in the history of industrial relations in this country for casual employees to convert to permanent work, either full-time or part-time. The government has been vague in how it would redefine casual work. What is clear is that it is deliberately complicating the existing Fair Work Act to override the stated intention of an employer and an employee and the express basis on which casuals are hired, making casual work contingent on post-contractual conduct. This would require an ongoing and continuous re-examination of daily patterns of work, recreating uncertainty and deliberately reversing the successful and sensible corrections made by the High Court and parliament in 2021. It's also going to place additional administrative burdens on small businesses in particular and also medium-sized businesses. Those businesses in my electorate that I've spoken to about this have indicated that this could well result in the businesses simply cutting back on staff numbers overall, leading to increased unemployment.

Another consideration is that casual employees, particularly young people, are less likely to join trade unions. Casuals can also have different priorities in enterprise bargaining to union members working full-time and part-time. Therefore, the government legislating rights to convert them from casual to ongoing employment could simply be an opportunity to repay union mates with a view to swelling the ranks of union membership.

Casual work has been a legitimate part of Australian employment for more than a century. It is critical to doing business, attracting investment and supporting jobs. The government should take their hands off redefining the way that casual workers work in this country.

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

I rise to speak in favour of the motion moved by the member for Lalor. This should come as no surprise, given the side of the chamber I'm standing on. Standing up for the rights and conditions of workers isn't just something that's in our DNA; it is something that we should be fighting for in opposition and it is something we should be legislating for when in government. As the motion suggests, this means casual workers too—a part of the workforce that accounts for one-quarter of Australia's employees. This, of course, fluctuates over time.

During the COVID-19 pandemic many casual workers were not eligible for JobKeeper. For employees engaged on a casual basis this was cold comfort to many trying to do the right thing as they tested positive for COVID, meaning the government had to step in to cover for them while they recovered from a virus that many of them contracted whilst at work.

We find casual workers forgoing entitlements, such as personal leave and annual leave, for an additional loading on their wages—whether it be 15 per cent or 20 per cent—although forgoing workplace entitlements is only a small part of the overall story. We often find casual employees in situations of underemployment, whether that be working fewer hours than they would like to or working that particular job or another job to supplement those hours in a position or industry that is lower than their levels of qualification or experience.

Casual engagements can be as short as the balance of the day's shift. This is what the state of play currently is given that the current definition within the Fair Work Act only concerns itself with the original offer of employment made to an employee. That definition considers the fact that for many casual employees this type of employment can be in a pattern that lasts months or, for that matter, years—or sometimes for just a shift at a time. After a certain number of rockstar shifts, there comes a time for all involved when a worker begins to feel part of the team for all intents and purposes—other than for the provisions of the Fair Work Act that is.

Business groups use the word 'flexibility' as a good thing, but, as soon we consider whether an employee would like to trade in loading for the entitlements and job security of someone who has filled the same work pattern for many moons, somehow flexibility is bad. It would appear that business groups are inflexible with their definition of what constitutes the good kind of flexibility. There is indeed a place for casual employment. Many use it to work in sporadic patterns in line with their university timetables. Some use it as a way to gradually return to work. But some employees would choose to jettison 20 or 25 per cent of loading on their wages for the ability to call in sick when they are sick, take a period of annual leave to recharge their batteries without worrying about the loss of income or even be able to rest up during a public holiday that they are being paid for.

As we can all understand, being told that you will be engaged casually on a continuous basis by an employer offers zero guarantees that will eventuate beyond what the employee is engaged to do at the time. This precariousness hurts. It hurts on the job, seeing fellow co-workers take leave and holidays with their families. It can hurt at home, too, even in the process of trying to purchase a home. They can come to a lender, with their employer offering a pattern of casual employment dating back to kingdom come, but, ultimately, this means very little when they are employed casually.

To address these issues faced by many casual workers in our labour force, the Albanese Labor government is introducing an objective definition of a casual employee to provide a clearer pathway to permanent and secure work, a clearer way for employees to discuss situations where their employment ventures across what is considered casually engaged and provisions where an employee can engage with their employer to work through a process of casual conversion, with the existing framework remaining in effect. For the vast majority of casuals, this won't necessarily have any great impact. But, for the estimated 850,000 who are engaged in casual employment on a regular pattern of work, this can mean they have a path forward toward more stable and secure working conditions with their employer.

If employers continue to relent against this added level of flexibility into the working arrangements between themselves and any casual employees who have worked regularly over a large period of time, it means that, every time they use that word flexibility, it just rings hollow. I am sure that this is not actually the case, and that is why the Albanese government wants to open up and allow for a type of flexibility that appears to be craved by many industry groups. On that front, the Albanese Labor government is more than happy to oblige.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. In regard to the next item of business, a motion related to COVID-19 vaccines, as the member for Monash does not appear to be in the chamber, the motion lapses.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:23