Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, which incorporates quite a lot of well-meaning objectives into an omnibus bill. Next to me I have a fair bit of paperwork, and this was only presented to the House on Monday. We have here a bill that comes to 200 pages, which, if it passes this House and the Senate, will join the 1,200 pages of the Fair Work Act. We're looking at 1,400 pages in order to navigate your way through the employer-employee relationship. You don't have to be an industrial relations lawyer to know that creates enormous complexity and uncertainty. You don't have to be an industrial relations lawyer to know that businesses, particularly medium-sized and smaller business, don't have armies of lawyers and other staff to help them navigate all of the paperwork and forms that come with this. They'd be quite right to be upset by this, because, in all of the promises and speeches that were made in the lead-up to the last election, this sort of radical reform to our industrial relations was not on the cards. It wasn't put to the Australian people. We've heard lots of lectures from the other side about integrity and transparency, but when you look at these 200 pages and the mammoth, weighty explanatory memorandum that's supposed to help us resolve ambiguity—if that's helping us resolve ambiguity, as an explanatory memorandum, God help us! And God help businesses that are struggling to survive as it is, as many are.

We heard some really disturbing economic news today. I don't like to talk the economy down—we want it to succeed because it's about people's lives—but we heard from the Treasurer that annual GDP growth slowed from 2.3 to 2.1. The unfortunate reality of that number is that it's the aggregate GDP, not GDP per capita. It's a GDP propped up by population growth, mostly through migration. There's bipartisan agreement that we are a much stronger and better nation for our migration system, but we should never pretend that that is a substitute for productivity growth. When Australians are being hit with the consequences of high inflation and the cost-of-living crisis that comes with it, the interest rate rises hurt particular sectors of our society, not just our economy—people who are paying off their home, people who are trying to put food on the table and people who have had the worst circumstances possible, which is unemployment, illness or a family separation. They're the people we all see in our electorates queuing in food banks, struggling to stay within the system.

When we look to the laws that surround the employer-employee relationship, we should ask: 'What will this do for productivity? What will this do for employment?' The sad reality is that this proposal risks damaging both of those. This proposal will increase costs, increase complexity and add red tape to an already highly regulated system. Ours is one of the most regulated employer-employee systems in the world. For those who are contemplating starting a business, this is just another reason to say no, to not bother. That's the last thing we need in this economy. What the government should be focusing on is a way to increase productivity. When you increase productivity, you see wages grow; you see enhanced competition. Instead we've seen the government focus on restricting competition. We've all heard the speeches and questions put about the airline industry, but that's where the government's focus is.

No, not all of them. The member for Fraser has popped out, and I know, with his background and as Chair of the Standing Committee on Economics, he's focused on productivity, dynamism and competition.

In the referendum that's coming up—you may ask, 'What's that got to do with this debate?' It has a little bit to do with this debate. We've heard lots of lectures from the Prime Minister, the ministers and the entire side of the chamber that if you listen you get better results, and who would argue with that?

Of course you get better results if you listen. That's our job in this place. But that doesn't really work if your listening involves selective hearing. You only listen to the things you want to hear. You don't listen to the things you don't want to hear.

The member for Parramatta, in two 90-second statements, in his passionate support for the Voice—and there's passionate disagreement in this place—singled out the support of the business community. He noted in two 90-second statements that it's great to see so many Australian businesses jumping on board to provide their support. He singled out BHP, Woolies and Optus. In fact, 13 out of the top 20 ASX companies have taken a position, and it's their right to do that. He then said: 'The opposition leader has no business trying to silence business.' He criticised the opposition leader, saying: 'He tells them they're virtue signalling. He tells them to stick to their knitting.'

In his second speech, the member for Parramatta said: 'If the coalition doesn't even understand business support then they have no business getting in the way.' If the member for Parramatta is very keen to listen to business and the groups that represent business, let's listen to them, not just on the things you want to hear but on all of things. We know that, in section 128 of our Constitution, the decision for amending the Constitution is with the people after it passes this place. It is not with corporate Australia but with the people. But the business of the employer-employee relationship actually is their core business. That's what they do day to day. So, if you're going to be selective about what you listen to from business, the economy and employer-employee relationships are pretty good ones. Let's hear what some of them had to say on these matters.

Jennifer Westacott, the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia said:

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 …

She added:

These changes will create confusion and extra costs for consumers, make it harder to hire casual workers and create uncertainty for employing anybody.

Any government that's serious about cost of living would not do this.

The government say they're serious about the cost of living, yet this is exactly what they're doing—something which risks increasing unemployment and reducing productivity at the very time when we need to be doing the opposite. Jennifer Westacott added:

We need a system that drives productivity, not stifles it, because that will stifle wages growth.

The case has not been made for this radical shake-up.

The member for Parramatta should reflect on those comments. He was quite critical of this side of the House for not listening to business. Is he going to listen to that view of business?

It doesn't stop there. We heard the Prime Minister say with glee that the Minerals Council of Australia were celebrating his position on the Voice, even though they're not mentioned in section 128 of the Constitution. But that's fine; that's their right. But they do have a particular interest in the employer-employee relationship and in growing this economy and growing productivity. Tanya Constable of the Minerals Council said of the Albanese government's latest changes:

The changes will inflict immense harm to the economy, the weight of which will fall on the shoulders of the most vulnerable Australians who will pay more for groceries, housing, and energy.

The MCA calls on the Albanese Government to rip up this bill and head back to the drawing board.

There are many other stakeholders and representatives of business who have very strong views on this, and from the other side you may argue in reply: 'Well, of course they would say that. They're just acting in the national interest.' If you're to say that, then what's the self-interest that they're acting in when they support things you do like? You cannot have selective hearing about this.

One of the more troubling aspects of this is the expansion of union powers in workplaces. That gets to the heart of what we're really dealing with here and why this is in the form that it is and why it wasn't put to the Australian people before the election. I'll single out union delegate powers. Union delegates will have a new workplace right to protect them against employers that refuse to deal with them, that mislead them or that hinder or obstruct their right as a delegate. A mandatory term will be included in awards or enterprise agreements giving effect to primary and ancillary delegates' rights. The ancillary rights include reasonable access to communicate with members and potential members about matters of industrial concern, workplace fatalities and paid-time training, as well as delegates having paid time to create these functions. Again, there are parts of that which reasonable people could agree on, but that is not the effect of this, given the way that it's been drafted.

The bill will amend the Fair Work Act to enable unions to exercise right-of-entry powers without any notice, no notice, whenever it relates to wage underpayment. To gain immediate entry, the union only needs to assert to the Fair Work Commission that they suspect—and that's a very low threshold of proof, 'suspect'—a case of wage underpayment. No evidence is required to make their case. The National Farmers Federation have made a very important observation here in that they are concerned about the new rights of entry without notice and how they would affect farms. I don't represent a rural or regional electorate, but there are a couple of farms in the eastern side and what I know is that their business is their home. It's where they live. It's where they bring up their children, look after their parents. To have this sort of regime impose that right of entry on their home is extremely concerning. It should concern all of us. All of us should be concerned by that.

I said at the start there are some worthy objectives here, but, again, the devil is always in the detail. When we come in with an omnibus bill like this—this is the sort of bill that we see more in other democracies. The United States Congress is known for bundling a whole bunch of special interest issues into a bill that has a very catchy headline. Both sides will engage in that, in their bipartisan democracy, but it's not a healthy thing and it makes it hard to focus on the particular parts of it.

On the issue of wage theft, the coalition supports that wage theft should not occur. There was a proposal by the coalition, when it was last in government, to actually stamp this out. The coalition has zero tolerance for any exploitation of workers, including underpayment of wages and entitlements by any employer. And if the minister was serious about wage theft, then why did he lead the charge in 2021 to vote down the coalition's proposal to legislate a wage theft provision in the Fair Work Act? He came in here and in his speech he listed the things he thought we needed to defend. Well, he needs to defend that. He needs to come in here and defend his decision when he was on this side and refused to address that issue then. That would have helped people who were affected by wage theft in the meantime.

The government has overreached on wage theft in that it's not properly separating accidental theft—well, all theft, by its nature, should be intentional—as opposed to intentional theft. For those who've studied criminal law 101, the most important thing in the criminal justice system is the intent. That's the part that is punished. That is the part that we seek to disavow in the community so that others who are thinking of engaging in that activity will say, 'I won't do that because of the effects that will have on me,' so the general and specific deterrence that comes from that.

But if we're going to include accidental misallocation of wages—and that can happen. It's more likely to happen when you're dealing, as a business, with 1,400 pages of relevant legislation. It's more likely to happen. This proposal, in the way that it's put, makes wage theft more likely. Not less likely, more likely. We ask the government to refine that particular part, to focus on the intention of wage theft, because that's the effective part. When you punish intention, you actually have a deterrent effect in the community.

Another key part to this, in my time remaining, is when these laws come into effect. They're due to come into effect, if they pass, in November 2024. What's happening there? Is this so urgent that these loopholes have to be fixed now? Or does the minister and the government know that the actual implementation of these will create real harm in our economy and in our society, and they want to push that off until after the next election? They will push it off, so putting political interests before the economy, putting political interests before growing productivity and reducing the cost of living.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pride to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill in terms of ensuring that we create a safer, fairer environment for workers in Australia. Throughout history, this side of politics, the Labor Party, and Labor governments have fought for Australian workers.

I want to list some historical facts. In 1907, the Harvester judgement occurred. It was a landmark decision that established a fair wage for workers, ensuring a decent standard of living. In the 1920s and 1930s, Labor championed the fight for the eight-hour workday and safer workplaces. In 1947, the Snowy Mountains schemes employed thousands, providing workers with fair conditions but also thousands of migrant workers with equal pay and equal rights. In 2010, the historic Paid Parental Leave Scheme was introduced, ensuring financial support for new parents. Now this Albanese Labor government is building upon this legacy, ensuring fairness in the workplace persists.

Those points I just made about the historical milestones of Labor laws that were enshrined in law by Labor governments, historically, at every step, they were always opposed by the coalition. Anything to do with better entitlements for workers, better pay for workers, better leave arrangements et cetera, is always opposed. The only industrial relations policy we've seen from the other side has been things like WorkChoices, which diminishes pay and diminishes rights and a whole range of other things. Historically, it's in the Liberal Party's DNA to reduce wages and reduce workers' rights in any way they can. Historically, they've proven that. So it gives me great pride to be here today to speak on this piece of legislation.

Four key pillars of the reform are labour hire loophole crackdowns, criminalising wage theft, redefining casual work and safeguarding gig workers. We championed these policies when we were in opposition. We spoke a lot about them. Now we're making them a reality, just as we promised during the last campaign of the federal election. We're now delivering on those promises. Consultation has been thorough throughout, but our commitment to Australian workers is unwavering. We hear the calls of the people in our electorates and those who serve us—those in our police forces; those who work in mining fields; those who work in hospitals, the cleaners and the nurses; and those who work in the airline industry, where people serve us every day over the counter et cetera. We hear their calls. We don't just make a note of their concerns; we act on their concerns as a government. From wage theft to gig workers' rights, our commitment remains unwavering.

Our commitment to get wages moving underpins these reforms, and, at the heart of it, lies a simple yet powerful idea. Throughout history, Labor governments have fought for Australian workers. Over the past nine years, we saw the lowest wage growth that's existed in this country historically. It was something that the other side was actually proud of. They said they wanted to keep wages low. In other words, they wanted to keep wages low while profits went up and the cost of living went up. Yet, they were happy to come up with policies to work the economy and everything else, but not wages—not for those people wanting to make a living to pay their bills, to pay their mortgages, to make sure their kids were clothed, and to make sure breakfast was on the table every morning. That's what happens when you drive down wages; you make it harder for those working people who are doing it tough and who are working very hard, sometimes in very hard conditions.

This is about putting an end to companies using loopholes to short-change their employees. It's about upholding fairness by ensuring workers are paid what they've already agreed upon. That's nothing radical. There's an enterprise bargaining agreement where wages and conditions are met by the employer and employee. This is about upholding that, upholding a contract, upholding an agreement that's been made. So I can't see why they think that this is some sort of radical change.

We are taking a stronger stance against employers who steal from their workers, and it's as simple as this: if you work hard, you deserve fair pay and wage theft will no longer be tolerated. As I said, if you are an employee and you steal from the boss, the police come in, charge you—and rightly so—you go to court et cetera. Why isn't it the same the other way round when it is being done systematically in some places? We have seen the media reports over the years of many, many companies and firms who have systematically shortchanged their workers' wages by systematically putting systems and accounting practices in place. We have seen them needing to pay back millions of dollars. I won't name those firms because you'd think they are doing the right thing now once they'd been caught. But we want to stamp that out. I'm not saying all employers are doing this because the majority are good, honest people in the business world who pay their employees the correct amounts. But we want to weed out those that aren't. They need to pay the penalties, and we need to ensure that, if they don't do the right thing and are short-changing employees through wage theft, you are dealt with. It's as simple as that.

Casual workers should also know where they stand. If you are working consistently like a permanent employee, you should enjoy the same rights and the same benefits of that employee. We are also clarifying what casual work truly means and safeguarding workers from exploitation. Gig workers often face job uncertainty. We are here to ensure that they are fairly compensated for their work. It's about standing up for those who need it most.

As I said, these reforms aren't about overhauling the system; they are just about making our existing laws work effectively. It's nothing radical. Employers will still have the flexibility to negotiate rates, and workers will be sheltered from exploitation—a pretty simple formula. I cannot see why people are opposing this. But, then again, I do think about the historical facts of our side and their side, and where we have always stood when it comes to workers' rates and industrial relations laws versus where they've always stood. One fine example is that piece of legislation in this place on industrial relations when they were in government, the WorkChoices legislation. That gives you an example of where their thinking is.

On this side we believe that casual workers should have the option to become permanent employees if they wish—and I repeat, if they wish. If you are putting in regular hours like a permanent worker, you should have the same rights. We're introducing a clear definition of when someone can be labelled as a casual. This change could benefit up to 850,000 workers who have consistent hours—in other words, they've been putting in those hours just like a full-time employee for months and months and months. We want to be crystal clear that no-one will be forced to switch from casual to permanent because we respect their choices. Businesses won't be burdened by this with extra costs if someone is a casual because they will continue to pay the loadings and leave entitlements for casual workers as they would for permanent workers. That means fairness for all parties involved.

These reforms are all about ensuring that workers are treated with the fairness and respect they deserve, and we need workers to have opportunities in businesses that have clear guidelines and businesses to have clear guidelines to follow. As I said, it's not a radical overhaul. It's about making things fair and straightforward, and we are actually making these plans a reality, backed by thorough preparation. This was a commitment we made during the election campaign and for months before the election campaign, and now we're bringing it to fruition. We are also investing $3.4 million to make our workplace reforms happen. This includes funds for the Fair Work Commission to ensure swift dispute resolutions and to support implementation and evaluation. These reforms will start on 1 July 2024, giving employees a voice in changes that affect them. We have consulted extensively and reviewed existing arrangements, and we initiated this process by actively encouraging and welcoming the voices of our workforce. Many of us on this side have met with unions, workers groups et cetera, and we continue to do so. We do this because we want to ensure that their concerns and opinions are at the forefront of our efforts. We are tackling a pressing issue, and that is the misuse of labour hire that undermines workers' agreements.

While labour hire serves legitimate purposes in many cases, the concern is that companies are exploiting a loophole, paying labour hire employees less than agreed rates. Why should you be working in the same premises, delivering the same product or goods, manufacturing the same goods or offering the same services as someone working right next to you—doing the exact same work, same hours, same shifts et cetera—and get paid less? This is a loophole that has to be tightened. There's no doubt. As I said, there are places for labour hire companies, but we need to close those loopholes where people are using it just for the ability to pay less and drive down wages for the rest of their employees. The proposal we have empowers the Fair Work Commission to ensure labour hire workers are paid fairly, aligning with the host enterprise agreement. This initiative upholds 'same job, same pay'—pretty simple; I can't see anyone arguing against that—and addresses the loophole that allows pay disparities. The only people that would argue against it are people that want to drive down wages or want to pay lower wages. Key elements include application options, exemptions for small business and safeguards against avoidance.

There's also another allocation of $6.8 million over four years for this change, and it begins with anti-avoidance measures upon this bill being introduced, with the Fair Work Commission orders enforceable from 1 November 2024. This reform affects both existing and future labour hire arrangements, with extensive consultation and engagement over 45 sessions to ensure fairness prevails. We're taking a significant step to protect workers in the emerging forms of employment like the gig economy. The Fair Work Commission will gain powers to establish minimum standards for those employee-like workers, ensuring they aren't exploited or subjected to hazardous conditions. We see the dangerous areas they work in, riding bikes on busy streets in the CBDs or rushing to get to the next job because there's pressure on them to make six or seven deliveries in the one hour or in the half-hour. These are hazardous conditions, and no-one's life should be endangered or their health endangered while they're at work. We're not forcing people into traditional employee roles; we're simply advocating for fairness. Gig workers deserve better than 19th-century conditions in the 21st-century digital age. I'm very proud to be speaking on this bill. I'd ask everyone in this place to support it because it's about fairness and it's not a radical change.

I just want to bring one more historical fact before I close off. In the late 1940s the government of the time was negotiating migration agreements with European countries to bring migrant workers over, who have now become settled here, and I'm the son of one of those migrant workers. If you read the Hansard of the debates that were taking place in this place back then, there were two views. One, from the conservative side, was saying they should come in but should be paid less. That was an argument that was put in this chamber—maybe not this chamber but the one down the road. The other side, with the backing of the unions, said, 'No; if they're doing the same job and they're working side by side, they should have equal pay.' Can you imagine—we today pride ourselves as multicultural in this country—what this country would have looked like if they had their way back in the 1940s? It would have been a very different country today. At the heart of this bill is fairness, and I want to remind the House and anyone listening that, when you look at industrial relations bills, on the Labor side it's always been about better wages, better conditions and fairer work conditions, compared to the other side, which has always been about diminishing wages and unfair work conditions.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Small business is the engine room of our economy, with 97.5 per cent, or around 2.5 million businesses, dominating the business sector. The contribution small businesses make to powering our nation is considerably significant, with one-third of our GDP being accounted for by small business. These businesses are the lifeblood of our communities. They provide job opportunities for 5.1 million Australians and employ 42 per cent of all apprentices and trainees. Rather than thanking these ambitious Australians who want to give it a go and work tirelessly to create a business they're proud of, this government is ready to grind the livelihood of these people and their employees to a halt.

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill seeks to punish businesses through additional costs to businesses. It will decrease productivity, place jobs on the line and further drive the country's current cost-of-living crisis. Claims made by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations that the changes are very modest couldn't be further from the truth. The reality is that this government is going to inflict an extreme amount of complexity and red tape on businesses while crippling individuals and families.

In Queensland there are more than 473,000 small businesses. John Kerslake, who lives in my electorate of Capricornia, is one of those small-business owners. His two cafes support 25 locals and have contributed to the local Mackay region's economy for many years. Unfortunately, the hard work John and his wife have put into their business will be under threat if this legislation is passed. As any good business owner will attest, their priority is the wellbeing of their staff. Without the loyalty and drive of their employees, their business will fail to thrive. John has said to me that up to four jobs will be on the line, while other staff will have their hours cut back to accommodate the changes this legislation will cause. At a time when Australians are being hit on the hip pocket with ever increasing energy prices, high grocery bills and the cost of everyday items continuing to grow, job losses through irresponsible and poorly thought through legislation will further compound the pressure they are under to make ends meet.

Many of John's staff are young women with families, who require the flexibility that a casual position provides. Casual employment allows these young women to get their children ready for school, do the school runs and be able to stay home to care for the children when they're sick. This flexibility is what draws people to the job. If the minister for employment has his way, there will be nothing flexible about working in the local cafe. Why should a mum be forced not to be there with her sick child because she's tied to a work agreement? Changing this legislation erodes the choice and flexibility of the 2.7 million Australians currently employed as casuals. Those who will be left to pick up the slack to continue to make the business work will be the owners, who are already stretched thin.

Bound by complicated laws, the employment minister has admitted that the bill will add even more layers of complexity to an already intricate system. By introducing a new definition of 'casual employment', it changes what is currently a very simple concept to one that is challenging to navigate not only for business owners but also for everyday Australians. Currently, a casual employee has the right to convert to a permanent-status worker after 12 months if they have worked regular hours. The permanent-casual loophole has been closed, yet, in usual Labor style, legislation surrounding casual workers will become some of the most complex industrial legislation ever seen.

This government plans to add a new right after six months, in addition to the current system allowing an employee to convert to a permanent position after 12 months. Business owners are expected to read and thoroughly understand the new definition, which consists of three pages and includes 15 factors, to determine whether an employee is classed as a casual. For an employee to be considered a casual, they must by law meet the 15 factors.

To convert a casual employee is even more confusing. Business owners just don't have the time to understand the complex conversion process required to move an employee to a permanent position. The process to do so is described in an extensive, eight-page document, with two streams for regulating the same thing. Testing an employee to move employment classification involves 11 factors, which consists of four sections and seven subsections within the legislation.

There will also be two streams to regulate the same thing—one stream if an employee is converted at the six-month mark and a second stream for conversion after 12 months. Small-business owners know their businesses better than anyone. They understand the need for the present and what they must do to plan for the future. As part of the changes to the fair work legislation, Labor is essentially pulling the rug out from under the feet of business owners, who need to be able to make an educated decision on what is best for their business.

In response to a conversion request, an employer must give detailed reasoning for why they want to change an employee's position. They will also be subjected to involuntary arbitration by the Fair Work Commission should a worker or union dispute their decision or their interpretation of the definition. Under this proposed definition, an employer could be exposed to misclassification claims, including claims of double-dipping of entitlements which are in addition to casual loading that employees have already received. Employers may also be at risk of contravening the act through civil penalties. Breaching the act will come with a maximum penalty of $93,900 per breach per employee. I know many small-business owners. I too have been a small-business owner. I am quite sure that these people don't have an in-depth understanding of industrial relations laws, nor do they have the time that will be required to navigate their way through this quagmire of legislation.

The risk that is posed for employers—of being caught in the crossfire of the definition and clauses in this government's proposed amendments—will leave employers with no choice but to force their workers to move into a permanent job. In effect, this legislation is making it too risky for any business to employ someone on a casual basis. This move will mean staff will lose additional income and the flexibility of the choice of hours that attracted them to the position in the first place. If this government thinks that more jobs will magically be replaced by permanent ones, that is absurd and is a complete misjudgement of why casual employment is necessary. When talking to John, my local cafe owner, he said that the positions he will have to make redundant if this legislation is passed won't equate to permanent positions. For just one small business in Australia to have the potential to make four positions redundant paints a bleak picture of what the total job loss will be like.

Recently the High Court of Australia made a decision that clarified and simplified the common-law definition of employment. Labor's changes to the legislation mean Labor is thumbing its nose at the High Court, who ultimately is an independent body to ensure our country's laws are fair and right. Overturning this decision shows the contempt which Labor holds for the High Court and proves that they are more concerned with pleasing their union bosses. Industrial relations reform is one of the most important aspects of Australia's economy and should be designed to ensure we as a country remain productive and competitive and boost job numbers. A workplace relations system that delivers a safety net for workers, recognises the shared interests of managers and workers in an enterprise's success, and gives a business the agility it needs to compete, grow and succeed is of utmost importance. This is the recipe for delivering a successful, strong and resilient economy.

Just last week I had the Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Nationals join me in Rockhampton to visit businesses. One of those businesses, Doblo's Farmers Market, has gone from strength to strength. Owner and entrepreneur Dominic Doblo and his family have been in the business of selling fruit and vegetables for over a century. Such has been his success that his business has expanded to accommodate a butcher, florist, plant nursery and cafe, which employ dozens of Rockhampton locals. It would be a travesty to see this bill succeed and demolish all the hard work that has made Dominic, John and the other 2.5 million small businesses successful.

We as a government need to nurture and replenish current and next-generation entrepreneurs, encouraging Australians to take a chance on themselves. However, industrial laws as confusing and risky as the one proposed stifle small-business development. In this bill we find uncertainty and complexity to the employment of millions of casuals, contractors and labour-hire workers. It leads me to the question: why change something that isn't broken? This government is fulfilling the long list of union demands they put forward prior to coming to government. It is a government seeking to deliver on their promise and come good to the unions.

The measures put forward in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 reward Labor's union paymasters. This legislation change will provide the unions with unprecedented power in the workplace. For the first time in history, union delegates will have the ability to exercise rights-of-entry powers without any notice. It will be as simple as a union reporting their suspicion of wage underpayment. They can do this without any evidence. What concerns me the most about this power that the unions will yield is the effect it will have on our primary producers whose homes are their offices. Without warning, a complete stranger will be able to enter the home of a farmer. Their home is their workplace, and, more often than not, children will be present, exposing them to strangers entering the place they live and play. It is unsafe and a dangerous practice and one that children should not be subjected to.

Primary producers also have their farm's biosecurity put on the line as union delegates waltz in unannounced. All it would take is for one union delegate to bring disease in from their travels to completely decimate a famer's livelihood. It's tough enough for our farmers, who deal with our country's droughts and flooding rains, without the threat of complete strangers bringing potential biosecurity risk to their property and being forced by the law to let them inside their homes. This policy has taken businesses by surprise, as these policies did not form any part of this government's 2022 election policies, nor were they included in any of the public consultation papers released earlier this year. I will not support legislation which seeks to serve as a payoff to unions nor will I support legislation which will weaken our economy and create turmoil for the small Australian businesses who drive our nation forward.

Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an important piece of legislation. It's important because the Australian economy is changing, and this bill updates our industrial relations system to respond to those changes by offering Australian workers more flexibility and more fairness. This bill ensures that our industrial relations system responds to changes in worker preferences and business practices. It closes loopholes in our workplaces, including asymmetric penalties for theft and loopholes in labour hire and casual employment.

This bill is necessary because Australia's workplaces have changed dramatically over the last 25 years. In that time there has been tremendous technological change as well as massive growth in the participation of different categories of workers, in particular working parents, students and older Australians—three cohorts whose workforce participation has grown over the last 25 years at twice the rate of all other Australian workers. The growth in these groups has contributed to a massive change in what people want from their workplace. In particular, it has driven a significantly increased demand for workplace flexibility. Almost six in 10 Australian workers today want jobs that would allow them to juggle other responsibilities in their lives: study, parenting, side businesses, travel plans, health constraints, semiretirement or caring responsibilities.

These additional responsibilities are a common part of the workplace for the increasingly diverse Australian worker. These are workers who, as I said before, now include millions of working parents, students and older Australians. For these workers, the gig economy is an important source of flexible jobs, and the gig economy has grown to meet the demands of these workers. The workers in the gig economy greatly value the flexibility to work when and, in some cases, where they like. A study of the experience of these workers in the gig economy conducted by AlphaBeta, my former business, in partnership with Uber and published last year found that nearly four in five Uber drivers say that they value the flexibility of gig economy jobs. In fact, more than three in five Uber drivers say that they could not work in traditional roles that did not offer this type of flexibility.

This statistic in the report has been used by some to suggest that the study concludes that gig economy workers are happy with flexibility and prefer it to jobs with security or entitlements. But that's not the conclusion of the report at all. Yes, Uber drivers do value flexibility, but they do not believe that it should come at the expense of security, safety or entitlements. These Australian workers don't want flexibility instead of protections; they want flexibility as well as protections. Flexibility is important to gig workers because many of them have chosen this type of work to accommodate other priorities in their lives. Nearly two-thirds of Uber drivers have other jobs. Half have significant family caring responsibilities. Fifteen per cent are developing their own business, 10 per cent are studying, and six per cent are semi-retired. Flexibility enables these people to manage work around other priorities in their lives. But this is the crucial point. There is nothing inherent in flexible jobs that prevents them from also providing workers with basic protections and entitlements. Flexibility and workplace standards are not mutually exclusive.

Gig workers don't believe they should be forced to choose between flexibility and basic entitlements. The same study found that, while most gig workers appreciated flexibility, they were less satisfied with the pay and conditions of their work. Hourly pay rates for Uber drivers were highly variable. On average, drivers earned above the minimum wage, but many workers earned less or more than the average based on when they worked—for example, you earn more if you work on weekends, nights and in peak months—and where they worked—you earn more if you work in busy areas around city CBDs. Workers in the gig economy also did not understand why they had to forgo rights and entitlements that come with traditional employment. Most gig economy workers have no sick pay, no parental leave, no minimum hourly pay and no superannuation. This situation is untenable, especially for the 14 per cent of Uber drivers who derive their primary income from the gig economy and who work hours comparable to full-time work. These workers are effectively employees, just without the rights and entitlements that are normally attached to that employment.

This is the issue in Australia. We have enormous growth in preference for jobs with flexibility and security. That reflects the changes in our modern workplace and the increasing demands on workers juggling a range of different responsibilities in their lives. They want flexibility and they want security. But, unfortunately, the Australian economy is not generating enough jobs with these two traits. Since 2008, the number of jobs that have both high security and high flexibility have increased by just five per cent despite rapidly rising demand for them. There has been slow growth in jobs with high security and low flexibility. Those jobs have increased by just three per cent since 2008, due in part to the decline in occupations such as factory workers, which are down by 13 per cent, and machine operators, which are down by six per cent. Unfortunately, the fastest category of growth in the Australian labour market has been jobs with low flexibility and low security. These jobs have increased by 29 per cent since 2008, many times faster than jobs with high security and high flexibility. This is in part due to the growth of occupations such as carers and aides, which are up by 66 per cent, and hospitality workers, which are up by 41 per cent. Our modern workforce is crying out for security and flexibility to manage their lives, but the economy is giving them jobs that have neither. To support our modern workforce, Australia needs to urgently create jobs that do give Australians both flexibility and security. This legislation does precisely that. It accepts the flexible work practices in the gig economy, but it adds basic standards and protections to them.

The gig economy has grown to cover passenger transport, food delivery, health care and many other industries, and it has created many positives, including flexible job opportunities and attractive customer propositions. But it is time to ensure that gig work comes with the securities and benefits that are fundamental pillars of the Australian industrial relations system and that this type of work reflects Australian expectations of what it means to work in a fair environment. This is not a challenge that Australia has been dealing with on our own. Many jurisdictions around the world, including France, Britain, Canada and several states in the United States, have already changed their laws to provide more rights to gig economy workers or to create new categories of employment for dependent contractors.

The Albanese Labor government is moving, too. This government is committed to modernising Australia's workplace laws to deliver jobs that are both flexible and secure. In the gig economy, that means ensuring that workers are entitled to appropriate minimum standards and protections—to take jobs that already have flexibility and retrofit security into them. Australian workers should be able to access flexible work without forgoing entitlements. As Minister Tony Burke has said, '21st century technology must not mean 19th century working conditions.'

Our friends in the union movement and members on the side of the House come from a long tradition, stretching back hundreds of years, of building a fair workplace, fighting for an eight-hour day, providing people with decent pay that can support a family and enabling basic protections. All the way from the provision of the weekend to the delivery of paid family and domestic violence leave just last year, there is a continuous thread in which this side of the House has sought to improve the Australian labour market and make it a more just and hospitable place for working people. But the technology changes associated with the gig economy threaten to wipe away those centuries of progress, to take us back to an era when there was no holiday pay, there was no minimum pay and there were limited protections and basic safety standards.

The opposition doesn't want this bill. They didn't support that two centuries of progress and they're happy to see technological change erode that progress in the gig economy to create a new class of workers that have none of the protections that have been built over centuries of struggle. We can't allow that to happen, and that's why this bill strikes a balance between flexibility and fairness. I commend the minister for taking such a sensible and practical approach to modernising our workplace laws. I acknowledge all the unions, especially the TWU, and the business and community groups that have contributed to the development of this legislation.

This legislation will ensure that one of the fastest-growing areas of our economy, an area that is creating more and more jobs, can bring more and more workers into the labour market and provide the flexibility that, in many cases, is badly needed to ensure that those jobs don't take us back two centuries ago, before we had basic protections and entitlements. By doing so, this legislation fills the great demand in the Australian economy: to create jobs that are both flexible and secure and that give people the ability to juggle all of their outside work responsibilities without having to give up basic protections and entitlements. That's why this bill is so important. That's why it is such a step forward for this country and why it responds to the demographic and technological changes of the last 25 years.

In addition to those in the gig economy, the government's Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 also closes a range of other loopholes in Australia's industrial relations system. Firstly, it ends the asymmetry of wage theft, an asymmetry that meant that a worker stealing from a boss is committing a criminal act but a boss stealing from a worker is not.

We have seen over recent years time and time again cases of wage theft right across Australia, across many different industries. Wage theft in the millions is widespread, where in many cases it's intentional and systematised, and it's gone unchecked. This bill makes the intentional underpayment of wages a criminal offence. Of course, employers who make genuine mistakes will not be prosecuted, but those who do will face the appropriate and symmetric penalties that their workers face if they commit similar acts.

This bill also closes the casual employment loophole, ensuring that the 2.5 million casual employees across Australia and the 32 per cent of them who are on regular work patterns have another avenue towards changing their employment status. If they have been working in regular patterns, that will enable them to be offered a conversion. It also closes the labour hire loophole. For many companies, sure, there is a legitimate need for labour hire. But in those instances where labour hire is simply used to undermine wages and protections, this bill closes that loophole.

This is an important piece of legislation for Australia. It responds to changing demographic trends over the last 25 years, it responds to changes in technology and in consumer and worker preferences, it updates our industrial relations system to provide flexibility and security for Australian workers who badly need it, and closes loopholes to make our system fairer and more just. I commend this bill to the House.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The only thing the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 responds to is the fact that the unions didn't have a government that would do everything at their beck and call to promote their interests above the interests of everyday Australians, and in particular not only everyday Australians but small businesses right across our nation. That is why we are opposing it. I've been out and about in my electorate over the past three weeks while we weren't sitting, and what we are starting to see—and it was reflected in today's national accounts—is the economic climate is getting harder and harder. We know that the cost-of-living crisis for individuals is apparent.

We know that every commitment this government has given about dealing with that cost-of-living crisis hasn't been delivered. The commitment of $275 off your energy bill hasn't been delivered. They made a commitment that your real wages would go up, but your real wages are going down. When you look at something like labour productivity, labour productivity has dropped 4.6 per cent. That is the biggest drop that we have seen in decades of labour productivity, and this bill is going to make that bad situation even worse. This bill has nothing—nothing—going for it, and all we've seen is absolute trickery from the minister in the lead-up to him presenting this bill into this parliament. We had the headline on Monday that small business would be exempt—not true, absolutely not true! As a matter of fact, the minister should come in here and admit that he misled people on Monday in saying that, 'Oh, yes, we are going to exempt small business,' when the exact opposite was true. Sadly, it's going to be small business, the engine room of our nation, that is going to suffer the most from this legislation. When small business suffers, sadly, the Australian people suffer. As we know, what we're going to see is the cost of living rise as a result of this bill because it does nothing to ensure that small business can continue to grow, can continue to employ people and can continue to pay good wages to the people that they employ so that those people can then afford those basic things that they need to see their standard of living improved.

What this bill will do is, sadly, see people's standard of living reduced even further, and what they have seen under this Labor government is their standard of living drop since Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister. We did warn that things wouldn't be easy under Anthony Albanese, and the sad reality is, where a lot of us were hoping, 'Just maybe something might happen so that isn't true,' well, the sad reality is that it is true.

What this government continues to do is not put the legislation in place which would make the Australian economy begin to grow in a sustainable way and see wages grow in a sustainable way. Nothing in this bill, and there's no commitment from the government, says it will lead to real wages going up. We see the minister come to the dispatch box and say wages are increasing. He never mentions what's happening to real wages. It's all very well to say wages are increasing. But if they're not increasing above the rate of inflation, that means they're actually going backwards.

The Australian people know that because they see it in their hip pocket every single day. They see it when they're faced with the choice: can I put the heater on tonight, or do I go to the supermarket and therefore, because I'm going to the supermarket, I'd better not put the heater on. What will this bill do when it comes to food prices? What has the horticultural sector said? What has the National Farmers' Federation said? It's going to make the cost of living worse because the price of your food is going to go up. What's it going to do to having that food delivered to you? It's going to make the cost go up. Everywhere you look when it comes to the bill, costs are going up.

What the government doesn't understand is it's not only the cost to the consumer but the cost to small business as well. I mentioned in the last three weeks I've been out and about and in particular focusing on going around and talking to small businesses in my electorate. What they're starting to see is a couple of things. They're starting to see the red tape burden go up and up and up. They've had to, in Victoria, deal with a lot of extra red tape burden because of the Andrews Labor government. But now what they're starting to see is that there's an additional layer going on top of that. You've got the state-level bureaucracy red tape there already and increases usually every day or every week in Victoria from the state government, and now you've got a Labor government, the Albanese Labor government, putting more and more regulation and red tape on business as well. They're saying enough is enough.

Yet what is the government doing through this bill? They're adding more complexity to those small businesses and, not only that, they're providing uncertainty and extra cost. What happens when the small businesses are faced with extra costs? The sad reality is they have to start letting people go, and the last thing anyone needs in this nation at the moment is to lose their job in a cost-of-living crisis. It's hard enough when you're earning a wage, and the last we want to be doing is putting extra complexity and cost into small business, the engine room of our nation, our largest employer, at this time. We don't want to be seeing anyone losing their job at the moment, yet that is what these laws have the potential to do.

Small business don't want to see that. They're saying to me for the first time they're not out hunting CVs; they actually have a pile of CVs which they can choose from when it comes to putting some additional staff on or getting people to work some additional hours. That balance has changed in the economy, from small business out trying to seek people wherever they can to get people to work for them, to now having CVs sitting in the top drawer that they can draw upon. If you put extra costs on them at the moment and extra complexity on them at the moment, don't enable them to plan for the future with certainty and don't enable them to invest for the future with certainty, then they are going to pause on that hiring. That pause could not come at a worse time and, as I mentioned before, comes at a time when we've seen from the national accounts today that we're in a per capita recession.

The only thing driving the economy at the moment is migration, and this bill will do nothing to add to the engine room of our nation. Nothing. So what the government is going to be relying on is more migration. What's that going to do to our housing crisis, our rental crisis, the congestion issues we're facing and the environmental issues that we are facing at the moment? It's going to put even more pressure on them—I will digress a little for a moment—because the government has no plan when it comes to their Big Australia approach. They're just continuing to use migration as the means to try and drive economic growth without any sort of plan. What this bill will do is make sure that there isn't that lift in the standard of living that Australians are wanting and looking for. As a matter of fact, there is no commitment from the government as to what this will do to employment, what costs it will add to small business or how the regulation burden is going to strangle people. There are no commitments from the government whatsoever when it comes to that.

What we need is for the government to really have a look at this bill again, to go back and consult with people again on it and to go back to the drawing board. The only group that this bill benefits is their trade union friends. I would have thought that the government over the last few days would have learned the lesson of just doing things for their mates. We've seen from the Qatar incident what happens when you just do things for your mates. When you don't consult properly, when you don't follow the proper processes of governing, and when you just look after your mates, it doesn't work out well for the nation. The sad reality here is that that's exactly what the government is doing. They haven't followed proper processes. They've hoodwinked business, especially small business. The minister coming out and saying small business is exempt from this bill is as close as you can get to telling the biggest porky, or one of the biggest porkies, that ever has been told by a minister. There is nothing good about this bill apart from the fact that it looks after the government's union mates. The sad reality is that the minister should have known that for nine years the union movement have been waiting to have the Labor Party deliver for them. Having won government, the Labor Party—this is what the minister should have had the fortitude to do—should have been able to say, 'No, we're not here to govern for our mates; we're here to govern in the interests of all Australians.'

That is why we strongly oppose the bill. We think proper consultation should occur. We think that a proper assessment of what is potentially a $9 billion hit to costs of living in this nation should be properly examined. We think that what we need to do is look at how this bill will lead to higher prices for consumers, making the cost-of-living crisis even worse. We think that the government needs to look at whether or not, especially when it comes to small business, it will lead to people being let go, losing employment at a time when they can least afford to lose it, during a cost-of-living crisis. We think the government needs to be able to say quite clearly how this will deal with one of the greatest drops in labour productivity that we've seen in decades, a 4.6 per cent drop in labour productivity. There is nothing in this bill that is going to fix that issue. We think that the government needs to come and be able to say what this bill will do to raise people's standard of living. We all know that it won't be able to do anything to raise people's standard of living, but the government should step back and think again. These are all the markers, all the things, that need to be considered.

When it comes to consultation—and the minister for workplace relations has form on this—proper consultation needs to take place. You don't have consultation by silencing people, making them sign a non-disclosure agreement, and showing them a bill and then saying: 'Well, that's it; take it or leave it. But the non-disclosure agreement lasts for weeks,' so they have no ability to come out and say: 'What you're leaking to the paper is absolutely wrong in fact.' That is not how you consult. You consult by sitting down and engaging across the board, not only with your union friends but also with employer groups and with those individuals who will be impacted by the cost of living increases that we will see.

So, in summary, this bill will hit the cost of living, not only for everyday Australians but also, sadly, for those people who, potentially, might lose their jobs as a result of the complexity, the costs and the red tape that this bill is putting in place. But also what it will do is to drive labour productivity further down in this nation, making sure that what is happening to people's ability to sustain their living in such a way that they can look forward to the future, diminishes, rather than increases.

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we all know, the Albanese Labor government was elected on a commitment to get wages moving and to ensure that our workers are treated fairly and justly. Addressing the loopholes that have long undermined wages and working conditions in this country is essential to achieve this.

The cornerstone of our efforts is in the suites of comprehensive workplace relations reforms that this government has introduced since the commencement of its term. The reforms in this bill are not radical changes, no matter how much the scaremongering by those opposite would lead you to believe so. Instead, they aim to make the current law work more effectively, ensuring fairness and providing a level playing field for both businesses and workers.

Let me break down the four key elements of these reforms. First, we are determined to crack down on labour hire loopholes that have been used to undercut pay and conditions for far too long. This practice is detrimental to both workers and the broader economy. It's time we hold those responsible accountable and ensure that negotiated rates are paid as agreed upon.

Second, we are committed to criminalising wage theft. No worker should ever have to worry about being underpaid or not receiving compensation they rightfully deserve. Strengthening the enforcement of existing rates of pay is essential for maintaining the integrity of our workforce.

Third, we aim to properly define 'casual work' so that casuals aren't being exploited. Our new definition of 'casual employment' clarifies the intended nature of casual work. If you are working regular and predictable hours and desire a permanent position, you should have that pathway available to you. It's about fairness and ensuring that those who want stability have the opportunity to achieve it.

Lastly, we are dedicated to ensuring gig workers aren't being ripped off. The gig economy is an integral part of our modern workforce. We must ensure that these workers are afforded the same rights and protections as any other employee. It's about creating a level playing field for all workers, regardless of their job type.

It's important to note that we announced all four of these policies while in opposition, over two years ago, and took them to the Australian people at the 2022 election.

We have extensively consulted with business groups to refine these measures, but we will not be deterred from delivering on our election promises. These reforms strengthen our current workplace relations framework, providing certainty and fairness. They are about ensuring that workers are not taken advantage of and that businesses can thrive in an environment where everyone plays by the same rules.

In addition to the promises we took to the election, this bill includes a host of other changes that will help workers and unions make sure businesses are doing the right thing. This includes minimum standards for the road transport industry; introducing an industrial manslaughter offence and increasing penalties; new protections for workplace delegates; exemption certificates for suspected underpayment; right of entry; making it unlawful to discriminate against an employee who is or was subject to family and domestic violence; clarifying that Fair Work Ombudsman compliance notices can require an employer to calculate the amount of an underpayment that is owed to an employee; and allowing supported bargaining and single-interest employer agreements to be replaced by single-enterprise agreements.

As a former union delegate and organiser, I could speak about the reforms enshrined in this bill and how they will deliver a better future for every Australian till well into the night. However, in the interest of time, I will focus on a few reforms that are important to those in my electorate and relate to my previous life in the union movement. I am particularly pleased with the reforms to gig economy work contained in this bill. We can't continue to have a situation where the 21st-century technology of gig platforms comes with 19th-century conditions. Many of us here constantly hear stories of people, many of whom are relatively young, being killed due to the demanding pressures placed on them by the platforms they are contracted with. Even if saved from such extreme conditions, the nature of this employment constantly leaves them on the edge. By extending the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of work, the government will be able to better protect people in new forms of work from exploitation and dangerous working conditions.

This change will allow the Fair Work Commission to make orders for minimum standards for new forms of work, such as gig work. At present, employee-like workers performing work through a digital platform are often engaged as independent contractors, meaning they do not receive rights and entitlements under the Fair Work Act. Unfortunately, several inquiries have highlighted that some of these workers can receive less pay than they would if they were paid under the award safety net, and they would have no protection if they were to lose their work unfairly.

The reforms contained in this bill will mean the Fair Work Commission can set minimum standards for independent contractors who perform work via digital platforms and who have one or more employee-like characteristics, such as low bargaining power, low authority over their work, or payment at or below the rate of comparable employees. This means a digital labour platform, a registered organisation or the minister can make an application for an employee-like minimum standards order, which can include payment terms, deductions, insurance and cost recovery. The Fair Work Commission may also set standards on its own initiative. Workers will also be able to negotiate for conditions more beneficial than the minimum standards, as the bill provides for a new, consent-based collective agreement-making framework that will allow unions representing employee-like workers to make collective agreements with digital labour platforms.

Finally, thanks to this bill, gig economy workers will not continue to be treated as though they can simply be disposed of. Employee-like workers will have new protections from unfair deactivation if they have been working for a digital labour platform regularly for six months.

In particular, they may apply to the Fair Work Commission to seek a remedy if they consider their deactivation unfair, and Fair Work will be able to order reinstatement.

Nearly seven per cent of my electorate work in the transport, postal and warehousing industry, with a large chunk of them employed in road transport. At present, the road transport industry faces a set of challenges that threaten its very existence. Unsustainable business practices and increasing commercial pressures jeopardise the livelihoods of those who depend on this industry for their income. I am pleased that the reforms in this bill implement a Jobs and Skills Summit outcome to empower the Fair Work Commission to set fair minimum standards to ensure the road transport industry is safe, sustainable and viable. Notably, similar to the reform outlined above, a road transport business, a union representing road transport contractors or a business, or the minister can make an application for the road transport minimum standards order.

The bill will also include comprehensive guardrails to govern how the Fair Work Commission is to perform its functions. This includes the requirement to balance a number of competing factors outlined in a new minimum standards objective and a road transport objective when considering the making of the standards. Fair Work's policy will be informed by an expert panel for the road transport industry that will be established within the commission. This will ensure it has the appropriate expertise and ability to set the minimum standards for the road transport industry.

Some of you may know that I joined the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, or the SDA, the union for workers in retail, fast food, and warehousing, when I was just 15 years old. While I worked at Woolies for 15 years, I also served as a delegate or a shop steward for nearly a decade. This experience was rewarding. It gave me the opportunity to be a shoulder for my friends at work and be the first point of contact when things turned sour. Delegates play a crucial role in assisting their colleagues to understand their rights and entitlements, navigate the work relations framework and engage productively with employers.

The reforms enshrined in this bill will implement a Jobs and Skills Summit outcome to improve employee access to representation for workplace safety and compliance issues. This bill will amend the Fair Work Act to provide clear rights and protections for workplace delegates. The new measures will provide general protections for delegates from employers who are unreasonably refusing to deal with them, misleading them or hindering and obstructing the exercise of their rights as delegates. The workplace delegates will also be provided with specific rights to represent the industrial interests of current and potential union members and to represent them in disputes with the employer. To support these rights, delegates will also have reasonable access to workplace facilities and paid time to undertake workplace delegate related training and communicate with current and potential members about matters of industrial concern.

In addition, the Fair Work Commission will be required to prepare modern award terms outlining rights for delegates to represent workers and to ensure that these rights are appropriately adapted for particular industries and occupations. In doing so, the commission will have the capacity to accommodate different expectations across industries, workplaces and employer sizes. I am pleased that it will be mandatory for all modern awards and future enterprise agreements to include a term giving effect to delegates' rights.

I have had the honour of sharing with this esteemed chamber the comprehensive workplace relation reforms that our Albanese Labor government is committed to. These reforms are not radical changes but necessary steps to make our current laws work more effectively, ensuring fairness and levelling the playing field for both businesses and workers.

These measures are about creating a fair and just workplace for every Australian. As someone who has dedicated a significant part of their life to the union movement and advocating for workers' rights, I am especially delighted by the measures in this bill that enhance employee access to representation and protection for workplace delegates. These provisions will strengthen the voices of workers and their advocates in the workplace.

In closing, these reforms are a testament to our commitment to building a fairer and more just Australia for everyone. We will continue to engage in extensive consultation and remain steadfast in delivering on the promises we make to the Australian people. Together, we will create a future where workers are not taken for granted, businesses thrive and everyone follows the same laws. I commend this bill to the House.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ESPIE () (): This is a really important bill that we are discussing now, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, as it will take Australian industrial relations, particularly in the small and family business space, back 30 or 40 years. The title is misleading as the bill does much more than close a few loopholes. I know many businesses that will close because this will be too complex and to onerous for many small and family businesses. It will increase union control and increase right of entry and access to many small and family businesses. It will interrupt gig workers and their platforms and other small businesses, such as the traditional agribusiness, the family farm, where the farm is the workplace and also the home, and the growing number of home based businesses who have casual people working. Their homes and little annexes to their houses are basically their workplaces.

It will criminalise innocent mistakes and have them interpreted as wage theft for many small and family businesses. There's gaining of access to workplaces on pretty flimsy grounds, like simply suspecting that there may be underpayment or a so-called redefined permanent with the changing definition of 'casual' leading to underpayment.

There is a redefinition of 'casual employment'. What could possibly go wrong with this? There are 15 factors that have to be considered across three pages of legislation! Employing a casual, for many small businesses, will turn into a regulatory minefield. At the moment, people who are employed on a casual basis and doing the same job and role over a 12-month period have the right to become permanent employees, but these regulations and this legislation will allow it to be done at a six-month interval and it will be forced upon them by the Fair Work Commission. Again, it's a really simple test: only 11 factors, four sections and four subsections! I know lots of the little businesses around my hometown of Port Macquarie and Wauchope will be reading this and thinking: 'Oh, my goodness! This is way too complex. You mean I could go to jail because I inadvertently made some mistakes in 1,200 pages of legislation and subsequent regulations that are going to be added to by another 521 pages?'

I'll tell you what: at Long Flat, a little farm business I know there that employs lots of casual people will be very concerned. They will work on getting family working in their business at a lot of these casual jobs. They won't miraculously think: 'Wow! The Fair Work Commission is now coming into my business. I have been waiting decades for this to happen.' No, they will be saying, 'Oh, my goodness; this is all too hard!' and they'll move on to something else or change or shrink their business or no longer employ people once they get close to the six-month mark. People can't do this anymore.

I know lots of employers that it's already a nightmare for, and this is just going to add to the complexity and the cost of being a person who runs a business. And the smaller it is, the proportion of time that you put into compliance and all the complex regulation—like I said, there are 1,200 pages of legislation already in the Fair Work Act. And now lots of people are going to have unions knocking on their door and saying, 'I want to come in and check your books.' It's just outrageous.

I know there are some problems in Australian workplaces. Some in the gig economy and some platform operators haven't been ideal gig or platform employers. But we have fixed a lot of these problems, and a lot of these faulty and less-than-Australian-standard platform employers—I won't mention them by name—have said that they are going to comply with this. We're all familiar with ones that have corrected inadvertent mistakes on large amounts of wages that were not intentionally stolen from their employees. But we have an incredibly complex system.

The same job, same pay provisions are obviously aimed at labour hire, but it will actually capture private service contractors. Labour hire companies have to comply with the law now. One can already, as I mentioned earlier, ask to be converted to regular full-time employment or permanent part-time employment at the 12-month interval. But a simple application to the Fair Work Commission, saying, 'We suspect that this business is underpaying people,' will enable a Fair Work Commission order so that you can go and enter that business and go through their books. It will allow, as I said, unions back into workplaces that have functioned really quite adequately for decades without that. In 1992, 42 per cent of employees in Australia were members of unions. At the moment that's down to 12½ per cent. There's a reason for that. People have voted with their feet and with their freedom to run the business the way they like, and a lot of people like getting paid 25 per cent extra and not having to wait to get all those other conditions that you get with permanent part-time or full-time employment—and a lot of those jobs are feminised jobs. It suits people to be casual.

A lot of people I know have done regular casual work for decades, and it suits them fine. It's not a uniform situation. This will really make it so difficult for some small and family businesses and those that I've mentioned to keep operating under the fear of being hit with criminal charges because, under those complex systems, they've made inadvertent, innocent mistakes.

The other thing about these same pay, same job provisions is that, across Australia, there are many people involved in trades, and many of them become major contractors who have a trusted group of subcontractors. This bill will swoop in and interfere with their existing arrangements, because, if you're doing regular subcontracting work, these terms and provisions will apply to you if you're doing it all the time. There have been cases before where, if you get your work from the one contractor the majority of the time, there's an argument for you to not be treated as a subcontractor. This is going to make that even more complex. I know many tradies who have used regular subcontractors for years who, all of a sudden, will have other onerous provisions forced upon them—and many of those subcontractors will not be happy—when a union turns up at their worksite and says, 'We think you're underpaying people; show us your books.'

Then they're forced by the Fair Work Commission to employ people that are quite happy being a subcontractor or a casual on a regular basis because the terms and conditions of the 25 per cent loading is a much better deal for people who live in the here and now. They want to do that. As I said at the outset, confusion, complexity and extra costs for employers and consumers will be the net result. It takes employment in many cases back to the 1970s. It expands union powers, drives the right of entry into workplaces and expands union delegate powers—none of which were mentioned, by the way, during all the exposures and the consultation with industry. I haven't heard any peak body support this. You only had to have been at the Minerals Council event the other night to hear the insightful words of Tanya Constable—she called a spade a spade there. ACCI and all the other peak bodies are scratching their heads thinking, 'How can we get some commonsense changes in this?'

The gig economy, I should mention, is flourishing, and there are many NDIS workers who are working on the Mable platform, for instance. That's a great platform, and it's allowing people who work in the NDIS to manage themselves. It's a platform that is very user friendly, but all those people that are using that regularly and have people working for them on a casual basis using that platform will be swept up into these changes. It will drive people into regular employment in bigger businesses, because small businesses just don't have the wherewithal to deal with this. It is another sleeping timebomb here. I can see the rebirthing of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which really destroyed businesses and had the potential to destroy many more owner-operator small trucking businesses, which are the lifeblood of many country towns and regions in Australia, because there is a hidden provision in this bill gives the minister the power to make supply-chain participants, which are fancy words for small trucking businesses, come under the regulation of the Fair Work Commission. So owner-driver businesses will lose control and the flexibility to set their own rates and conditions. It's going to hurt businesses in regional Australia and particularly remote Australia because a lot of the transport in those more remote areas is done by small owner-operators. No-one will be game to do any expansion of their employment when they've got the threat of someone turning up at their business and alleging that they've committed wage theft and are subject to criminal charges.

There are things in schedule 3 that I support. There's no problem with first responders having their workers compensation simplified so that they don't have to prove that their PTSD was due to their work, and there's also no problem the fair entitlements guarantee. But, really, this has to go back to the drawing board. I can't support this bill.

David Smith (Bean, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak in favour of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill. Only recently, what a marvellous speech we had from the member for Holt. I would like to remind the House of comments I made last year in the House when we were debating the first round of Fair Work legislation. I spoke last year about some of the facts that formed part of the reality of industrial relations in this country over the last decade. The reality is our system is completely and utterly broken and has been for some time. There has been no balance in this system. There has been no fairness. It has been working for neither employers nor workers. Well, for the first time in a decade there is a plan on the table to fix this mess. Last year's changes breathed life back into collective bargaining and the Fair Work Commission, and these changes build on this foundation for fairness. I come to this debate with real experience of industrial relations in this country. Before coming to this place, I spent two decades in workplace relations, including more than a decade in the labour movement, representing working Australians across different jobs, industries and employers.

I've represented scientists, police officers, engineers and pharmacists. I've seen the impact of the growth of uncertain work and the undermining of collective bargaining.

The Albanese government was elected on a promise to get wages moving. We started that job last year, but to do that effectively and with fairness we need to close the loopholes that are undermining wages and conditions. That's what this set of workplace relations reform is largely about—I say 'largely' because the reforms relating to transport are, critically, about worker safety. This legislation contains four main elements: closing the labour hire loophole that has been used to undercut pay and conditions, criminalising wage theft, properly defining casual work so casuals aren't being exploited, and making sure that gig workers aren't being ripped off. These reforms are not new. The Albanese Labor opposition announced all four of these policies while in opposition more than two years ago and we took them to the Australian people at the 2022 election. We've undertaken extensive consultation on the precise design of these measures, including with business groups. Indeed, those opposite could have participated in both the national and regional jobs and skills summits last year. There was an open invitation to be part of this important conversation for all groups that were interested last year.

At the heart of it, these are not radical changes. All we are doing is making the current law work effectively and fairly. Closing labour hire loopholes will simply require an employer to pay rates that it has already negotiated and agreed to through collective bargaining. These are rates of pay that are already set for the work being done and for the classifications covered. Our employee-like reforms simply require workers to have some minimum standards benchmarked against existing award rates when they are working in a way which is similar to employees. They are not radical changes. Our wage theft reforms will simply strengthen the enforcement of existing rates of pay. Most employers out there don't want to be undercut by bad apples doing the wrong thing. In fact, it has been a constant message back to us that we need to act on those bad apples.

Our new definition of casual employment will clarify what was intended with casual work: if you are working regular and predictable hours and want to be permanent, you will have that pathway available to you. These laws will strengthen the current workplace relations framework and provide certainty, fairness and a level playing field for both businesses and workers. This government is standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees. We are closing the loophole that leaves people stuck classified as casuals when they actually work permanent regular hours. A decade ago they would have been permanent. That means they work just like permanent employees but don't get any of the benefits of job security. This government is legislating a fair, objective definition to determine when an employee can be classified as a casual. These reforms 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. We on this side of the chamber understand that rent isn't casual, electricity bills aren't casual and school fees aren't casual—they're a certainty. But people in insecure work do not have the same certainty about their hours or their income despite those patterns of employment. There are many casual workers who prefer being casual. The government understands this. Under these reforms, no-one will be forced to convert from casual to permanent employment if they don't want to. There isn't a net cost to business. Employers will pay a loading if someone is casual and will pay leave entitlements if someone is permanent. They won't pay both. Eligible employees will have two pathways to change their status: by the definition based employee choice pathway or through the existing casual conversion mechanism.

Labour hire has legitimate uses in providing surge and specialist workforces, and that will continue to be the case. But what this government is concerned about is the labour hire loophole, which companies deliberately use in order to undercut the agreements that they've already made with their workers.

They'd agreed on fair rates of pay with their workers and made an enterprise agreement, and then they undercut that agreement by bringing in a labour-hire workforce that is being paid less. That is a loophole we have to close.

This bill amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to give powers to the Fair Work Commission to make orders that labour-hire employees be paid at least the wages in a host enterprise agreement. We're seeing multiple examples of this with our national carrier, Qantas. Qantas exploited current loopholes and set up multiple labour-hire subsidiaries in order to deliberately undermine and avoid their own enterprise agreement for cabin crew, saving money for the company at the expense of the staff and deliberately undermining wages and conditions. The direct impact on one of my constituents was to almost halve the hourly rates they would have been entitled to under the negotiated agreement. Under the current system, this is perfectly legal. Under this legislation, this extraordinarily unfair business practice will no longer be acceptable.

These reforms will extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of work, allowing the better protection of people in new forms of work from exploitation and dangerous working conditions. This change will allow the Fair Work Commission to make orders for minimum standards for new forms of work such as gig work. This legislation is not trying to turn people into employees when they don't want to be employees. The government understands that a lot of gig workers like the flexibility from using this technology, and that won't change under our laws. However, we on this side know that there is a direct link between low rates of pay and safety. Low rates of pay lead to a situation where workers take risks so they can get more work because they are struggling to make ends meet. There is simply no such thing as a safe risk in any workplace, and we know that some gig platforms have unconscionably incentivised risk.

We cannot continue to have a situation where the 21st-century technology of the gig platforms comes with 19th-century conditions. Just because someone is working in the gig economy shouldn't mean that they end up being paid less than they would if they had been an employee. The Albanese Labor government will not let Australia become a nation where you have to rely on tips to make ends meet. These reforms deliver on our election commitment to allow the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for employee-like workers, including in the gig economy.

If a worker steals from the till, it's a criminal offence, and there is no argument on that from anyone in this House. But in many parts of Australia, if an employer steals from a worker's pay packet, it is not a criminal offence. Employers who intentionally steal from their workers should face criminal penalties. This is not a large moral leap. The former government did nothing to stop the wage theft epidemic. It took the Liberals and Nationals years to even acknowledge there was a problem. Eventually, those opposite did bring in some half-hearted legislation, but when it came to the Senate they voted against their own legislation. I remember this well. They tore up their own draft laws because they couldn't get enough support for their plans to cut workers' pay and conditions in other ways. In doing so they decided to send a clear signal to wage thieves: keep it up. Business owners who withhold wages should face the harshest penalties.

We must also ensure our new laws do not water down any wage theft laws already put in place by the states. The Labor governments in Victoria and Queensland criminalised wage theft because they got sick of waiting for the previous federal government to act. Australia needs a national wage theft system to end the rip-offs, and this government is determined to deliver on our promise to Australian workers and make wage theft a crime. This proposal is to introduce a criminal offence for intentional underpayment of employees' wages and certain entitlements and to increase penalties for civil underpayment breaches in line with the government's election commitments. It will include a new way for calculating penalties with the inclusion of the value of the underpayment option to be available to the court where that value exceeds the maximum penalty measured in penalty units.

Under this legislation the Fair Work Commission will be able to set minimum standards for independent contractors who are regulated road transport contractors performing work under a services contract in the road transport industry. The proposal implements a Jobs and Skills Summit outcome to allow the Fair Work Commission to set fair minimum standards to ensure the road transport industry is safe, sustainable and viable. It will help address exploitation in the supply chain.

The measure will give the Fair Work Commission the power to set minimum standards for the road transport industry. Standards may be mandatory and enforceable with civil penalties or for guidance only.

Last month I met workers, independent contractors, industry representatives and Transport Workers Union members as part of the convoy to Canberra. I have also appreciated the many union and industry led briefings on industry reform. At the rally outside of parliament, TWU national secretary Michael Kaine was emphatic as to why reform was needed. He talked of the 325 logistics companies that have collapsed over the last year under the strain of uncommercial contracts, unrestrained supply chain pressures and unfair competition from gig models like Amazon Flex. He also spoke of the 132 people that have been killed in crashes on our roads, including 34 truck drivers. A further two transport gig workers have been killed in the last two months. Under these reforms, road transport safety will be taken seriously. The call for this reform has united industry.

The fair work legislation amendment also introduces a new offence of industrial manslaughter whilst significantly increasing the penalties for the existing category 1 offence. This proposal is to implement recommendations of the 2018 Review of the model work health and safety laws which will strengthen the Commonwealth WHS offence and penalty regime by introducing an industrial manslaughter offence and increasing penalties. This will create an industrial manslaughter offence for the Commonwealth work health and safety jurisdiction with penalties of $18 million for a body corporate and 25 years for an individual.

I'm proud to be part of a government that wants a fair go for workers and understands that this is a key underpinning for a community that delivers for all. This comprehensive legislation represents a government that is ready to address the structural loopholes that have continually hurt some of our most vulnerable workers. These reforms provide a foundation for fairness for workers in the gig economy.

In the last year Australia has had the strongest jobs growth in the first year of any Australian government. Half a million jobs have now been created, and 85 per cent of those jobs have been full time. Wages are growing at their fastest rate for a decade. The gender pay gap has fallen to its lowest level ever, and the number of days lost to industrial action has fallen sharply. The sky has not fallen in.

But many Australians are not receiving the full benefit of these changes because of loopholes that allow pay and conditions to be undercut. For these workers, the minimum standards in awards and enterprise agreements are words on a page with little relevance to their daily lives. This legislation critically rebuilds a foundation for fairness in workplace relations, particularly for those most vulnerable. That's why I chose a career in workplace relations before this place: I was committed to fairness in the workplace. I congratulate the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations for making these changes a priority, the Australian union movement for their powerful advocacy and the Australian Public Service for doing the hard work in terms of consultation and bringing this legislation forward. I commend this legislation to the House.

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

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 , and what a bill it is. It's more of a wave of an attack on small business. This is the third wave. The first two have left everyone mortified, with multi-employer bargaining and reckless industrial relations policies at a time when Australia needs stability and Australia needs confidence. We've got an inflation crisis. We've got a cost-of-living crisis. They are the two biggest games in town. Cost of living: every punter, every Australian, out there is paying way too much for their essentials when they go to the store. I'm not an economist, but I know that inflation happens when you've got a lot of money washing around in the economy and not enough goods and services. And what are the government doing? They're putting more money into the economy through subsidies and goodness knows what for energy and other things that they've caused, and they're putting forward policies like this, which are effectively a brake on productivity, on getting more goods into the market. That's what this is: it's a brake on productivity.

There are aspects to this omnibus bill that I do agree with. There are good parts, but, in the usual, tricky Labor Party way, they've snuck them in there. I'm sure they'll use them later on, down the track, and say, 'You didn't vote for this good part of the bill,' and not mention the other, catastrophic parts of the bill that we're voting against.

Voting against this bill is standing up for small business in Wide Bay. There are 26,000 businesses in Wide Bay, and the majority of those are small businesses—mums and dads who have decided to have a go. They've decided to put their assets, their money, their time and their family out in front and take a risk to make a buck. Those small businesses that employ people will absolutely be the victims of this bill. This bill will impose a whole range of new criteria on them. It's just plain unfair. For starters, there's the definition of 'casual'—you can hardly work it out it's so complex. There are about 15 different parts to it. The description says it will come down to a case-by-case basis, for goodness sake! How can you work that out? It's a 'holistic assessment'. It sounds like something that was cooked up in Woodstock. I think some of them might've been on a bit of the stuff they were on in Woodstock when they created this legislation. It's just mindless, and it's being inflicted upon our small businesses.

It's deadset atrocious, and then there's the cost of it! As I said, there's a cost-of-living crisis going on at the moment. Families are kicking off with little kids, trying to get ahead, buying a house, paying school fees—they're all under the pump. This is going to add about $9 billion to the cost of business. That's going to get passed on to those mums and dads, those people that really don't deserve it. It's just shocking. It's typical of the Labor Party. They're all about the ideology. They're all about the experiment. Whether they're reinventing capitalism, or whatever the Treasurer is trying to do, or running a social experiment like the Voice, there is not an experiment they won't try on the Australian people. They look at Australia and see it as a big science lab, not as a country full of people they're meant to be helping. It's: 'Let's give this a go and see what comes out the other side.' It's just disgraceful.

In this bill, as I said, there are a couple of good things. Certainly, the rebuttable presumption in relation to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act is a good thing. That relates to organisations that deal with that act and first responders who have post-traumatic stress disorder. The presumption is that the workplace has significantly contributed to the PTSD, unless it can be proven otherwise. I see that as a good thing for people who have PTSD, but I also see it as a good thing in that it signals to organisations that they need to look after their workers, otherwise they will face a much tougher test when it comes to court. I'd really like to vote for that, as it's something the coalition supports, but, once again, it is tucked away in this omnibus bill that has had virtually zero consultation. It's been done in a typically sneaky way—a very selective and secretive way. Business groups that were consulted with had secrecy agreements slapped on them. What is this? Is this Russia? Is this China? No. This is Australia in 2023 under a Labor government.

It didn't take them long to show their true colours, I can tell you.

The other aspect of this bill that is a good thing is certainly the protected attribute for family and domestic violence. As a former policeman, I have seen far too much domestic violence and I know the effects that domestic violence can have on people and their lives, just day to day. If it is the case that someone, as a result of family or domestic violence, has had that impact on their workplace, that should never be held against them—it absolutely should never be held against them. Having that as a protected attribute under the antidiscrimination legislation is a good thing, once again, and I would really like to vote for it.

But this bill is full of landmines for our economy; it is legislation that will bring this country to a halt. The only way, obviously, that we're going to be able to fix this is to get rid of this toxic government and vote in a coalition government. So, in conclusion, I'm going to stand up for the small businesses of Wide Bay and say a big no to this toxic bill.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The defining value of Australian culture is the notion of a fair go. It reflects itself in the value of equality—that all Australians are equal before the law. In World War II, it was a defining characteristic of our troops, and it became evident when a number of our troops were imprisoned in prison-of-war camps in South-East Asia. When food was allocated, the Australians shared it equally amongst their mates. That was a distinguishing feature and characteristic of the Australians, compared to the British, where rank was important in terms of who got access to food. In our workplaces, it manifests itself in the notion of fair wages and conditions.

In most of the world, the employment relationship is an unequal one. There is an imbalance in power in favour of the employer, because, at the end of the day, they can dismiss the employee if they don't like the wages and conditions. You see it in the United States, where they don't have strong unions and they don't have strong workplace laws, and there is an imbalance in workplaces between the power of employers and that of workers. It manifests itself in income inequality, in social disadvantage, in entrenched poverty and in the massive social problems that now exist in the United States of America.

In Australia, since Federation, we have chosen to do things differently, because of that defining value in our culture of the fair go and the idea that we should have more balance in the employment relationship that's based on equality. These laws that we are passing through the parliament ensure that Australia maintains that fair go in our workplaces, as technology changes the nature of the employment relationship—particularly in the gig economy and particularly in the increased use of contractors, whereas, in the past, they would have been direct permanent employees.

The change in the nature of that employment relationship isn't fiction. It's based on fact and evidence. It's manifesting itself in a disadvantage for Australian workers, and that's picked up in some vital economic statistics. In December 2022, the share of income that went to profits in Australia was the largest that it has ever been—larger than in 2020, when the share of profits was maximised because of JobKeeper. But even that was beaten in December 2022, when 29 per cent of national income went to profits—the highest level ever in our nation's history. Yet workers' share of GDP, at the same period, reached its lowest level ever, at 45 per cent. The statistics don't lie. The change in the nature of technology in the workplace has led to an imbalance in the workplace relationship that has led to workers being disadvantaged.

If you add the cost-of-living pressure to that, is it any wonder that over the last couple of years we've seen nurses, teachers, police officers, firefighters, miners and aged-care workers marching in the streets, demanding reform of our workplace relations system, demanding a return to the fair go and demanding more equality? That is what this government is doing. We are listening to those important workers and saying, 'We hear you.' We are going to deliver on our promise that we made in the lead-up to the last election to get wages moving again and to restore balance once again to our workplace relations system. That is the reason why the Australian population voted for the Labor Party at the last election, and we intend to keep our commitment to those workers who voted for us.

I think it's a disgrace that the coalition are saying no to these laws. How can they say that nurses, teachers, firefighters, aged-care workers, miners, all of these important workers and, indeed, the rest of the working population that contribute so much to our economic development and our nation's income don't deserve a wage increase that's fair, permanency of employment and the principle of same job, same pay? I can't believe that the coalition say that they support miners, yet the miners and their unions are saying, 'We're sick and tired of two miners working on a job, doing the same job and working the same hours on the same shift, yet be paid different wages and conditions simply because one of them happens to be employed under a labour hire contract and the other one is a permanent worker.' And this mob think that that's alright. And you say that you support miners? How do you support miners when miners are saying that enough is enough? You're liars. You don't support them, and that is why they said they'd had enough at the last election.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister will withdraw that last comment.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that comment. You misled them at the last election, and that is why they voted for a change of government.

There are four major elements to this bill. Firstly, it's criminalising wage theft. I don't know how you can disagree with that. Criminalising people being stolen from—if you think that reforming that and making that a crime is not a good thing, then blow me away. Secondly, it's introducing minimum standards for workers in the gig economy, which is long overdue—safety standards for gig economy workers and a minimum decent income. It's a funny thing that, in many respects, the people that have been delivering us food through online platforms can't afford to feed themselves, with the wages that they're on. And you think that that's okay. Thirdly, it's closing the forced permanent casual worker loophole. Again, that's another long overdue reform. Lastly, it's closing the labour hire loophole.

We announced these policies 2½ years ago. They haven't come out of the blue, as some would like to claim. They haven't been cooked up in the last six months. They're 2½ years old. Everybody knew that we took these policies to the last election, employer groups included. And the Australian people voted for them. We've got a mandate to deliver them, and that's what we're doing. The introduction of this bill follows months of extensive consultations, including with employer and union groups, and it's clear that these are distinctly Australian reforms, reflecting that fair go that I mentioned earlier.

Alan Fels, former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, has pointed out that wage theft makes it hard for compliant employers to compete and do the right thing. Why should an employer that does the right thing, meets all their obligations, pays their award wages and does the right thing by their employees be disadvantaged when some fly-by-nighter seeks to undercut them and undertake wage theft? And you guys think that that's okay. That's hardly supporting small businesses that are struggling to make ends meet if they're doing the right thing.

It also affects government revenue if people are employing people off the books and avoiding paying payroll tax. So business owners who knowingly—and that's the key point; you need to do it deliberately—withhold wages, should face consequences. I think the Australian people think that that's fair and that's what they expect. If somebody is deliberately breaking the law, they should face the consequences. We must also ensure that our laws don't water down any wage theft laws that have already been put in place by the states. That is what this reform will ensure. So these reforms deliver on that commitment to criminalise wage theft.

The other important part of this reform is 'same job, same pay'. It's the very simple principle that, if you are working side by side with someone that is doing the same work as you, working on the same shift, you should both be paid the same amount of money. If you want a notion of the fair go, that is it. It has become an unfortunate feature of many industries in Australia that employers seek to undercut either award or enterprise bargaining wages and conditions that have been negotiated in good faith between an employer and their employees by using labour hire. It's been particularly prevalent in the resources sector. A number of miners in the lead-up to the election said: 'We've had enough. It's not fair that I'm working on the same shift and doing the same hours as someone who works beside me, doing the same job, and they are paid a different rate of pay.' They might be driving a truck, operating an excavator or doing detonations—all sorts of jobs—and they are paid a different rate of pay. Why? Because the employer uses a loophole in the law to say: 'We can use a labour hire contractor that will employ that person independently of us on different wages and conditions.' They may not have permanency. They can be sacked with a day's notice and can't complain about it. Is it any wonder miners and other workers said, 'We've had enough of that and we want that changed'? That's what this law does. It restores that dignity and respect for Australian workers by making sure that all of them get access to the same wages and conditions when they work in the same job.

Closing labour hire loopholes will simply require an employer to pay the rate that has already been negotiated and agreed to. There is nothing revolutionary about that. The employer has negotiated a set of wages and conditions through an enterprise bargaining agreement with its employees or they have an award that has been verified by the Fair Work Commission. They have to pay those wages and meet those conditions. What's wrong with that? I think most Australians would say: 'Isn't that already the law? Surely you shouldn't be able to contract out of that?' But that's what was happening. This will ensure that that can't occur. Our employee-like reforms simply require workers to have some minimum standards that are benchmarked against existing award rates when they are working in a way which is similar to employees.

This goes to the issue of gig-economy workers. We have seen an influx of technology and platforms that have allowed people to engage in employment for income and bypass some of the minimum conditions that define an employment relationship and relate to that equality and the fair go that I mentioned earlier. It's resulted in some disastrous consequences where people working in ride-sharing capacities and the like have been killed because the traditional safety standards and other laws didn't apply.

Our government will extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of work, allowing it to better protect people in new forms of work from exploitation and dangerous working conditions. This change will allow the Fair Work Commission to make orders for minimum standards for new forms of work, such as gig work. We are not trying to turn people into employees when they don't want to be employees. A whole lot of gig workers would like the flexibility to keep using this technology, and that won't change under our laws.

We will simply make sure we reflect 21st-century technology with 21st-century laws that define equality. They're the major areas: gig economy workers getting a fair go; same job, same pay; and criminalising wage theft. There is nothing revolutionary about these reforms.

Debate interrupted.