Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I haven't been in this place for a very long time, but one thing I have learnt is that when this government describes a proposal as 'modest' we should take that with a grain of salt. We've seen them suggest that the changes to the Constitution with the Voice, which we'll vote on on 14 October, are a modest proposal, and now they're describing this bill as a modest proposal. The Albanese Labor government's Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 will make life tougher for Australian businesses by increasing costs, complexity and red tape. This will likely lead to not just job losses but also restricting small and medium-sized businesses across Australia from creating jobs in the first place.

By the government's own admission, the changes will cost employers up to $9 billion in extra wages over the next decade. Industry has contested this 'modest' suggestion. In today's AFR, BHP, who were invited by the department to be part of the costings process for the bill, are now suggesting that what they provided to the department to help produce the explanatory memorandum for the bill grossly underestimates the actual costs, now that they've had an opportunity to look at the finer detail.

The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations costings tabled the day before yesterday show that the changes could cost employers up to $510 million annually, assuming just 66,446 labour hire employees would be covered by new Fair Work Commission orders. We understand from the industry response since the bill has been tabled that that is considerably underdone by their estimations.

The reality is that the changes proposed by this bill are far from 'very modest', as the employment minister describes them. This is in fact a radical reordering of Australian workplace law which every business organisation in this country has pleaded with the government not to go ahead with. You've got to understand this bill in the broader economic context that's currently facing Australia. We know that Australia's workplace laws are incredibly complex, and they come with a high level of cost for businesses—but also for consumers because, obviously, these costs are built into prices. If you add that on top of Australia's current cost-of-living crisis and on top of the crisis facing many Australian businesses with the current labour shortages, and when you consider the increasing cost of inputs, businesses out there are doing it very tough. The minister has admitted that these new laws will increase costs for consumers for everyday services they have come to rely on. He admitted this in the National Press Club speech in relation to this bill—that it'll add complexity to an already unduly complex system and that, as a consequence, consumer costs will rise.

It is in effect simply an attack on labour hire, the gig economy and casual employment, and it gives unions unprecedented rights of entry into businesses. It's about eroding the choice and flexibility of individuals who want to work in their own time and on their own terms, and of the many Australian consumers who access the services. Those services have become a considerable part of our economy and a considerable part of the lives of many Australians. The coalition will not be supporting reforms which weaken our economy and continue to make a bad situation worse for Australian small businesses and families.

Can I outline that the process around this bill is almost unprecedented. We're seeing this bill rammed through this week. It was only introduced this week. The government has rejected the coalition's common-sense proposal to delay debate on this quite significant bill. We're talking about 284 pages of legislation, and the explanatory memorandum goes out to 521 pages. They've rejected our proposal to delay consideration of this bill until October, and yesterday they rejected our suggestion that the bill be referred to a committee, as would be the normal process.

In the last few weeks in this place we've seen the government's agenda laid bare, because they haven't actually had many bits of legislation of significance before this chamber. We've seen speaking lists filled with government speakers because they're trying to drag out debate in order to make this building continue to work, despite the fact that it's largely noncontroversial bills here. Suddenly they find something worth debating to keep this place operating. Of course, we saw a similar process in place when the government introduced the secure jobs, better pay bill last year. We saw the same pattern of behaviour—trying to condense debate and even threatening to have parliament sit on Saturday in order to get it through, which would have come at great expense to taxpayers.

In the development of this bill, the Labor government secretly shared it with a small, select group of recipients, who were forced to sign legally binding nondisclosure agreements. So a lot of these employer groups who were provided with the content of this bill were unable to tell the public about it and unable to tell people within their organisation about it. They are now coming out of the woodwork in order to criticise it, and I'll touch on their comments later. But, certainly, the coalition is being forced to debate this bill, having only seen it halfway through Monday. The bill—as I mentioned, its pages run into the hundreds—makes fundamental changes to the rules governing Australian workplaces, and I just don't think that that level of closed consultation, but also ramming the bill through this place, is appropriate.

I've recently restarted, since the winter break, a process of knocking on the doors of small businesses within my electorate. The cost pressures that they are facing at the moment are quite extreme. The No. 1 complaint I have had from local businesses I've spoken to within my electorate has been labour shortages, and I don't think this bill goes anywhere towards helping resolve this issue. In fact, this legislation will make labour shortages far worse. These small businesses were also talking to me about the complexity of doing business in Australia at the moment, the amount of regulation, the amount of red tape. When you consider that the Fair Work Act is already 1,200 pages long and that this bill seeks to add an extra 200-odd pages to it, I just worry about whether businesses across Australia are going to be able to ensure that they are fully compliant with the changes. But let's dive into some of the detail of what this bill is actually proposing.

Firstly, and probably most worryingly, we are seeing an expansion of union powers in the workplace. The bill will amend the Fair Work Act to enable unions to exercise right-of-entry powers without any notice whenever an issue relates to wage underpayment. To gain immediate entry the union only needs to assert to the Fair Work Commission that it suspects a case of wage underpayment. No evidence is required to make their case. I know a lot of farmer groups and farmers across Australia are particularly concerned about this new right of entry without notice, which would allow union representatives to enter farms unannounced. Of course, there are all the biosecurity considerations when you deal with some of our primary producers. But there's also the fact that for a lot of farmers their place of business is actually their home, and the thought of having people arriving unannounced with a right of entry is obviously of deep concern. It is important to note that this element of the policy was not included in the government's 2022 election policies, although I note that many of the government speakers are trying to pitch it as something that was achieved as part of their mandate. This was also not foreshadowed in any of the public consultation papers that were released in relation to this bill in April this year.

Secondly, the bill outlines the so-called same job, same pay provisions. The government has asserted that the intent of the policy is to close a loophole and address the limited circumstances in which host employers use labour hire to deliberately undercut the bargained wages and conditions set out in enterprise agreements made with their employees. However, Labor policy actually goes much further than this and also covers any service contractors who provide services, not just labour, to another business. Any business that engages service contractors will be captured by this provision. The so-called same job, same pay changes are an unfair and unjustified attack on labour hire employees as well as the businesses and workers that depend on the sector. This sector plays an important role in our economy. Like employers, the opposition recognises that our labour market is diverse and that those who choose these forms of work represent legitimate and important aspects of Australia's labour market. The government's proposal is all about discouraging different forms of employment across Australia and, course, trying to promote those unions that contribute so much to the Labor Party when it comes to election time.

Changes to the legislation affecting gig workers and other independent contractors mean the additional costs to tech companies providing the services Australians rely on will be pushed on to consumers and the businesses that rely on their services. These proposed changes threaten the viability of Australia's vibrant platform economy, which delivers essential goods and services from our business community to consumers. We know the real agenda here because the minister let the cat out of the bag when he recently referred to the gig economy as a cancer. Customers who benefit from the innovative new services that gig platforms deliver do not think it is a cancer. They love the convenience and the range of services and choice these new elements of our economy provide. And the workers choosing to do gig work, often as a second job—I meet many constituents who are undertaking gig work as a second job—or when they want to choose their own work arrangements to suit their lifestyle arrangements, particularly students, parents and retirees, have embraced the gig economy.

It's important to mention that there are a lot of protections in place already under Australia's laws to cover gig workers.

Given the time, I won't touch on the changes for casual employees, but I will, perhaps, just outline some of the responses that we've seen come out of the employer groups. I know the government is very keen on quoting employer groups in this place, whether it's promoting the Jobs and Skills Summit or their position on different issues, but let's hear what some of the industry responses to this bill have been.

The Minerals Council of Australia chief executive, Tania Constable, said that the cost outlined in the explanatory memorandum 'barely scratches the surface' of the true impact. She went on to say:

As the legislation now makes abundantly clear, the economic impact fails to take into account the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of service contractors and workers in related entity businesses that will be captured by the legislation.

The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia chair, Matthew Addison, described the legislation as 'onerous new obligations'. The Business Council of Australia described the labour hire arrangements as 'unworkable'. Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar said:

The only loophole this bad legislation is looking to close is that of plummeting union membership.

I think that's a very telling line. Perhaps he's hitting, very much, on the root of where this legislation has come from. Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox described it as deeply 'flawed'. He said:

The Government is proposing major changes to core aspects of our workplace relations system. They are changes that will, collectively, impact most sectors of the economy …

It is crucial that Parliament properly scrutinises the changes and isn't misguided by efforts to downplay the adverse impacts of the changes or their significance.

I'm sure this parliament would love to provide the proper scrutiny, but, unfortunately, we have been given this bill under unusual circumstances, and I'm sure we're not going to get the full scrutiny that a committee investigation into this bill would offer.

This bill amounts to a direct attack on the efficiency and flexibility of Australia's digital economy. It's important to note that none of these changes are designed to improve the productivity of Australia's economy, which is a critical thing that I know many of our economic pundits on both sides of this chamber have been discussing as a key priority that we need to be undertaking. Millions of Australians have enthusiastically embraced digital platforms due to their convenience and innovative offerings, but, unfortunately, Labor wants to turn us back to a rigid 1950s style economy because that's, of course, what the union bosses want.

This bill will result in fewer jobs, more costs to Australian businesses and a weaker economy. The laws will tie up Australian businesses in more red tape and make it more difficult for Australian businesses to hire workers. That's why the coalition will not be supporting this bill.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak in support of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. I just heard the member for Bowman talking about how this legislation is taking us back to the 1950s. That was the era of the coalition and the Menziantorpor, when Australia's economy was a mess. Labor was in opposition at that time. I'm really surprised he would attack Sir Robert Menzies in that way.

At the outset, I want to say in this speech that the Albanese Labor government was elected on a pledge to get wages moving after a decade of the coalition keeping wages low as a deliberate design feature of the previous government's economic and IR policies. To do that we need to close loopholes that undermine wages and conditions for workers. That's what this set of workplace reforms are about—getting wages moving and helping workers deal with inflationary pressures in the economy, something those opposite conveniently leave out when they lecture us on the cost of living. Each day, the impact of a decade of wage stagnation under them is felt by households trying to make ends meet.

This bill contains four main elements: cracking down on labour hire loopholes that have 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.

I listened to some of the speeches yesterday, and even the speech before. They're not defending their position. They're using every form of smokescreen to say they won't support this legislation, but they're not actually addressing the heart of what this bill's all about. We announced all four of these policies in opposition more than two years ago, and we took them to the Australian people at the election and won the election.

Ultimately this is about dignity, human dignity—dignity at work and dignity in our work. I'm reminded of the earliest modern description of human dignity in Australian law from a High Court case in 1919. Appropriately, it was in the context of employment law. The case involved the council of the City of Melbourne and the Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union, MEU. I note that became part of the union of which I'm proud to be a member, the great Australian Services Union, in 1993. The case concerned the scope of conciliation and arbitration in relation to section 51(xxxv) of the Constitution. The court referred to the suffering and degradation that followed the industrial revolution. The court found labour disputes were increasingly 'founded on the practical view, that human labour was not a mere asset of capital but was a co-operating agency of equal dignity—a working partner—and entitled to consideration as such'.

I wish those opposite looked at a bit of history and legal history in some of their speeches. This followed a 1913 judgement of Justices Isaac and Rich, who were the same judges, by the way, in that 1919 MEU case. They wrote:

… we should be blind to everyday facts and events, if we failed to observe that the aim of industrial struggles is to raise the personal status and condition of the workers.

This formulation of human dignity in the workplace aligns very much with what has been described by legal philosopher Professor Jeremy Waldron, who described it as referring to the legal standing or the moral presence which a person has in society and in dealing with others. He explained dignity as 'the idea of a certain status that ought to be accredited to all persons and taken seriously in the way they are ruled'. This accords with article II of the International Labour Organization's Declaration of Philadelphia from 1914. Have a look at a bit of history, those opposite! It states:

all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity—

and—

of economic security and equal opportunity …

That's what this legislation is about. It's been referred to in international law again and again.

I want to congratulate Senator Sheldon in the other place for the work they did in his Senate Select Committee on Job Security, which reported in March 2022, not long before the last election. That inquiry found, before the last election, that insecure work had a strong, detrimental impact on workers' physical and mental health, often negatively affecting family life, social connectedness and their interpersonal relationships. Insecurity in work affects every aspect of a person's life, from their self-esteem to self-worth and the decisions about family planning, education, homeownership and retirement. Insecure work affects work health and safety, sometimes with tragic consequences in workplaces. It can lead to depression and suicide. Insecure work makes people sick and reduces our productivity. I just heard a speech from those opposite denying all that.

This legislation is about the economic development of the country, economic justice and material wellbeing, leading to people's physical health because of job security. That is what this legislation and previous legislation we brought in is all about. If we've got insecure work, it affects children's ability to learn and to thrive. It hampers low-income earners trying to save for a dignified retirement. Those opposite have never supported superannuation in this country. They have continually, during the time I've been here, voted to cut superannuation for workers. Insecure work increases the Medicare burden for the taxpayers of this country.

This is about a whole-of-society reform. It's not just about economic reform. The committee found that secure, ongoing work and reliable, predictable income are protective factors against physical health problems, like heart disease, hypertension and depression. Participation in a stable workplace can increase a person's social connectedness and decrease their isolation.

Those opposite should have a look at that report delivered by the Senate in March 2022, before the last election. If they had done so, they might have done a bit better in the election.

We've undertaken extensive consultation—notwithstanding the protestations of those opposite in relation to this—including with business groups. I know there are a lot of small businesses and businesses that work with their employees in the workplace in a collaborative, constructive way. I was in business for 20 years before I was elected to this place in 2007, and you work with your employees to pursue common goals, make sure their jobs are secure, make sure they get their fair share, in terms of wages and conditions, of the productivity and profitability of your business. That's what good employers do. Those opposite deny the fact that we've got people here who worked in the workplace as employers. They are blind. They should have a good look at the history of the people on this side of the chamber, to understand that we've been both employees and employers. We've got real-life experience. Don't give us lectures from those opposite, from staffers and other people who have never been employers. I've been there for 20 years and built a multimillion-dollar business. So I know what I'm talking about when it comes to working with workers in the workplace.

During the election campaign, the now Prime Minister talked about the need to ensure, in the annual wage review, that wages didn't go backwards. He talked about the need to do that. We were told by our opponents that what we were doing was reckless and dangerous. When we brought in our Secure Jobs, Better Pay legislation last year, those opposite were saying that we were going to bring in socialism or communism, that the economy was going to collapse. The jeremiads were there. It was like some Old Testament prophet. Everything was going to fall apart. And what happened? It didn't.

Yesterday we heard and today we're going to hear lecture after lecture from the pulpit of those opposite about the doomsday that's going to happen with this economy because of what we're doing. But you know what? We've seen wages rise. We've seen wages improve in terms of minimum wage increases. We've seen wages increase for aged-care workers, the heroes of the pandemic. Those opposite opposed this stuff. They never did it. They would not support rises in aged-care workers' salaries. They would not support minimum wage increases. Those opposite are condemned by their own words. They don't understand about business. They don't understand about unions. They don't understand the workplaces of this country. They should go and visit them. It would do good if they did that more often. It's very, very important to have secure work, and we've seen a rise of hundreds of thousands of new jobs created by this government in the last just over 12 months. Eighty-five per cent of those are new jobs—secure, full-time jobs. So the doomsday sermonising that we're going to hear from those opposite today and for the next few weeks cannot be listened to and taken into account, because it is simply rubbish. That's what we're going to hear from those opposite again and again.

On this front, can I just say: under those opposite, we saw 128,000 days lost to industrial action; in the most recent quarter, we had 7,000 days lost to industrial action. If you work with unions, if you work with their representatives, if you work in a constructive way, you get better outcomes for wages and conditions and you get more productive employees. If they're healthy and well, if they're connected to their family lives, if their children can thrive, if they feel they can go to that football match, if they feel they're getting paid a fair wage, they will do better. That's really, really important. That's why legislation like this is not just about stopping pay and conditions from being undercut; it's about improving family lives. Those opposite will give us sermons about family values. Family values are important for economic justice in the workplace. They're intimately related. They're absolutely connected. Family values are not just about what happens in people's bedrooms. Family values are about what happens in the workplace. That's absolutely critical to the wellbeing of our society and our economy. Legislation like this is absolutely vital.

We're cracking down on the labour hire rorts in this country. Labour hire has a legitimate use—we know that—but it is being exploited, and it shouldn't be. On wages theft, I guarantee you that those opposite won't talk about the egregious examples of wages theft we've seen in the public. They will not talk about that. I guarantee you won't hear one word from those opposite about that.

It's absolutely crucial that workers who are ripped off by bad employers—and not all employers are bad employers. Most employers are good employers. But, where there are examples of that, why shouldn't it be criminalised? It's been done in Victoria and Queensland. It should be done nationally. It's really crucial. An employer shouldn't steal money from an employee. That's not acceptable.

As the British would say, the man on the Clapham omnibus—the person walking down Brisbane Street in Ipswich in my electorate—would not think that's acceptable. I am convinced that the Australian public thinks that that is wrong. If those opposite believe that it is not wrong: defend it. Defend it today and defend it in the next few weeks. I guarantee they will not, because they know we're on the side of justice and the angels on this one, and they did nothing about it for nine years. There was example after example in the public about rip-offs, and the unions were at the forefront of exposing it. Whether it was the SDA, the AWU or the TWU, many unions were doing it. They were exposing what was happening in our workplaces where there was wages theft.

What did those opposite do? Did we see them make sure that legislation came into this House? Did they make sure it was passed? No, they did not. They collapsed on this issue like they collapsed on so many other issues. They had nine years to address this, and they failed to do so. They did not criminalise wages theft. It is wrong to steal from your workers, so we are doing the right thing. They tore up draft laws because they couldn't get support to cut wages and conditions elsewhere. Whatever legislation or draft bill they had, they tore it up and threw it away and didn't pursue the criminalisation of wage theft. What those opposite did during their period of time was wrong.

What we're going to do is create an offence carrying a maximum of 10 years imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of the greater of: three times the amount of the underpayment if the court can determine that amount; or, for an individual, 5,000 penalty units, which is $1.565 million, or, for a body corporate, 25,000 penalty units, which is $7.825 million. There are civil breaches as well. There will be a grouping rule included. Where an employer is found guilty of committing two or more offences that arise from a course of conduct, the employer will be taken to be guilty of a single offence and punished accordingly. There are important criminal sanctions. There's a whole range of things that are important in terms of making sure that there's security at work. For example, we're standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent workers.

Those opposite didn't do that. They had nine years to make sure this was done. They didn't do it. There are many people who work casually and want a flexible arrangement. We acknowledge that. But many of them, when they want to apply for a loan—a personal loan for a car or a loan for a house—want the security of permanency. There are so many things we're doing in this legislation that will improve economic security and economic justice in our IR system and the domestic lives of Australians today. Those opposite have failed monumentally in this space.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. This is very bad. This is a very bad bill. At the very least, it should have been referred yesterday, as we requested, to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training for further consideration. This Albanese bill unashamedly is designed to take away the flexibility currently enjoyed by Australian gig workers, labour hire companies, tradies and other independent contractors and small businesses more generally. At a time when many parts of our economy are on their knees, the Labor Party's really big, innovative idea is to make it harder to earn a living in Australia. What a joke. Communities right across Australia are suffering because of the economic incompetence of those opposite. Under this government we have seen the highest inflation in decades, too many interest rate rises, productivity falling off a cliff, flatlining GDP growth and a year of real wage decline.

People in my electorate are not immune to the worst of this cost-of-living crisis. Durack is the largest electorate in Australia, ranging from Bullsbrook to the outskirts of Perth and the far north of Western Australia, at 1.4 million square kilometres. To put that into perspective, the Prime Minister's electorate is just 32 square kilometres. Despite the distance between all those many communities in Durack, the message I'm receiving is the same. Whether I'm speaking to farmers in the Wheatbelt—which I did recently at the wonderful Dowerin Machinery Field Days for two days last week—to the farmers and residents of York or Mullewa, or at Kununurra, it is clear that Western Australian families, communities, and businesses are all hurting. What are the government doing in response to the hardship being faced by families and businesses in Durack and the broader Australian community? They haven't addressed any of the economic pressures that are currently being faced by these Australians, and they've gone ahead and introduced this very bad bill.

Let's be clear: industrial relations reform is an important economic reform that is required to make Australia more productive and to create more jobs. So when changes are proposed to Australia's industrial relations laws, it's important, and they must get the focus right. Those opposite have failed. On this side of the House we believe that industrial relations must be designed to improve productivity, to grow wages and to enhance competition. Unfortunately, the government reforms will not deliver on these outcomes and will only make life tougher for Australian businesses by increasing costs, complexity and red tape, and they will likely lead to job losses.

It's not just the Liberal and National parties who understand the consequences of this bill. Business groups and employers all across the country agree that this bill will smash productivity, investment and job creation. As Jennifer Westacott, 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 …

"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.

"They should not add cost and complexity at a time when people are struggling to pay their bills.

As we know, the Labor government are not serious about addressing the cost-of-living crisis. They are intent on adding more complexity to the system, passing on cost to business, and delivering on the union movement's wish list. It is shameful.

The Fair Work Act, as it stands, is already 1,200 pages long. This is representative of Australia's absurdly complex industrial relations system, which our small businesses and employers have to deal with on a daily basis. These reforms will only legislate more complexity into the system. It's almost laughable that what is being proposed is an additional 200 pages, making the already difficult-to-manage system more complex and requiring businesses to dedicate more time, resources and money towards trying to understand and implement this new regime. Matthew Addison, the chair of the Council of Small Business Organisations, reflected:

At a time when small businesses are managing increased costs of supply, of rent, of power, of wages; we don't need changes that detract businesses from their sales and service delivery.

According to the government's own estimates, the changes in this bill will cost employers up to $9 billion over the next decade. This $9 billion figure includes over $5 billion in potential costs, assuming just 66,446 labour hire employees are covered by the new Fair Work Commission orders. The Minerals Council of Australia claims that the $5 billion labour hire estimate is much lower than what the actual costs will be for businesses, because the economic impact fails to take into account hundreds of thousands of service contractors and workers in related entity businesses which will be captured by this very bad legislation.

What this Labor government fails to understand is that every time it passes on an additional cost to business it is killing jobs and driving up the cost to the consumer. This should be common sense, even to those opposite. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations said that business would likely be able to pass on the extra costs 'through higher prices for consumers or third-party businesses'. I agree with Andrew McKeller, the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, when he outlined the chamber's opinion on this dreadful legislation. He said that this bill will be bad for productivity, for those wanting to be their own boss and for consumers struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. To quote Mr McKellar:

If you're in labour hire or want a casual job, prepare for unemployment.

…   …   …

If you are a service provider and want to advertise online, prepare for unemployment.

Of course, he is right. Putting up more barriers and driving up business costs is a recipe for unemployment and a decrease in jobs growth.

I would like to take the time now to highlight some of the most damaging elements of this legislation and why the Labor Party has chosen to go down this path. Labor talks about closing labour hire loopholes through its same job, same pay legislation. However, the truth is that the policy goes much further than just labour hire. In fact, the proposal does not define labour hire as a business that provides workers to another business who then work under the supervision of that business as part of that business. This is the standard definition, as confusing as it may seem, that is used in labour hire licensing legislation. Instead, Labor proposes to also cover service contractors who are engaged to provide a service, often utilising their own plant and equipment, their own expertise and their own management, as well as their own workforce. Any business that engages service contractors will be captured by this bad legislation.

Another issue that I have with the proposed legislation is its changes to casual employment. 'Casual' is a dirty word to those opposite and their union mates. But it is an essential employment type for businesses in my electorate and right across Australia. It is important to note that it is small business who employs some 80 per cent of Australia's casual workforce. Many of the farmers in my electorate rely on seasonal casual employment during harvest time, as they do across the whole of Australia. Likewise, tourism businesses in the north of my electorate simply cannot afford full-time employment for all of their staff due to the lack of business during the wet season. Through this bill the Albanese government will introduce a new definition of casual employment. The new definition will be three pages long and include 15 factors to determine if an employee is a casual. Honestly, this introduces even further complexity that needs to be managed by the employers of Australia. The definition of casual employee in the act will be changed to prohibit anyone from being engaged as a casual if they work regular hours. As a result a court can order that the employee was always not a casual from the time of their engagement.

For all of these reasons employers would have no choice but to force workers to move to a permanent role, losing their additional income and choice of hours. However, casual jobs will not magically be replaced by permanent jobs. Any claim that they will reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of why casual employment is both necessary and legitimate. The legislation will in effect discourage casual employment and make it too risky for many businesses to even consider. But we have to ask ourselves: why is Labor pursuing this reckless agenda despite the concerns of industry and business? It is clear that none of these measures are designed to improve productivity, to grow wages or to enhance competition, which, as we all know—and even those opposite understand this—are the ingredients for a successful economy.

The cynic in me believes that the main driver is Labor's commitment to deliver for their union mates. This is part of their 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' relationship.

These measures are designed to reverse the trend of union decline in our country. What we are seeing is the government doing the union's bidding to grow union membership, and of course this legislation also seeks to increase union power and control of the economy.

One of the most troubling aspects of this legislation is the expansion of union power in workplaces. This bill will amend the Fair Work Act to enable unions to exercise right-of-entry powers without any notice whenever it relates to an allegation of wage underpayment. To gain immediate entry, the union only needs to assert to the Fair Work Commission that they suspect a case of wage underpayment. No evidence is required to make this case.

I'm particularly concerned about how this expansion will affect farmers in my electorate of Durack. The National Farmers Federation has raised its concerns that union representatives will be allowed to enter farms unannounced. Let's be clear: for most farmers their workplace is also their family home. We are talking about mum-and-dad business owners like the ones that I talked about earlier in Dowerin, York and Mullewa. Their farm isn't just their home; it's their kids' backyard and it's a place that they deserve to feel safe in. There are also important biosecurity concerns that union representatives may not be aware of. Union representatives should not have the right to just come onto their land unannounced.

The Labor Party has already tried to skate over all of the controversy surrounding this bill, saying it is about closing loopholes and addressing wage theft. But let me reiterate what I know many of my colleagues have already said in the House in this debate: the coalition acknowledges deliberate rip-offs of workers is not acceptable and that there should be serious sanctions, but these should only apply to intentional conduct, not to a mere mistake. We are extremely concerned that the new and confusing definitions around casuals and employment in this bad bill will only add more risk and complexity for businesses. It's my view that reforms around wage underpayment and theft should also come with reforms to simplify the system, not to make it more complex. We should simplify the workplace system to avoid underpayments in the first place. Instead, Labor is making this very bad situation worse.

In light of the significant concerns of small businesses and employers across the country and the detrimental impact this will have on workers across the country, I call on the government once again to reconsider this bill.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 is all about delivering fairer, safer workplaces and providing employers clarity about the government's expectations when it comes to business practice and relations with workers and contractors. It may well be the most meaningful piece of industrial relations legislation in a generation and, hopefully, will pave the way for a more moral business culture that values people as well as profit. We on our side of the House support business, but this bill makes it clear we want our business leaders to take their inspiration from George Bailey, not Gordon Gecko. Our message is: by all means pursue profits and grow your business, but do it in a way that doesn't rip off your workers or put your contractors at risk of injury or death.

This bill improves rights for casual and gig-economy workers, closes labour hire loopholes, criminalises wage theft, implements minimum standards for the road transport industry, introduces an industrial manslaughter offence and increases penalties for killing workers. It addresses silica related disease, protects workers suffering domestic violence from discrimination and improves bargaining power for franchisees, as well as some other things.

It is a big bill because there is a lot to do after a decade of wanton neglect by those opposite when they occupied the government benches, a decade in which wages were deliberately kept low, a decade in which workers' deaths on building sites were ignored by the Liberals' pet agencies while their mourning colleagues were harassed for having union stickers on their helmets and a decade in which wages were brazenly stolen, with only token penalties applied, sending the message that this was the way to do business in a Liberal-led Australia.

That greed culture, that 'anything goes' culture, that culture where workers are treated as an enemy to be corralled into submission and not as a partner to be embraced has no place under this Labor government. This bill provides a clear way forward for how we expect business to conduct itself, and at its heart are fairer, safer workplaces where workers are treated with respect and dignity. Employers who do the right thing have nothing to fear. In fact, employers who do the right thing have much to celebrate because this bill closes off avenues for their competitors to cut corners. This bill makes it easier for business to compete lawfully for customers. Since our election to government in May last year, the Albanese Labor government has got wages moving again and half a million new jobs have been created. We are proud of that achievement. This bill seeks to take the next step to ensure that loopholes are closed so more workers can enjoy the fruits of their labour.

I can think of no more important obligation for an employer than to provide a safe workplace. The more dangerous the work, the higher the standards needed to protect workers. It is unacceptable that any employer should be able to show a wilful and negligent disregard for safety. Measures in this bill strengthen the Commonwealth workplace health and safety regime by introducing an industrial manslaughter offence and significantly increasing penalties for killing workers. Under this bill, bodies corporate face fines of up to $18 million and individuals face up to 25 years in jail for killing a worker. Every 28 April, on International Workers Memorial Day, I visit the memorial in Launceston and I stand proudly with unionists, MPs—from right across the aisle, I'm happy to say—family members and members of the community to remember the workers who never came home. The mantra is, 'Mourn the dead, and fight like hell for the living.' It's my hope that an industrial manslaughter charge is never levied, because it is my hope that a worker is never again killed at work due to the negligence or culpability of their employer. But this bill is a wake-up call to employers. You disregard your workers' safety at your peril. You don't just face a fine; you face going to jail.

The criminalisation of wage theft is an absolute no-brainer. I simply do not understand why anyone with a shred of decency would oppose this measure. It is accepted that, if a worker puts their hand in a till and steals from an employer, it is a criminal offence. We accept that. It makes no sense that, if an employer steals from an employee by wilfully or negligently underpaying them, it's not a criminal offence. Following some egregious examples of wage theft by businesses like 7-Eleven and others and the pathetic penalties that applied to them, the former government made a half-hearted attempt to pretend to care by putting a bill through the House before the election. But a scorpion cannot change its nature, and, in the Senate, the Liberals voted down their own legislation. They just could not bring themselves to make wage theft a criminal offence. We see that again now, with Liberals lined up to argue against this bill, which will make stealing from workers a crime. You really do make it clear who you are for and who you are against when you are in a political party that deliberately kept wages low for a decade and then opposed making wage theft a crime. Wage theft doesn't just hurt employees; it hurts businesses that do the right thing because businesses paying their workers fairly are put at a competitive disadvantage. So criminalising wage theft isn't anti business; it's pro business. Criminalising wage theft is anti crime. Criminalising wage theft sends a message to the vast majority of employers out there who are doing the right thing—the supermarkets, hairdressers, real estate agents, servos and so many more; the wonderful people who took a risk to open a business and who look after their employees.

The Albanese Labor government is on your side. We are going after the crooks. We are going to drive them out of business, and then we're going to drive them into jail, so that decent people like you have the fair crack that you deserve for your hard work and the risk you've taken, for doing the right thing.

Closing labour hire loopholes will simply require an employer to pay rates that are already agreed to. The bill will protect bargained wages in enterprise agreements from being undercut by the use of labour hire workers who are paid less than those agreed rates. This bill does not attack labour hire's legitimate role as a supplier of specialist or surge workforce. It just stops it being used as an avenue to undercut already-agreed wage deals.

This has been a long time coming. Back in 2005, a parliamentary inquiry into independent contracting heard that Telstra had replaced up to half its call centre workforce, including in Tasmania, with labour hire workers paid less and with fewer conditions than permanent workers. If the law allows something to happen, then a human resources manager or corporate lawyer somewhere will use it to save money. This bill makes it clear, to human resources managers and highly paid corporate lawyers looking for shifty ways to cut costs, that workers' livelihoods are not in the mix.

Under this bill, it will be easier for casual employees who work regular hours to shift to permanent status, trading away casual loadings for leave rights and more job security. Many casual employees probably won't want to change. But some will, especially if their 'casual' jobs are longstanding.

The minister noted, in his second reading speech on Monday, the case of Sanjeev, who has been a pathology courier for five years, working 30 to 40 hours a week. By any measure, any of us would expect that to be a permanent role. Sanjeev has two children in high school. He has asked for conversion to permanent status but has been refused. This bill is for Sanjeev and others like him who are working effectively as forced permanent casuals, but without the security and entitlements that permanency affords.

Australia should not be a place where employees are expected to display loyalty to a workplace but not have that loyalty returned. Australia should not be a place where workers can work 40 hours a week for years on end, knowing they can be sacked at the click of a finger because they don't have the protections afforded by permanent status.

Now, there will always be a place for casual employment, to enable the flexibilities that are required in a dynamic working environment, to manage the cyclical surges and lulls. But, where people are working in stable, long-term, structured arrangements, casual status should not be used just because it's convenient to the employer to have a workforce that they can turn on and turn off at their whim like a tap.

The 'gig economy' is a 21st-century term for a 19th-century way of doing business; it's the Wild West when it comes to rates of pay and safety standards and rights at work—and we've seen that, with the tragic loss of life on our roads of gig economy workers killed while delivering food or parcels, desperate to meet delivery targets and customer satisfaction standards. We know that many gig workers like the flexibility that comes with the technology. So the government has chosen not to regulate the gig economy to such an extent that it fundamentally changes the way it operates. We have chosen to accept that gig workers are an integral and accepted part of our workforce milieu, but we want more protections for them. We know there's a direct link between low pay and poor safety. People who struggle to make ends meet take risks to make more money, and, when you are riding or driving in city traffic, that can and does have deadly consequences.

This bill establishes that an employee-like worker is someone who is not an employee but is also not an independent contractor. It means that the Fair Work Commission can set fair minimum standards for employee-like workers in the gig economy, tailored to individual circumstances.

In this bill, the added protections from workplace discrimination for family violence sufferers follow this government's implementation of 10 days paid family violence leave. Under this bill, it will now be unlawful to discriminate against an employee who has been, or continues to be, subjected to family and domestic violence. Many employers offer terrific support for workers suffering domestic and family violence. They really get around those workers with their co-workers, but some don't. And some are downright awful.

A worker, usually a woman, facing the trauma of family and domestic violence should not have to worry that they will lose their job because of the actions of their abusive partner or because of the steps they need to take to escape the violence. The amendments in this bill prohibit employers from taking adverse action, including termination of employment, against employees because of subjection to family and domestic violence, and that is a very good thing. This measure does not affect employers who do the right thing by their employees, but, to those who don't, it sends a very clear message: just be decent and look after your employees.

When it comes to sham contracting, under this bill the defence to misrepresenting employment as an independent contractor arrangement changes from a subjective test of recklessness to an objective test of reasonableness, which is very welcome. This will make it more difficult for employers to engage in sham contracting, as it will be more difficult to get off the hook once caught. To this, I simply say it's a good thing.

In my electorate, there are 18,000 people in a form of part-time work, and that includes casual employment and those working in the gig economy. The biggest occupation groups include technicians and trade workers, labourers, and community and personal service workers. Workers in these sectors and others will now have added protections and rights, thanks to this Labor government. In Tasmania, labour hire rates of pay are the lowest of any state, despite Tasmania no longer being a state where property prices, rents and mortgages are lower than the mainland. Having suffered under the dead hand of a Liberal state government for the past decade, Tasmania has not licensed labour hire providers to prevent unscrupulous practices, such as underpayment of wages. I note Rebecca White's Tasmanian Labor opposition has committed to enacting a labour hire licensing act, but it has not happened under the Liberals and it never will.

This bill is so important. It provides fairer and safer workplaces for tens of thousands of workers in my home state of Tasmania and for hundreds of thousands of workers across Australia. It's helping our government meet the objectives we set out before the election: for a better and fairer Australia where no-one is left behind. I commend the bill to the House.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a great honour to get up and speak to this legislation, but I just want to talk a bit about Labor's incredibly unfair legislative approach and the procedure that's happened here. This bill was introduced after 3 pm on Monday, and the debate on the second reading was less than 24 hours later. This bill is hundreds of pages in detail. If someone bothers to one day pen the biography of the minister for IR, it won't be as thick as the detail in this legislation, or as complex.

This is a place of debate, and democracy is best served when that debate is informed and reasoned. While the government maintains that the raft of changes follow months of consultation, there was no consultation with the coalition. The first speakers on this side have had less than 24 hours to prepare for this debate on a very complex piece of legislation. I'll note that the minister for IR, in his role as Leader of the House, is very quick to approach the dispatch box on matters of workplace safety. You don't need much of an imagination to understand that only having from 3 pm one afternoon until noon the next day to examine a 287-page bill and a 521-page explanatory memorandum would quickly erode any notion of a healthy workplace. I'd like to put on the record right now my appreciation for the incredible work of Senator Cash and her team in circumstances that they shouldn't have been put under.

Even with more time, the businesses in my electorate who employ people and create wealth have had no opportunity to consider the contents in the detail or the impacts on their businesses. That's what we should be doing.

We should be examining legislation, working through it, going out to the business community and their employees and saying, 'How do you think this will affect you?' That's how you get to good legislation. That's not the process that's happened here. It's very disappointing. We're once again being asked to debate and progress a bill that has had no exposure draft and no consultation and is so complex that it verges on being undemocratic. Perhaps the minister will be happy to have that in his eventual biography, but the businesses I represent, who face having these industrial relations laws foisted upon them without any real say, will not be pleased, and I'm not pleased.

I represent a constituency where entrepreneurship is the hallmark of what we do: we have manufacturing businesses; we grow fruit; we make milk; and we manufacture products that get exported around the world. We do that profitably. But can we do it profitably in future, with the actions of this government? I reckon there's a level of disrespect with the way these reforms have been dealt with. I'll share one comment from a longstanding business owner, a very fair minded business owner in my electorate. He watched the minister on 7.30 on the ABC TV, and I'm not going to use the piece of unparliamentary language that he used, but he said, 'This looks to me like a patronising person with not a scintilla of understanding of how private industry works.' There's a level of expectation that whoever are in government consult with business and try and understand what will make them more productive and what will lead them to being more profitable and therefore employing more people. That is not what's happening here.

There are a number of reasons this bill is a bad bill. It is impossibly complex and creates uncertainty. It adds additional costs for businesses, especially small businesses, right at the time when their other costs are going up. Therefore, that makes Australians pay more, in a cost-of-living crisis. This does nothing to increase productivity, and the decreases in productivity are the demon we need to slay. It does nothing to enhance competition. It risks jobs. It only rewards Labor's union paymasters, and it institutionalises conflict in workplaces. The government purports to have made concessions for business, but it hasn't. This weakens our economy, and we need a strong economy for everyone to thrive.

I'm concerned about the fact that this bill gives unions unprecedented rights of entry into businesses. That's a risk to many businesses in my electorate that are farm businesses, where the employers are in fact the people who live on the farm. They have the office in their home and therefore could be visited at any time, with no prior organisation, by unions. That's not a desirable situation for, for example, dairy farms. There are also biosecurity risks with unions turning up without any notice.

The other issues with this bill are about eroding the choice and flexibility of individuals who want to work in their own time and on their own terms. It's about putting significant constraints on businesses and employers wanting to expand, construct new projects and infrastructure, or simply manage their operations in a way that is flexible and works for their productivity. It demonises the wealth creators, and that's the last thing we should be doing in this economy. When I listened to the speech by the minister and listened to his comments, he seemed to justify these IR laws by creating demons, bad actors, who are exploiting workers, stealing their wages and undermining their status as employees. They exist, but this government continues to frame legislation to rein in the few that creates huge burden, complexity, cost and erosion of rights for the many, and the overwhelming number of businesses are doing the right thing.

My electorate, as I said before, is an entrepreneurial region. People have come there to get ahead. Businesses across my electorate are established for the purpose of profit. Employees are valued; they're not exploited. Labour is increasingly difficult to attract and keep, adding to the imperative that you have to look after those that you have, and that's what happens across my electorate. The same applies to casual workers, commonly employed in agriculture in my electorate, especially at peak periods of activity. There are times when apples are ripe and ready to be picked, and there are times when they're not—a bit of an agriculture lesson for some of those opposite!

At harvest time there is intense competition for labour and workers are valued. Harvest workers frequently return to work on the same farms year after year. They are clearly out of the loop on the loopholes this legislation seeks to close. I know of Pacific island workers returning not only to work but to sing, beautifully, at the funeral of a prominent orchardist out of respect for what that orchardist had done for them and what those workers and that business owner had created together.

What these businesses want is a fair system. The job creators of Australia are telling the minister it will be harder to keep people in jobs under these changes. The complexity and associated costs will be impossible for small businesses to deal with. The government has failed to demonstrate how these new laws will make it easier for businesses to employ people, increase productivity, create a highly skilled workforce or raise living standards, perhaps because it can't, perhaps because this bill is anathema to all of those things. This will only add to Australia's cost-of-living crisis. Millions of Australians are already suffering under the crippling cost-of-living crisis, which is of this government's own making, and the costs incurred by businesses will be passed on. Consumers will pay. The economy will reflect the pain being felt by working families. How does that help workers? How does that make them feel more secure?

We can reform the industrial relations system. Industrial relations reform is, without a doubt, one of the most important of all the economic reforms required to make Australia more productive and competitive, but productivity has fallen off a cliff under the Albanese government. The focus should be on lifting productivity, not suppressing it further. This morning's Murray-Darling Basin Plan bill is one of the most anti-productivity pieces of legislation I've ever seen brought into this place. It's going to make it incredibly difficult for people to grow fruit, milk, food—not only for domestic consumption but for sending overseas. As I said in this place not long ago, do we want our kids eating Chinese apples? We don't want them eating Chinese apples; we want them eating healthy, clean, Australian apples from the Murray-Darling Basin. That legislation, which takes water away from farmers, is appalling. Combine that with these IR changes and it's getting really hard to try and run a business in this country, and it shouldn't be. Enterprise bargaining should be the cornerstone of our workplace relations system if we are to grow our pay packets, improve job security, bolster the flexibility that employees demand and boost productivity. Australia needs a modern 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 all enterprises the agility they need to compete and succeed.

I went to the Minerals Council dinner the other night, and CEO Tania Constable said, 'These proposed IR laws are nothing short of an act of economic self-harm.' We've had economic self-harm this morning with the Murray-Darling Basin legislation, which is going to rip irrigation water away from people who are trying to grow healthy food for Australians, and now we've got an act of economic self-harm with these IR changes. Why are we doing this to ourselves? Why can't we focus on productivity? Why can't we have successful businesses and happy workers that are being paid well? That can't happen if it's too hard to do business in this country. I really believe that this is one of the more anti-business governments in the history of this nation. There have been some good Labor governments, in my view. The Hawke Labor government was an excellent government, because it understood the importance of business to the economy and it understood that productivity is good for workers. If businesses fail, people don't have a job. I don't think this government understands that. I wish that those opposite would go back and look at some of the things that the Hawke government did in the eighties. It'd be a better government if they did. Business groups and employers say the proposed IR changes will smash productivity, investment and job creation. That's not good for business, it's not good for workers and it's not good for Australia.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important for this House to understand what is taking place in Australia. I invited myself to stand up on a chair at the Moranbah Community Workers Club.

I asked people not to throw beer bottles at me and just give me three minutes of their time. I said, 'Look, fellas, everyone here, ladies, everyone here knows we're on close to $190,000 a year.' That was eight or nine years ago. Everyone here knows that we are now on about $135,000, and they are not stopping there. They will push our wages down, down, down.

When we were on nearly $190,000, or the equivalent of $190,000, five of the six giant mining companies in Australia were owned by Australians. Successive Labor and Liberal governments agreed that these mining companies could be purchased by foreigners. Fancy a government allowing the overwhelming majority of its giant resources to be simply handed over to foreign corporations! We only have three sources of income in this country: iron ore, coal and gas. Each of those is worth over $100 billion, or near enough to $100 billion for each of the three of them. The next one down is probably gold or cattle at maybe $15 billion. We only have three sources of income from overseas, and successive Liberal and Labor governments gave away the gas for 6c a unit. We Australians are having to buy our own gas back at $19 a unit. We sold it for 6c and we're buying it back at $19 a unit, which makes us uncompetitive in the world market. We can't competitively produce fertiliser because the major component is ammonia from natural gas, and we're paying $19, whereas in America they are paying $6 and in other countries they are paying $4 a unit.

You sold your country out. Every member of the ALP here sold their country out. Every member of the Liberal Party here sold their country out—and the National Party, I don't want to leave them out, the running dogs with the National Party.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

C'mon!

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, no, no, you sold us out. You explain why you sold the gas for 6c a unit. Do you deny that? You're laughing. The honourable member is laughing. He thinks it is funny that we sold our gas for 6c a unit, and we have to buy our own gas for $19 a unit. He thinks that is funny, and I would like to put that on record.

There is a saying in the trade union I belong to, the CFMEU: do you work to live, or do you live to work? Increasingly, we are being forced to live to work. Jobs are drying up all over Australia—don't believe the unemployment figures. It would be good for people in this place to reference the Liberal members, the two brothers that were ministers. One of them outlined how the ALP was doctoring up the unemployment figures. He was an expert in that field, and, when he became minister, he put in a whole new art form of doctoring our unemployment figures! They had no relationship to the number of people that were looking for but couldn't get a job in Australia. Jobs are closing, and there are no new mines opening in Queensland because the Queensland government is opposed to coalmining. There are no new mines opening up in hard-rock mining because the entire mineral potential of Queensland is tied up under exploration permits and mining leases, and the Labor government removed the 'use it or lose it' clause from the legislation. It is an interesting phenomenon that should be looked into by psychologists and university professors as to why the ALP is the anti-workers party and the LNP is the anti-business party.

It would be fascinating, but the truth of the matter is that that is the way that it is.

In Queensland, we can't go mining because all the mining fields in Queensland are locked up by people holding mining leases and exploration permits who have no intention of working. They do not even know or understand what they own. I asked one person, 'So what do you have up there?' He said, 'Copper, silver, lead, zinc.' I said, 'No, I mean what size of resource?' He said, 'We're not really going into that.' He's not really going into what composite of lead-zinc he owns. He's just there to play stock market games.

The double degree has done nothing. The woke class is closing down coal. We're importing our electricity from China. It's a rather interesting one that one. We import our electricity from China, while China has announced the building of 200 major coal-fired power stations. There's got to be something wrong here. The ALP sacked 12,000 railway workers in Queensland. God bless my union, the CFMMEU, because we sacked Jackie Trad, the person responsible. They also sacked 2½ thousand electricity workers, and the ETU—I've seen some running dogs in my life, but the ETU should be up there with some of the worst unions in Australia. So far they've been crawling along, grovelling and snivelling to the ALP. But they've forgotten they have a membership where 2½ thousand of their members were sacked by the ALP state government, and they're still out there supporting them. Their wage structures have dropped in the electricity industry. So that union is a disgrace. My union have stood up. You want to stand up against coalmining? We are quite capable of destroying you. Those are our jobs. That is our future. India and China have to have coal-fired power stations.

We're moving an amendment to this legislation, and I very much thank my colleague from South Australia for supporting our amendment. We will be moving:

That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not supporting a Senate Inquiry into the bill and not declining to give the bill a second reading:

(1) notes that in 2001 a far North Queensland sugar mill was sold by a bank and receivers at allegedly an undervalued asset price, leaving millions owing in original farmer shareholders …

The mill is worth $200 million. It was sold out from under the farmers for $2 million. The people that got it sold the mill two years later for $74 million. There was not a single action taken by ASIC. What are they paid for? I am putting on public record and I'll be going public to say that, unless the boss of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission can provide evidence that he has taken action in any of these cases, he should be prosecuted for taking money off the public purse under false pretences.

He doesn't believe he has any responsibility to the people. Right at this moment, there is a bloke that had a company that didn't pay his workers' wages and didn't pay the contractors. Because he appointed the liquidator, the liquidator sold him the assets, stripped, of course, of all the liabilities. So he didn't have to pay the workers and he didn't have to pay the companies. They're all owner-operator contractors. He didn't have to pay anyone. Then he does it again. He's done it again. Right at this very moment, there are some 200 or 300 workers that haven't been paid and who knows how many contractors that haven't been paid. He's done it again.

In this case, Wayne Swan had the ASIC person in charge in his office, and he went very close to dressing him down. Wayne Swan was very angry that no action had been taken in this case and in the case of the Innisfail sugar mill. When Joe Hockey came in, he had the bloke in, and he was very angry. But I would plead with the government to understand that you're in charge of a Public Service that laughs at you. They treat you with contempt. They don't feel they have any responsibilities to the Australian public.

Look no further than this case in North Queensland, right before us at this very moment, where 265 employees have not been paid for six, eight, 12 weeks—whatever it is. The employees' superannuation hasn't been paid in two years. ASIC were informed of this two years ago, and not a single solitary action has been taken, while they're taking $300,000 a year off the people of Australia to make sure that criminals are not allowed to carry out their deceitful, thieving actions. In the case of the mining company in North Queensland, two of the workers have now committed suicide. They're dead. There are some 20 or 30 being thrown out of their homes—they've been served notice because they can't keep the payments up on their homes. And this bloke—do you think you'll get a dollar out of him? The money is already hidden all over the place. But he doesn't have to worry, because he's not going to be prosecuted. ASIC has never prosecuted anyone in North Queensland's recent history—not one single case.

A sugar mill worth $200 million was sold out from under the farmers for $2 million—no action taken. And they sold the sugar mill two years later for $74 million. Thirty-nine of the farmers came themselves to get a civil action carried out, and within three months there was a settlement out of court for $23 million. That will be a measure of the incompetence of ASIC. No, it's worse than incompetence. If you're taking money and not doing your job, then you're taking money under false pretences, and I think that's criminal.

We move forward with this legislation to protect hardworking people that risk their lives—mining is a very, very dangerous occupation—and that then are not paid by charlatans whose mining leases are protected by government. They aren't even required to work the mining leases. For the first time in Australian history, we have legislation without any of the 'use it or lose it' clauses that were put in there, ironically, by wonderful Labor governments that were truly Labor in every sense of the word. The Labor Party of Australia today represents the exact opposite point of view. They represent the wokey classes, the endowed classes, the double-degree done-nothing classes who believe it's their right to rule. They're represented by the ALP. Those are their representatives in Australia. It's the complete opposite of what the Labor Party was formed by and for—the complete opposite.

So we move this legislation today to try to bring ASIC to heel. I think it's disgraceful that the minister is not here to face the music. I think it's disgraceful the head of ASIC is not here to face the music. We commend the Leader of the House, Mr Burke, on having made some moves in this direction, but they should be in this place. He, like I, has been in state parliaments, where the minister would be there facing the music. If he's going to move legislation, then he will sit in the parliament and face the music, and the head of the department will also sit in the parliament and face the music. But not here. They hide out like dingoes in their ivory towers. They won't come near this place. They won't face reality. Mr Deputy Speaker, is it appropriate for me to move this amendment now?

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bradfield has already moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not deny that amendment being moved by the member for Bradfield. But we have a second amendment, and we're not 100 per cent sure of the process by which we put it forward now.

The DEPUTY SPEAK ER: Can I just consult with the clerk as to the form?

Absolutely. We thank again very much and put on public record our appreciation for the member for Mayo.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could we please see a copy of the amendment?

I've just consulted with the clerk on the form that the amendment is in. It has 'That all words after "That" be omitted'. It's another amendment to the original one moved by the member for Bradfield. In that format, it can't be moved.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do I move formally my amendment?

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It needs to be in alternative terms, because the words 'That all words after "That" be omitted' have already been used by the member for Bradfield.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you suggest that I officially and formally remove those words and move the amendment? I think that would be the appropriate action, if I could venture to suggest it.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'd probably have to consult with the clerk as to the correct form.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't wish to take up any more time of the House, really.

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

It is an amendment to the amendment—

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An amendment to Fletcher's amendment—

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps it could be moved: 'That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting other words'.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we agree to that. I move:

That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not supporting a Senate inquiry into the bill and not declining to give the bill a second reading:

(1) notes that in 2001 a far North Queensland sugar mill was sold by a bank and receivers at allegedly an undervalued asset price, leaving millions owing in original farmer shareholders;

(2) notes that despite continuous calls for an ASIC investigation, the only accountability came through civil proceedings successfully brought on by affected farmers;

(3) notes that in 2012 a mine in far North Queensland collapsed placing 450 people out of work and leaving millions owing in wages and entitlements to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers;

(4) notes that in July 2023 another mine in far North Queensland collapsed placing 250 people out of work and leaving millions owing in wages and entitlements to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers;

(5) notes that both mining companies had the same Director prior to collapse and complaints made to the ATO about unpaid super for the second company date back to September 2021, nearly two years before the collapse;

(6) notes that in March 2023 a transport/wholesale fruit company collapsed leaving millions owing to transport and farming entities across Australia;

(7) notes that the Director of this company, who resigned days before the collapse, has approximately 285 office holdings in various other companies and is the subject of a number of ASIC complaints;

(8) notes that workers and contractors, subcontractors and suppliers cannot be adequately protected by regulation alone and we must have improved oversight and enforcement;

(9) notes that ASIC and the ATO either are ill-equipped or otherwise unwilling or unable to fulfill the role of a tough and accountable enforcer of companies and their officeholders; and

(10) calls on the government to:

(a) remove corporate oversight from the ATO and ASIC;

(b) place corporate oversight with the Fair Work Commission or a similar "oversight and enforcement" body; and

(c) provide this "oversight and enforcement" body with the resources, accountability and powers to adequately protect employees and contractors, sub contractors and suppliers from corporate wrong doings."

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Bradfield moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Kennedy has now moved an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kennedy to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to. I call the honourable member for Swan.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today with a deep sense of responsibility to contribute to the debate on this crucial piece of legislation. It's based on a fundamental principle that everyone deserves to go home safe from work. The bill before us addresses a matter of grave concern to me and the people of Swan. As renovation spread through Australia with an obsession during the pandemic, what we also saw was the increased rates of silicosis in the workforce community, particularly amongst workers. It's entirely unacceptable that we are witnessing a rise of silicosis cases. This government, however, is delivering on its commitment to see comprehensive reforms. These reforms aim to bolster the prevention of occupational respiratory disease.

The reforms have been thoughtfully designed not only to enhance prevention—because we all know that prevention is better than a cure—but also to ensure that we see the improved treatment of individuals who have contracted occupational respiratory disease due to workplace exposure.

Silicosis, for those who may not be familiar with it, is a devastating and irreversible lung disease. It's a disease that is triggered by the inhalation of silica dust. Silica is a common mineral found in sand, quartz and various types of rock. This disease primarily affects workers exposed to silica dust in industries such as construction and in mining related occupations. Silicosis is a cruel and debilitating condition causing symptoms such as shortness of breath, persistent cough and fever in those afflicted. It's really unacceptable that nothing has been done about this until now. Occupational health and workplace safety are matters close to my heart. I'm reminded of the impacts on people in my family that have been affected by workplace injuries.

I'm also really proud to see that our federal government is working on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. We are a government that wants to ensure we close the loopholes in our industrial relations system. We need to protect casuals but also give them the opportunity to convert to permanent employment, but only if that is agreed to by the workers.

We have also been looking at workplaces where workers are doing the same work but are on different awards. Some workplaces have multiple payment systems, and companies say, 'We've got the award and we've got the EBA, but there is a difference between those two things.' They get third-party contractors in to basically undercut workers. There are interesting examples of this, such as air hostesses who are supervising on aeroplanes and being paid less than the team members they are supervising.

The truth is that Australia fundamentally believes in a fair industrial relations system. With this industrial relations system, we need to make sure that it is fair and that workers have the opportunity to be paid a fair wage. When people migrate to Australia, they do so because they believe in access to good health and good education but also access to fair workplace conditions.

The other thing we've been looking at is industrial manslaughter. This is something that's of quite grave concern to people that go to work. Fundamentally, workers deserve to go home safely at the end of the day. In one of the weeks after I came back from parliament, back in June, I had two workplace deaths in my electorate. One was Constable Anthony Woods, who was a police officer. The other was an apprentice worker, Hamoira. He was just 16. We need to make sure that workplaces and bosses fundamentally understand that they have a responsibility to look after staff members, and we need to make sure that they are held accountable in the event of unfortunate incidents. This is one of the things that our bill addresses, and I think it's really, really important.

I would point out that part of the title of this legislation is 'closing loopholes'. We have seen companies look at the loopholes in our laws and use them for financial gain.

That financial gain has been at the expense of workers and, frankly, that is not good enough. We need to make sure that we have a fair industrial relations environment, and we need to make sure that we still make it competitive but also make sure that workers can prosper in this environment.

I think that this is really important legislation and it shows what Labor governments can do when we are in power. I think that this will be legislation that has a phenomenal ability to improve the lives of workers and that will make a real difference to people on the ground level.

We also have clauses that relate to transport workers, and I've heard that TWU workers were talking about how this has the ability to transform lives. One of the things that we saw during the pandemic is how important not only our supply chains are but also our transport networks are. In Western Australia, there were times when we didn't have much stuff on the shelves. It was related to a rail line being down as well. So a thing we saw during the pandemic but also the torrential rains on the South Australian and Western Australian border is that these are really important transport routes that make sure that we can get things like medicine, food and toilet paper. But what we have seen in the transport sector is almost a gamification of the way that work is done. What we have seen is that these workers have been under pressure to work in unsafe conditions. Quite frankly, it's unacceptable. We want to make sure that truck drivers are safe on our roads. When our truck drivers are safe, it means that other motorists are safe as well. I see this policy as something that has the ability to transform the lives of workers but also make sure that workers actually get home at the end of the day. I think that this is something that should be a minimum standard. It will make sure that it actually helps workers.

I see this as part of Labor's narrative that we got wages moving again, we protected our minimum wage workers and we had the 'secure jobs, better pay' legislation. The truth is that this is legislation that we had to have after a decade of the Liberal government mismanaging our economy and not looking after workers. It comes as no surprise that the architecture of the previous Liberal government was to deliberately keep wages low. Frankly, they weren't on the side of the worker. It is the Labor Party that took bold actions to enhance work conditions and rekindle wage growth.

Today, we find ourselves once more with legislation that fosters a fair work environment for all workers. This legislation is designed to fundamentally close the loopholes that have eroded pay and working conditions for so many workers. It's been really interesting to hear some of the comments that I have from constituents since the minister unveiled his legislation this week—'This has been needed for a long time,' 'Thanks to a Labor government for finally addressing corporate injustice,' 'Well done, fabulous and good work,' and 'Thank you.' These are just some of the sentiments expressed in the last few days. This is because the work is about closing loopholes that have been undermining the rights of workers. It's about safeguarding the future and the reputation of Australia. It's about ensuring that its people are shielded from unjust treatment and exploitation.

Key provisions of the bill include criminalising wage theft, offering pathways for casual employees to attain permanent status and establishing minimum standards for the road transport industry. This is truly commendable. It came out of consultation with a range of stakeholders. About 160 organisations made over 220 submissions to the consultation process. It was important to ensure that state and territory governments, business groups, employers, the mining and construction industry and unions were involved in the process.

We are a government that listens to people whom our decisions affect, unlike the top-down approach adopted by the Liberal government. We listen, we act. As a result, in government we have had more than 80 consultation meetings and received feedback on the draft bill.

The legislation goes further than ever before. It introduces groundbreaking changes for workers in the gig economy. Under this bill, the gig economy workers in Australia, including rideshare drivers and food delivery riders, will benefit from minimum pay rates and protections. We are familiar with the apps of Uber, DoorDash, Menulog and HungryPanda, to name a few, that have become an integral part of Australians' daily lives. That was particularly so during the pandemic. These platforms have been a lifeline for many, connecting us with essential services. It's our duty to ensure that these workers are protected and treated fairly in our workplace framework. It's a fundamental understanding that, in Australia, people should not have to rely on tips to have a minimum wage. They deserve to have minimum conditions to make sure that they can put food on the table and have a roof over their head.

We are increasingly relying on these drivers for food delivery, trade services and much more. In some ways, they've become an integral part of everyday life. They, in turn, should be able to rely on us to establish minimum conditions that respect their contribution to our economy but also our lifestyle, yet they have been taken for granted. Under this legislation, that will end. Working in the gig economy, for various reasons, should not result in lower wages than those received by traditional employees. Such inequity has no place in Australia. We are a nation that prides itself on worker protection and a fair and safe working environment. Granting gig economy workers the right to sick leave, annual leave and minimum pay rates, which are currently denied under existing arrangements, is the right path forward.

Among the other wideranging amendments, I'd like to focus on the changes introduced by this bill that close the labour hire loophole. These will benefit 67,000 workers who have been disadvantaged by this practice. This will be life-changing for these individuals and families. It sends a strong signal to companies that they have been undercutting workers and, frankly, that is unacceptable. The previous government, despite being well aware of the harm caused by these loopholes to so many workers in this country, chose not to address this during their tenure. They chose to deny it. They chose to ignore it. It is characteristic of much of the previous Liberal government. While they did this, the outsourcing of labour in Australia soared under their watch. I have seen on some mine sites that, when this happens, when you see a race to the bottom on wages, you see a race to the bottom on safety. We need to make sure that you get the right behaviours, and the right behaviours include the right pay. Initially intended as a temporary solution, labour hire has been increasingly used to circumvent negotiated enterprise bargaining agreements and conditions. That is not the intention for labour hire. Statistics provided by the ABS show that labour hire employment growth has outpaced general employment growth. It is unacceptable, and I'm glad that this Labor government is dealing with that in this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.