Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

RMAN (—) (): I was elected in 2022 to this place to get wages moving again, and the Albanese government was elected to this place to get wages moving again. That's because the Australian people had seen year on year on year what the deliberate policy of those opposite when they were in government to keep wages low was doing to their incomes and to their ability to ensure that they were getting what all Australians support, which is a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

That's what the set of workplace reforms in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 is all about. It is about cracking down on the labour hire loophole that has been used by too many for too long to undercut the pay and conditions of hardworking Australians. It is about making sure that we finally criminalise wage theft, which takes money out of the pockets of people who are earning it and puts them in the incredibly difficult situation of having to go through very complex processes in order to get back the money that they themselves have earned. We seek to finally and properly define 'casual work', so that we remove the exploitation that casuals have been experiencing in workplaces, and I will go to some of those stories in a little while. We want to make sure that gig workers aren't being ripped off. We know that the gig economy has changed the nature of employment in this country, and, as many Australians choose to use services such as Uber, they want to know that the people who are delivering the services they're buying have fair industrial conditions, fair pay and the sorts of protections that Australians would expect when they are working in an Australian workplace, whatever the nature of that may be in 2023.

I think it is important to note for this debate, because some of the commentary we have seen from those opposite has implied that somehow this whole proposal was a huge shock to them when it was announced that we would be introducing this legislation, that this policy was announced by those who are now in government when we were in opposition. It was announced more than two years ago, and we took these ideas to the Australian people. We put them out there for all to see. We were very transparent about our commitment to cracking down on the labour hire loophole, very transparent in our commitment to criminalising wage theft, very transparent about our desire to properly define casual work and very transparent about making sure that gig workers are not being ripped off when they're doing their work. As the minister has outlined, there has been extensive consultation on the precise design of these measures, including with business groups. But the most important consultation of all was that consultation we did with the Australian people when we went to the election, saying that this is exactly what we would do.

In many areas, these are not radical changes—indeed, they are about making the current law work more effectively. I've heard all sorts of commentary from those opposite in terms of how they see this particular piece of legislation. They claim that they hate red tape, but they're very happy to tie that red tape up in little loopholes that allow wage theft. They are very happy to tie that red tape up in little loopholes that allow the exploitation of casuals, and they are very happy to tie that red tape up in ways that rip off gig workers. Like many in this place, I don't mind using UberEATS on a Friday night, but I want to know that the people who are working for Uber are being treated as any other worker in Australia should be treated—with respect and with fair pay and conditions.

When it comes to the exploitation of casuals, we saw a debate in question time today about the exploitation that is happening and we have seen reports on people who work in the agriculture sector. My two-year-old loves raspberries, and, if she could, they would be all she eats. I want to know that the people who are picking those fruits that many Australians love and enjoy, including my two-year-old, are getting paid for a fair day's work and are not experiencing wage theft. Similarly, when it comes to closing labour hire loopholes, it is a really simple proposition, simply requiring an employer to pay rates that have already been negotiated and agreed to, or the rates of pay that have already been set for that work. When we talk about the employee-like reforms, we are simply requiring workers to have some minimum standards benchmarked against existing award rates when they are working in a way which is similar to employees. Again, we're making sure that people are not treated differently and that people are instead treated with dignity, fair wages and respect in the workplace.

When it comes to our definition of casual, this will just clarify what was always intended for casual work. If you are working regular and predictable hours and you want to be permanent, you will have that pathway available to you. We're not defining the entirety of the employment relationship at the point at which someone is initially employed, but recognising that, over time, the nature of that relationship starts to become more like that of a permanent employment relationship, and so it should be recognised as such and employees who wish to have it should be given a pathway to permancy. This is about strengthening Australia's existing workplace relations framework and providing certainty, fairness and a level playing field for both businesses and workers.

I want to go to what we saw in the impact analysis that was provided, again as referred to by the minister in question time today. The impact analysis goes to the question: what is the challenge that we are trying to address when it comes to casual workers? It acknowledges that some employees choose to be casual because of the benefit that it gives to them. But it also notes evidence in the impact analysis that is in front of this parliament, on the table right now, of some of the 'significant negative impacts of job insecurity that can come about from casual work'. It notes that it can contribute to poorer physical and mental health. It notes that it can result in some Australians being less able to afford medical care. The impact analysis notes that it can lead to difficulty in securing adequate and affordable housing, and the impact analysis notes the negative consequences of not being able to access paid sick leave, particularly when you're in a long-term employment relationship. It also references the review, which identified a range of problems with the current framework. It noted that there were some really problematic challenges that had come about from people who find themselves stuck in long-term casual employment, and these aren't just problems for the individual employees; the impact analysis notes the detrimental aspects of casual work, including the fact that it can often result in an incentive structure where people attend work while they are unwell. It can often result in people choosing not to take leave, which we would obviously all want them to do, to support the wonderful Australian tourism businesses and other things, because they have a fear about endangering their future employment. It notes the challenges of long-term casual employment resulting in people's inability to 'properly balance work, personal and caring responsibilities'. It notes that people who are in long-term casual employment where they've been unable to transfer into permanent employment experience last-minute changes to working hours and, equally, sudden loss of what had been, for sometime years at a time, regular work. Again, it results in people losing those opportunities around a career path.

There's limited access to training, poorer health and safety outcomes, and there's the inability to secure a home loan or finance. I would have thought, for the party who are always lecturing about how important it is to help people buy a home, so much so that they want to raid people's superannuation to do it, that, when you've got a piece of legislation that will actually helps people get better-paid, secure jobs, jobs they're already doing, this is the sort of thing those opposite would want to support.

We saw, again in the impact analysis, stories from people who do absolutely essential work, such as casual teachers. We saw Kristie, a full-time casual teacher. She's been a full-time casual teacher for six years. She notes:

Teachers, with degree qualifications, are working day to day casual or on temporary contracts for literal YEARS on end, not knowing what we are doing from one day to the next. Hopefully we get a contract, and then we spend time fighting others for our jobs each year …

The system we've got now is literally forcing the teachers who educate the next generation to fight it out for work, when we know we have a shortage of teachers in this country. Indeed, we want to make sure the kids in those classrooms are happy but also the teachers in those classrooms are happy.

We see the comments that come from the National Foundation for Australian Women, which notes that the current statutory definition for casual 'licenses constructive impermanency and the downward pressure on wages'. That's the system we've got at the moment. Again, we see these stories time and time again, and it becomes clearer and clearer that we do indeed need change when it comes to our industrial relations system. This bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, does deliver the change that is needed for so many.

I'll go to the labour hire loophole in a bit more detail. On this side of the House, we recognise that there are legitimate uses for labour hire in providing surge and specialist workforces, and this bill does nothing to change that from being the case. But what we're really concerned about is the loophole which companies deliberately use in order to undercut the agreements that they've already made. They've agreed, through fair processes, through the existing legislation that has been in place for many, many years, on fair rates of pay for their workers made by an enterprise agreement, and then, despite having made an agreement, they undercut the agreement by bringing in a labour hire workforce that's paid less. When there's an agreement in law or honour, we have a general principle in this place that agreements should be kept. That's why this is a loophole that we have to close.

And then we go onto gig workers. What we are seeing more and more and more often is that those who work in the gig economy are, indeed, in employee-like forms of work. That's why we're going to give power to the Fair Work Commission to ensure that it provides rights and protections for people in those employee-like forms of work, allowing it to better protect people in new forms of work from exploitation and dangerous working conditions. This will enable the Fair Work Commission to make orders for minimum standards for new forms of work such as gig work.

We're not trying to turn people into employees where they don't want to be employees. Many gig workers enjoy the flexibility from using this technology, and that won't change either. But we do know there is a direct link between low rates of pay and safety. It leads to situations where workers take risks so that they can get more work because they're struggling to make ends meet. We can't continue to have a situation where 21st century technology platforms are resulting in people working in 19th century conditions. Just because someone is in the gig economy shouldn't mean they end up being paid less than they would have been if they were an employee.

Time and time again we've seen stories like that of Lihong Wei, the widow of food delivery driver Xiaojun Chen, who died in Sydney. Lihong Wei has dedicated herself to fight for the rights of those who work in the gig economy. She has very generously shared her story of fighting for personal injury compensation for her family after her partner died some two years ago. We've had some five riders across various food delivery companies pass away in the last year or so while working in the gig economy. During COVID, we saw stories of outbreaks of COVID increase for those working in the gig economy. We've seen increases in injuries. And we've seen so many people struggle to make ends meet when they're relying on gig economy work.

I'll finish by noting something that I started with, which is these reforms have been consulted on widely. They were taken to the Australian people. Indeed, as the minister noted in the West Australian just a week ago:

The Government announced these policies when we were in Opposition two-and-a-half years ago and we took them to the Australian people last year.

So, we consulted with the Australian people. We've spoken to a range of businesses. We've consulted with workers in the gig economy, casual workers, those on labour hire. We have a commitment to get this done. We made a promise to the workers who are seeing their pay packets shaved off because of these loopholes. We made a commitment to the Australian people we would get this done. We've brought the legislation into the parliament and it is just so, so disappointing that those opposite are not just seeking to express their views on this, but in the other place today we saw a deliberate attempt to slow down the progress of the parliament, to slow down the consideration of this legislation and preventing senators from considering this and preventing those who work in casual and labour hire from getting fair rates of pay.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no surprise about this. You always know that when the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations gets up and says that something is very modest, you can almost be assured that it's complete overreach. When he gets up and says things like he's consulted widely, you can almost be assured that he's under the direction of and mouthing solely the views of the union movement in whatever he happens to be talking about. So there are no surprises with this legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. This legislation is signed, sealed and financed by the Australian union movement. Everything that is in this legislation is by order of the people who fund the Labor Party, who pre-select the Labor Party and who choose who's pre-selected for the Labor Party.

The one problem the Labor Party have is they are a one-dimensional party. Everyone on that side of politics is a union operative or has been a union operative. That's good. Unions are an important part of any society and any community. In the history of Australia, the unions have been a very important part of Australia's evolution and a very important part of our economy. But, that being said, they're not the be-all and end-all. Because of the one-dimensional structure of the Australian Labor Party, they are solely owned, financed and funded by the Australian union movement, and that's to their great detriment. The world has moved on from the days of capital versus labour, from the days where there were those two competing influences. Every employer and every business in this country knows their greatest asset is their staff, and people look after their staff. They want to look after their staff. We have an award movement, an award system, here that makes sure there are minimum rates of pay and minimum rates of things that happen within the workplace so people aren't abused or exploited. We know that.

Those over there will go: 'Of course you're going to say this. You're never going to agree to this.' As the previous minister just said, he's disappointed in this and he's disappointed in the views of others. Well, don't take my view. I'm going to read out the opinions of some people who aren't in this chamber and who may have some interesting insights into this. Tania Constable, the CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia—let's look at the Minerals Council of Australia. They're looking after our mining industry. What do they do? Just a few minor things, like have hundreds of billions of dollars of the exports of this nation. That's what they represent. They represent the coal workers, the gas workers and the mining industries of this country. What's their spokesperson said? It's not me; it's not the bad Liberal and National parties. This is from the CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia: 'This is jeopardising the nation's future.' It's not me. This is Tania Constable representing the Minerals Council of Australia. She goes on:

Let's not sugarcoat it. These industrial relations changes are some of the most extreme interventionist workplace changes that have ever been proposed in Australia.

That's not me. That is the person who is representing all the mineral miners and those people in this country.

Let's go on. I've got another one. It's from the CEO of the Business Council of Australia, Jennifer Westacott:

This will only add confusion and costs, while limiting the opportunities for people to get jobs with the flexibility they need.

That's not me. That's not from this side of the politics—those over there think we're all these horrible people—that's the Business Council of Australia. She represents the people who employ everyone. She represents the people who provide jobs in this country. Adding confusion and adding cost—that's all we need. Let's add a bit of cost to everything. Let's add confusion and cost to things right now, when we have a cost-of-living crisis. Let's add costs and confusion to the people who are generating jobs for people in Australia.

Then we have this from Andrew McKellar, CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It's quite clever, the way the bill is called closing loopholes; that sounds like a good idea. This is what Andrew McKellar from the ACCI said:

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

That's the loophole that he sees. That's the view of the ACCI. Does that surprise us? No, because this is not actually motivated for the good of Australian workers and business. This is motivated to increase union membership because the unions fund every single person who sits on that side of the chamber. That's what this is about. It's nothing more complicated than that. Don't disguise it by saying this is good for workers and good for pay. This is only designed to get increased union membership across this country. They don't care if that makes things more expensive for business. They don't care if that makes the cost of living worse in this country or even makes unemployment high in this country. All they are concerned about is the percentage of union membership in this country. This legislation has one sole purpose, and that is to increase union membership in this country. That's it.

I'll go on and I'll give you some more quotes. The Master Builders Association says:

… the worst fears of the building community have been realised with the introduction of a radical omnibus industrial relations Bill that takes the sledgehammer to tradies right across the country.

Why are they taking a sledgehammer to tradies? I'll tell you why they're taking a sledgehammer to tradies. The Labor Party would like to think they represent all the tradies out there—the plumbers, the electricians and all those workers in high-vis. Well, they don't. The vast majority of tradies don't belong to a union. They're small-business people who employ people, or they're tradies who work for a small-business operator. That's what they are. The Labor Party don't like them, because they're not unionised. So that's the person who represents the tradies in this country.

Let's move on. Matthew Addison, from the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, said these changes would require every business to dedicate more resources, more time and more money to trying to understand and implement onerous new obligations. That's not me saying this; it's the person who represents small business across this country. Of course, those opposite don't like small business either. Small business doesn't fund the Labor Party. The unions don't like small business, because they're not members of a union, either. Again, this is not about the people who are in small business. It's not even about people who work for small business. It's about trying to get everyone to have a union membership, and that's it.

The reason why people are quite concerned about this legislation—not just us but all the people I've just mentioned—is that it is unfortunately going to make Australia a less competitive country. It's going to make us a less productive country and a less prosperous country. Our standard of living, productivity and all these things will fall because of this legislation. With all due respect to the minister, he's doing his job. This minister is paid for by the union movement. He's the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, so his stakeholder consultation process is to speak to as many unions as he can. The more unions he speaks to, the wider his consultation; that's how he would measure that. So congratulations to him. He's certainly representing the movement that he works for and looks after. He's certainly paying the piper, but this will have many damaging and long-term consequences for our country.

I want to stay for a moment and re-emphasise the biggest concern I have about this legislation. Besides the loss of productivity, the loss of efficiency and this being about higher union membership, the thing about this legislation that is going to really hurt and cause the biggest consequence is that it won't be good for employment and the flexibility of the workplace. The cost of people in the workplace is going to make employers very nervous. There will be certain people they would've employed that they won't employ. Very concerningly, it's going to put up the cost of living. That's the one true thing that the minister said. The minister himself said that, yes, this legislation will increase the cost of food and the cost of transport. He admitted that. He said it's going to increase the cost of living. This is terrible legislation, consulted on solely with the union movement.

I'll finished by reiterating that this is disappointing but not surprising. The Labor Party have been speaking about this for a long time, over a decade, nearly two decades. They are a one-dimensional party. The unions have far too much control over the Labor Party and the Labor MPs. Labor MPs, as we know, are preselected, funded and sponsored by the unions, and many of them have previously been union delegates. This legislation is the result of a one-dimensional party. It is solely about increasing union membership in this country. It's going to make us a less productive and less competitive country with a higher cost of living, and I think it's going to be a very sad day when this legislation passes through this parliament.

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Article 23 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights deals with employment and workplaces. The article states:

Everyone has the right to … just and favourable conditions of work.

Article 23 then goes on to add:

Everyone … has the right to equal pay for equal work—

and 'just and favourable remuneration', and 'the right to form and join trade unions'. I know that scares those opposite, but it is there.

Australia was one of only eight nations involved in the drafting of the declaration. Both HV Evatt and Fred Whitlam, the father of my predecessor in Werriwa, were actively involved in drafting the document. Importantly, Australia committed itself to the document at the earliest opportunity by being an original signatory in 1948. These points are important because the bill before us today adds further layers to our country's commitment to those original principles espoused all those years ago. Workplace rights are just that; they are rights. They are not just rights for some; they should be universal. And those rights need constant attention.

This country has seen in recent years any number of attacks on workers and their rights. Who could forget Work Choices in 2005? Certainly not the workers of this country; their rights to collective bargaining and protection from unfair dismissal were severely threatened and curtailed. And certainly not the unions; their power to protect the rights of their members was similarly threatened to the point of extinction. Thankfully, the Australian public completely rejected the extremist Work Choices agenda. At the ensuing federal election in 2007, the then Prime Minister lost not only government but his seat. It was a devastating indictment of a leader in a government that went way too far. It was equally an emphatic demonstration that the Australian public want workplace protections. They want to be treated fairly and respectfully in the workplace. In short, they don't want to be ripped off. Those of us on this side of the chamber have always known this. Protecting the worker and their rights isn't something we pay lip service to. It isn't something we just note and then file away. On the contrary, it's something we passionately believe in. That's why I'm delighted to speak on this bill today.

This bill, in a very real way, builds on the spirit and essence of article 23. Back then, just after the war, workplaces were very different. There weren't gig workers or a gig economy, and casual work was nowhere as common as it is now. So this bill is timely, the way all good legislation is—that is, it addresses very real and contemporary issues and the changes it seeks to bring forward are not radical. They are necessary and are changes that I think those who drafted article 23 would agree with.

The legislation before the House today will implement the next tranche of industrial relations reform and implement the policies the Albanese government took to the last election—and you know what? We won that election. This legislation will strengthen workers' rights and ensure Australians can continue to seek well-paid and secure work. We've seen the continued rise of casualisation and whilst some employees enjoy the flexibility, this is not always the case. Many Australians are classified as casuals yet work the same number of hours as full-time employees but without job security and entitlements afforded to full-time employees. This bill will legislate a new, fair and objective definition of what it means to be a casual employee and provide workers with two pathways to change their status. The first is through the employee choice pathway that allows casual employees to notify their employer that they believe their status has changed. The second is through the existing casual conversion pathway, an obligation on large and medium-sized employers to assess all their casuals and offer them conversion if they have a regular work pattern and 12 months of service.

Importantly, the changes are about choice—the choice for casual workers who work regular hours to convert to a more secure classification should they wish but also the choice to say no should they wish to stay casual. These new pathways require active and conscious decisions. No-one will be forced to convert. The new framework will support more Australians to move into secure work because they deserve to have certainty and entitlements that help them plan their lives. Employees will be able to seek reclassification under the new pathways six months from 1 July 2024 or 12 months from 1 July 2024 if they are employed by a small business.

The second major reform in this bill relates to labour hire. Labour hire plays an important role in many industries, providing surge and specialist workforces. However, there is a glaring flaw in the current system, a loophole that undermines the pay and conditions of workers. That is the use of labour hire to undercut and undermine enterprise agreements between a workforce and their employer by using a labour hire workforce that is paid and entitled to less than current workers. It is a loophole that undermines workers and undermines the simple principle that workers should be paid the same amount for the same job. This is the loophole that this bill seeks to close. It empowers the Fair Work Commission to order that labour hire employees be paid the same wages as in an existing enterprise agreement covering their employer in circumstances which are fair and reasonable. From royal assent of this bill, employers, employees and unions can make applications to the Fair Work Commission for such an order to be made should they believe the circumstances are warranted. From 1 November 2024, the orders become enforceable. If you work the same job you should get the same pay as your colleagues. It's that simple. It's an extension of the fair and egalitarian society that we believe Australia is.

The third major reform in this bill regulates to the gig economy. The gig economy has been on the rise for several years and, whilst it has brought with it flexibility for both consumers and workers, it has unfortunately lowered the workplace rights that many of us take for granted. The gig economy is part of our economy now and, as such, should be subject to the regulations that protect workers from both exploitation and harm. Since 2017, 14 workers have lost their lives in the transport gig economy and, unfortunately, that number may be a low estimate. Each worker has a right to be safe at work, to be able to come home safely at the end of the day, no matter what their employment status is. We know that there is a direct link between low rates of pay and safety. It leads to workers taking risks as they try to make ends meet. Workers in the gig economy, just like all workers, deserve minimum pay and conditions. Australia is not the US. We will not become a nation that forces our lowest paid in society to rely on tips to survive.

The measures in this bill will strengthen the powers of the Fair Work Commission, giving them the ability to set minimum standards for employee-like independent contractors who work in the gig economy. It will allow employee-like collective agreements between employee-like workers to come to an agreement with digital labour platforms. It will protect workers against unfair deactivation and extend protections that already cover employees to cover employee-like workers. Workers in the gig economy deserve minimum standards, they deserve to get home safely and they deserve fair pay.

This bill will also introduce similar measures in the road transport industry. Much like in the gig economy, workers in the transport industry are in a race to the bottom, creating an environment for unsafe and unsustainable practices. An environment that leads to unsafe work practices goes against the hard work of the thousands of workers who have fought for better conditions not just here in Australia but across the world. The Fair Work Commission will now be empowered to set a minimum standard in the road transport industry, a key measure proposed at last year's Jobs and Skills Summit.

To ensure that the Fair Work Commission is adequately advised on minimum standards, an expert panel on the road transport industry will be established within the commission. It will be comprised of people with expertise and contractors or businesses that represent the road transport industry. Similar to the measures introduced for gig economy workers, a new collective agreement-making framework will be created, allowing workers to negotiate better pay and conditions. Eligible contractors will also gain protections against unfair contract terminations and can apply to the commission to seek a remedy.

This bill also introduces an industrial manslaughter offence in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and increases penalties, because, again, being safe at work is a right. It is the expectation of all workplaces that they provide a safe work environment, and breaching work health and safety duties should carry serious and significant penalties. The new offence—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just going to need to interrupt.

Debate interrupted.