Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, a bill for which the coalition has been allowed just over a week to prepare to speak on what are significant changes to fair work legislation. There are hundreds of pages, in fact, adding to the already hundreds of pages which employers in this country have to wade through to try and ensure that they are not making any mistakes, any breaches or any errors when it comes to employment in this country. This bill makes things even more complicated. In fact, 15 minutes is nowhere near enough time to cover all of the elements, so I'll stick to only a few in the time that's allotted to me.

The first thing I want to go to is Leader of the House, Minister Burke, and his claims about wage theft. We have seen the minister come to the dispatch box and it's been worthy of Hollywood, with his lip quivering while he is shaking with indignation and absolute outrage! The quotes have been something like this: 'How is it possible that it's a crime for an employee to steal from an employer, but it's not a crime for an employer to steal from an employee?' I sit here as a former employer and I find that outrageous because, last time I checked, it is illegal and it is unlawful. Wage theft can't be done legally. It just can't. Given the contribution from the minister and how strongly he's pursued this line, whether in question time or elsewhere, I thought maybe I'd got this wrong and I'd better check. This is probably the only occasion this will happen; I took the advice of the Leader of the Greens and I googled it. I googled: is wage theft a crime in Australia? Guess what? It popped up with all of these answers that said, 'Yes, it is.' I thought: 'A good member of parliament won't just rely on Google. I should go and ask some others for some advice.' So I did. We went to the Parliamentary Library. We asked the Parliamentary Library: is wage theft by an employer considered a crime? It answered, 'Yes.' How about that? There's potential under both general criminal laws and specific wage theft offences in Victoria and Queensland. In fact, most states and territories have general criminal legislation that could be applied to underpayment of wages.

Given my background of a trade and in engineering, I like belts and braces. This time I thought I should go for the third confirmation. So I went and checked on the Queensland governments website. This is from the Office of Industrial Relations. Under the heading 'Wage theft and wage recovery information for workers' it says:

Wage theft is a criminal offence in Queensland.

How about that! It also says:

Employers engaging in deliberate wage theft from their employees face the risk of up to 10 years imprisonment.

That sounds like a pretty big penalty to me.

So I think Minister Burke should reconsider what he's contributing to this House. Perhaps it was a mistake. Maybe he just accidentally misled the House. Maybe it's just untrue. Maybe he didn't do the research. I don't know. But I think the minister should reconsider the way that he's positioned this legislation because it is already unlawful to commit wage theft in this country.

The minister's got form when it comes to blaming the coalition for all sorts of things. In the debate on this bill, we have seen him rail against the former coalition's government's nine years when apparently we didn't do anything. I thought I'd check some of that, too. And guess what? That's not right either. In terms of wage theft and people who are treating their employees incorrectly—and I know because I was heavily involved in the establishment of this—there's this thing called Taskforce Cadena. Taskforce Cadena, according to the Parliamentary Library, does a whole pile of things, particularly around horticulture and where there are individuals who are maybe using illegal workers and not paying them the correct rates, who are robbing them. Did they do any work in the period of the last coalition government? According to the Parliamentary Library, yes, they did. I want to show a couple of examples because I want to demonstrate just how misleading the proposition has been from the minister.

Here's one from October 2015, with compliance operations targeting five karaoke bars in Melbourne and Perth. Almost $11,000 was recovered for 19 employees who were short-changed their minimum wages. In December 2016, there was a compliance operation targeting labour hire intermediaries and employers suspected of exploiting foreign workers in the agricultural industry in the far south-east of Melbourne. They seized more than $400,000 in cash. They sound like pretty strong activities in terms of attacking those who are doing the wrong thing by their employees. For the last example, in December 2017, there was a successful criminal prosecution under Taskforce Cadena resulting in execution of warrants in May and June at a citrus packing plant in New South Wales and a residence in Melbourne. A 59-year-old man pleaded guilty to 12 counts of employment related offences. He was convicted on all charges and fined $100,000. So the proposition being put forward by Minister Burke appears incorrect.

So what are the real reasons? Why are they making these changes? Let's look at what others have said. We have seen contributions from representatives from the Business Council, the mining council and a number of others. Stakeholder comments go along the lines of:

The Albanese Government's latest industrial relations legislation changes are some of the most extreme, interventionist workplace changes … ever … proposed in Australia.

So says Tania Constable of the MCA. The ACCI chief executive, Andrew McKellar, said:

"The only winners in this are union chiefs. The only loophole this bad legislation is looking to close is that of plummeting union membership …

And who is going to pay the price for that? In an unfortunate turn of events, it will be employers in this country. It will be those who are struggling with the cost of living already. It will be those individuals who quite simply can't make the bills for the week because the cost of everything will go up.

We have already established that it is a crime to steal your employees' wages, and, in fact, there have been prosecutions already. We've demonstrated where that has already happened. So what are the reasons for these changes? You can only say, as has been outlined by those who represent employers, it's about doing what unions want. The changes around casual employment in particular makes something which shouldn't be that difficult so incredibly complex. How can those businesses who are not large businesses, who do not employ industrial relations specialists, actually meet the requirements of the legislation? I mean if we look at some of the descriptors, there are now 15 factors proposed to determine if you're casual.

The claims from the minister that the coalition government didn't do anything about this—we did. We made changes in government that every 12 months every employee has the opportunity to go from casual to part-time work if that is what they elect to do. Now, there are many people out there who choose to work casually because it suits them. It suits their lifestyle; it works better for them. They like the higher rates of pay, which include—while I've got the opportunity—an allowance to cover their holiday pay and all of the other things that come with permanence in employment, but it's something they want to do.

What's it really about? It is about union delegates' power. A new workplace right to protect them against employers that refuse to deal with them, can you imagine it—mislead them, hinder them, obstruct their rights in the workplace. As a former employer, the best thing you can do in terms of your business is have the best staff you can find, pay them well, give them the opportunity to shine, because they are absolutely what your business is about, and without them you don't survive. There are bad eggs out there—there is no doubt about it—but it's not as many as those opposite are making it out to be. The idea is that we will have to include powers for a union delegate to roll in basically unannounced because they have 'a suspicion', if I recall the definition correctly, and demand to see wages. They can kick the doors in. Seriously, if unions want more membership, they quite simply should do a better job. They should represent their workers in a way which means more individuals will sign up with them. You can't simply legislate for people to become members of a union because of the laws that have been put forward in this place.

I don't want to take up too much time in the House because I know we've got other business to cover, but quite simply this is not what it's about. We need simplified workplace laws in this country. We need to make it easier for people to employ, because the more Australians that are in employment, the better our country is and the more opportunities we have for individuals to start their own businesses. Can you imagine someone starting up trying to comply with some of this legislation? It is hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages that they simply can't get across on top of all of their other workload including running a business, making wages, paying their bills and paying their employees.

It is not as easy as those opposite put forward to run a business in Australia. It really isn't. I can tell you, as someone who's had many sleepless night about whether I'd make wages the next week, who has cut my own salary and income to make sure that I do because that's what's required, there are not that many employers out there doing the wrong thing—and in the market where the unemployment rate is under four per cent, even more so. So let's call this out for what it is: it is about paying off union bosses and providing more union powers. We have already demonstrated it is not about wage theft, because that is covered already and exists. It is not about what those opposite put forward. It is quite simply about paying off those individuals who want to meet a union agenda. There is a long list of demands.

When we have an environment in which the economy has high inflation, where interest rates are increasing, where unemployment is under four per cent, where mortgages are out of control, where real wages are going backwards, what is the solution from the Labor government? Their solution is to make employment harder, to make it more difficult for individuals to employ more people, to make it more complex. I'm yet to see it—maybe it's in there—but how on earth is Fair Work going to manage all of these additional responsibilities in terms of what they have to sign off, whether it's in a dispute or not? It is going to be a mess, and I can understand why employers are up in arms. I understand why they are going to go out and campaign against this Labor government, because these changes are wrong. They are the wrong direction for the country. They are the wrong direction for employers. They are the wrong direction for employees. Quite simply, not every employee in this country can be a union member. Not every single one wants to work in a big company with big unions and big IR and big problems. Many of them are quite happy to work for medium-sized businesses. They're quite happy to be part of family businesses. They're quite happy to contribute and continue to work, as long as they are paying their bills and putting a roof over their head. This Labor government is making that harder, not easier, and we need to see change.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. From the previous speaker, you get a taste of where those opposite come from. You get a taste of what drives those opposite. There has never been a wage increase for Australian workers that those opposite have supported, and there never will be. When the Prime Minister said that we should lift the wages of those workers on the minimum wage, they went bananas. Just like we saw from the previous speaker, those opposite have never supported wage increases or a safer workplace or any of the hard-fought gains that are there to protect Australian workers that the Australian Labor Party fought for and earned in collaboration with the hardworking people of this country. There has never been an industrial relations measure that the Liberal Party have put forward where they have stood shoulder to shoulder with the working people of Australia. It's not in their DNA. Everything has been fought against by the Liberals and the National Party. Everything has been fought against by those opposite, and everything has been put forward by those people on the Labor side of the House. This bill is no exception. This bill is another example.

There are loopholes out there that affect the hardworking people of Australia, loopholes that those opposite didn't mention in their contributions, loopholes that are allowing companies, after making enterprise bargaining agreements, to push them aside and undercut the pay and conditions of workers. This bill is designed to stop some of those things. It's also designed to support those workers in the gig economy, a completely unregulated environment, something that the previous speaker didn't even touch on but something that I'm going to go through in my contribution.

Let me start by saying this clearly, unequivocally and proudly: we in the Labor Party are proud to stand with the hardworking people of Australia, we're proud to stand with our colleagues in the union movement and we're proud to stand and work collaboratively with the business community of Australia, because we know that, when unions, business and government are all working together, they can get the best outcomes. That is our objective, unlike those opposite, who want to shut out the workers of this country. That is not our philosophy and that is not our approach. Our approach is to bring workers with us and support the working men and women of our great country.

We were elected on a promise to get wages moving, and that is exactly what we are doing. The legislative reforms that we are presenting encompass four main elements: closing the labour hire loophole, criminalising wage theft, properly defining casual work and ensuring gig economy workers are not exploited. These reforms are not radical; far from it. These reforms are about making the current law work more effectively and they're about ensuring that workers are paid fairly for the time that they operate for the businesses that they work for.

Let's go into some of these reforms. The first one concerns casual employment. Casual employment works for many Australians, and it does play a vital role within our workplaces. However, there exists a clear loophole when someone is classified as a casual on their payslip or contract but essentially functions as a permanent worker. These individuals follow permanent work schedules, accept shifts as permanent workers do and anticipate ongoing employment without a fixed end date. Now in such cases it's only fair that these workers have the option to choose secure, permanent employment if they wish.

The ability to label someone as a casual employee against their preference, despite performing duties similar to permanent employees, is an unjust loophole and we are committed to closing it. The core definition of a casual worker will remain unchanged: someone without a 'firm advance commitment' to ongoing and indefinite work. However, this legislation empowers employees and employers to assess the actual working conditions, moving beyond what's stated in the contract. If an employee believes they no longer meet the casual definition, they can notify their employer of their desire to transition to permanent status.

And to provide business with certainty, casual employees will remain as such unless they actively opt for a different status. Importantly, if an employee chooses to become permanent, there will be no backpay obligations. While most eligible casual workers may opt to retain their loading, there are those who depend on their job to support their household and seek the security of permanent employment. Rent and bills are not casual, and they need an ongoing and more reliable option.

To ensure fair resolution in the case of disputes, the Fair Work Commission will have the authority to intervene, including through arbitration as a last resort or in exceptional situations. This measure aims to prevent employers from intentionally and unfairly misrepresenting employees status as casual when, in reality, they should be considered permanent.

We know that labour hire plays a vital role in providing specialised and surge workforces; however, the loophole that allows companies to use labour hire to undercut existing wage agreements is very concerning. This practice undermines the agreements that have already been made with workers, and we're determined to close this loophole. Our proposed legislation empowers the Fair Work Commission to make orders that require labour hire employees to be paid at least the wage stipulated in a host's enterprise agreement. This measure aligns with our commitment to same job, same pay and ensures that workers receive the agreed-upon rates of pay regardless of their employment arrangement.

There are also minimum standards for employee-like workers, and I'm referring to those in the gig economy. The gig economy has completely revolutionised the way people work, offering flexibility for many. However, this flexibility should not come at the cost of exploitation or unsafe working conditions. Our government is extending the powers of the Fair Work Commission to protect employee-like forms of work, including gig workers, from exploitation and dangerous conditions. This will allow the Fair Work Commission to establish minimum standards for new forms of work, ensuring that gig workers are not paid less than they would be as employees. People who are working in the gig economy should not be paid less than the minimum wage. It is essential to clarify that we are not trying to force gig workers into employment. We respect their choice for flexibility; however, we don't accept a situation where 21st century technology is accompanied by 19th century conditions.

Finally, I want to touch on one other really important part of this legislation, and that is the support of survivors of family and domestic violence. I know some of my colleagues have spoken to this, and I would like to add my support. This bill will make sure that employees dealing with family and domestic violence don't face discrimination at work. I was proud to work with those across the parliament and proud to stand in this place when this government introduced legislation for 10 days paid leave for family and domestic violence situations. This legislation commenced on 1 February. This was an important reform for victims and survivors.

No person should have to choose between employment and leaving an abusive relationship, and today's legislation takes this one step further. Today's legislation, which those opposite are apparently opposing, ensures that workers won't face any repercussions for disclosing their experiences with family and domestic violence. Violence doesn't discriminate and neither should the law. This bill is an important reform, and I am hopeful that every member of this House will be committed to ensuring that a person who comes to their workplace and talks about the fact that they are in a position where they are facing the most unimaginable circumstances at home are not discriminated against.

This is an important package of reforms. It is an important package of reforms that says to someone that, if you are in a company for an extended period of time and you are essentially working as a permanent employee, you deserve the opportunity to have a pathway to permanency. If you choose to remain on casual employee status then that is entirely a matter for you. That is fine because that comes with loading and comes with some of the flexibility that some people choose, depending on the circumstance in their life. But what we know about the experience of too many people in the Australian workforce is that the opposite is true, that people are overwhelmingly not choosing to stay on as casual employees, but they are stuck in a position where they can't choose to get a permanent employment situation. They're in a position where they can't choose to have all of the other entitlements and benefits that come with ongoing permanent employment. Many people in Australia are locked in a position where permanent employment isn't a possibility for them, and we on this side of the House say that we want to change that. We want to make sure that those workers who want a pathway to permanency, to give themselves and their families that certainty, have that choice.

This bill also goes to the fact that, for companies who agree to pay their workers an amount in accordance with their enterprise bargaining agreement, those companies are not then able to find a loophole that allows them to undercut those arrangements. We want to make sure that, once they've agreed upon a set of pay and conditions, they cannot find, through ongoing labour hire arrangements, the ability to get people to do the exact same job but for less money and with less favourable conditions. That is unacceptable, and we seek to change that so that workers who have an agreed position with their employer via an enterprise bargaining agreement, get what they deserve and get what they bargained for. I reiterate that I don't think—and I don't want to generalise—that there would be any member of this place that hasn't at some stage benefited from or sought the services of those people in our gig economy. Especially during a pandemic, those people working in the gig economy turned up to work and made sure that food and other essential items were delivered to people in their homes. They kept turning up to work, and the least that we can do, as people in this place, is to have their back and to empower the Fair Work Commission to make determinations about what the minimum standards are for the people who at times risk their lives and at times have lost their lives working in the gig economy.

I want to take this moment to recognise the tireless advocacy of the Transport Workers Union who have fought for this reform for years. They have fought for their members and for those people who have lost their lives at work. We absolutely unequivocally say that no-one should lose their life at work, but we know that the conditions of those people in the gig economy are not up to scratch. This is an important set of reforms that will enable the closing of a range of loopholes. These reforms say to people that, if you want a pathway to permanency, it will be possible. They say to those people that, if you have bargained for an agreed set of pay and conditions, that will be honoured. It is an important set of reforms that says that, if you are a gig economy worker, you will be protected and have minimum standards at work. It is an important set of reforms that also says that, if you are experiencing the worst form of violence or family and domestic violence at home, you will not be discriminated against at work.

If those opposite want to come in here and defend one of those propositions, then let them. But we on this side of the House proudly stand by our record on industrial relations reform. We proudly stand by the fact that each and every hard-fought gain in workplaces for the pay and conditions of Australian workers was led by the mighty Australian Labor Party in partnership with the Australian trade union movement and in partnership with the hardworking men and women who have made our country everything it is. This is an important set of reforms. It says to our workers, the hardworking people that make our economy tick: you are worth it, you are valued and you deserve the pay and conditions that befit the Australian people. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.