Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our economy, our society and our nation rely on our workers, and they in turn rely on strong government backing to support and protect them. That's why I am proud to stand here with my colleagues and speak in support of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, which is incredibly important. I'd like to thank the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations for his tireless efforts in this space protecting the most vulnerable people in our society. Australians expect and are used to having safe and fair working conditions. In the last decade, many working conditions have changed, and our industrial relations policies have not kept pace with that change. It's very important that we have legislation that underpins our strong workforce and helps ensure that hundreds of thousands of mums, dads, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters go to work and come home safely each day. This expectation, however, is grounded in the strong and tireless efforts of workers, labour advocates and governments fighting for these entitlements and protections.

This bill covers many things, from closing the labour hire loophole to tackling wage theft and covering greater protections for workers, particularly in the digital labour and transport industries. We've all seen how our workforce has changed with the use of things like Uber and with labour hire companies taking over many roles in things like construction and mining, and our legislation and our worker supports have not kept up with these changes. This bill covers many things, from closing the labour hire loophole to tackling wage theft and covering greater protections for workers, particularly in the digital labour and transport industries. For too long, certain workers have been missing out on greater workforce protections and supports due to loopholes, which have been exploited by unscrupulous companies and individuals, that allow pay and conditions to be undercut. This sometimes affects people on very low incomes in insecure jobs, and it is shameful.

We know that stealing from the till, forging cheques or robbing a bank is criminal, and people get prosecuted for it. Yet companies and people that steal wages are left untouched by the criminal justice system. This bill will change that. The minister noted in his second reading speech that this bill would make this behaviour criminally punishable, as an employer convicted of wage theft could face up to 10 years imprisonment. I know the vast majority of employers do the right thing, but when they don't they need to be held accountable. We'll also make sure with this legislation that the penalty for wage theft is greater by granting courts the ability to impose fines of up to three times the amount of wage underpayment in both civil and criminal contexts, thereby ensuring that penalties are proportionate to the scale of the misconduct. Whether it's underpaying their wages or their superannuation contributions, it is wrong that these loopholes are even there in the first place, and they must be closed.

I would like to thank the strong men and women from the union movement for their tireless advocacy in addressing issues with these loopholes. Particularly, I'd like to thank Gerard Hayes of the Health Services Union; Paul Farrow of the AWU, our great local councillor; Richard Olsen and Michael Kaine of the TWU; and Sally McManus of the ACTU. They've worked tirelessly on this. Without their efforts and the efforts of their members, workers would be much worse off.

Casual labour hire workers, particularly those who are or have been on this in the longer term, have missed out on serious workplace and workforce protections and benefits while doing the same work and job as other workers who may be part time or full time. The ramifications of this are significant and must be addressed, which this bill will do. This is a major issue for those workers who are injured, who are often not called back to work and are replaced by another worker sent by the labour hire provider in their place. Without protections, these injured workers struggle to gain additional employment, and they do not receive the same workplace protections as those with fixed work arrangements. This is particularly true in the gig economy. We've seen that with injured delivery drivers and with injured short-term workers in the construction industry left destitute by the lack of protections.

I should note that it's not that the labour hire providers are always in the wrong. Some do protect their workers. Those people who do the right thing will not be affected by this legislation. If an employer or business asks a labour hire worker to do the same job as non-labour hire workers but for less, then that is a labour hire loophole, and this bill, very importantly, will close it.

It's very difficult for workers without permanency to obtain leases for things such as cars—even leases for houses these days, in the rental crisis that we're seeing in Sydney and around the country—refrigerators, televisions and stoves. It's very difficult for people in non-continuing work to be able to get leases for this sort of equipment, and this bill will help close that loophole. One member of my staff recently informed me of a period in their life when they were a casual worker whilst at university and needed to obtain a loan to purchase a car to get to and from work—my work. However, as they were on a casual contract, the only loan they could get and secure was one with a sky-high interest rate, which they had no choice but to accept. We've changed that for people like them, but it was a big loophole that they found very difficult to overcome. As they put it, no car equalled no job, and the financial risk was deemed worth it to secure ongoing employment.

This scenario plays out every day around our country and is a very real stress that too many Australians have had to unfairly endure. That is why this bill is so important. We are seeking to reduce such experiences and help more Australians get into stable and long-term employment. Some people may not want regular employment. They may want to work intermittently on a casual or part-time basis—no problem with that. This is about individual choice and helping people secure permanent work when they need it. Why should workers, especially those engaged in long-term jobs, be ostracised from the benefits of permanent, part- or full-time work and have their labour efforts milked by those who seek to make greedy gains off them? We know that some companies and some people have exploited that, and it's very important that this loophole is closed, which is what this legislation is about. It is about closing loopholes.

It's well known that there is a direct link between low rates of pay and safety issues at work. And, tragically, we've seen a number of workers lose their lives in places like the construction industry, which is a dangerous industry, and the mining industry, which is a dangerous industry. Even food delivery services can be quite a dangerous occupation. Recently, whilst visiting central Sydney, I saw a food delivery driver knocked off his bike by a motor vehicle. He fractured his leg, but his main concern, as we stopped to help him, was that he wouldn't be able to work, would therefore lose his income and wouldn't have any way of paying for a roof over his own head. That's a tragic situation in a country like Australia—a wealthy country like Australia. So that needs to change. Even more at risk are those working in other parts of the gig economy, as they're more likely to be pressured into working longer hours, taking more risks—and we certainly see that in the mining and construction industry—and feeling pressured to take on more work due to their real fears of not having any long-term, permanent paid employment.

Some days ago, the family of Burak Dogan called for this parliament to pass this bill. Burak was a 30-year-old Turkish student and Uber Eats driver who was killed in April 2020 between jobs, when he was hit by a truck in Sydney. So this is reality. This does happen, and this bill is extremely important in closing this loophole and providing some safety net features for those in the lowest-paid employment. For Burak and his family, obviously his death insurance and workers compensation were not covered under existing legislation, meaning that the benefits and funeral expenses could not be claimed. That's terrible. It really should not happen in a country like Australia. This is wrong on many levels, and it means that already grieving family and friends are often left with additional stresses and trauma to deal with during such troubling times, including sometimes transporting bodies overseas to their families.

In my view, what has been happening—and it's a term that is bandied around—is really unAustralian. We need to do much better, and this legislation is very important in supporting that. It's why, as I mentioned earlier, that so many Australians expect safe and robust working conditions to protect them, their children, their employment prospects and their family. Without strong protections, our workforce and our economy would be greatly at risk, not the other way around like those members opposite wish to project. It is important that even the lowest paid in our community get those protections that we all expect. Unfortunately, for the last decade we've had a laissez faire approach to protecting the lowest paid workers in the country. That approach is not appropriate. We have too many resources and too many people doing extremely well in this country to let those who are most disadvantaged pay the costs for this.

We're working to ensure that this bill provides the Fair Work Commission with the powers to include employee-like reforms of work which will allow it to better protect people in the new forms of work, such as the gig economy workers and workers who work in some of the most dangerous conditions, from exploitation and dangerous working conditions. This will be done through the commission's ability to set minimum standards for thousands of workers in places such as the digital platform, where we are seeing more and more people, even in my own field of health care, being involved in work which can often be unseen and sometimes, up until now, unprotected. It will reduce unsafe practices and deter both employers and employees from taking chances with risky behaviour. The race to the bottom by those wishing to exploit and abuse Australian workers must and will stop. It has gone on for far too long.

In relation to this, this bill will help ensure that employees who are experiencing family and domestic violence will not be discriminated against in the workforce, which shockingly can and does occur even in this day and age. We've seen it happen. This legislation acknowledges that far too many Australians, often women, have had to face dreadful decisions and choices about losing their jobs or putting up with violence in their relationships, and this government has worked extraordinarily hard to make sure that they are protected, and this legislation will further close loopholes in that regard. For far too long we've seen women severely injured from domestic violence. Unfortunately, a woman a week dies because of domestic violence in this country. We have to change that. There is no other answer other than to protect these workers. It's not right, and this bill ensures that workers are not penalised in any way if they disclose that they are or have been experiencing family and domestic violence. This builds on our government's work from earlier this year when we introduced 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave, which saves lives, helps victims and protects our workforce.

It is for these reasons that I am very proud to support this bill and to defend Australian workers from exploitation and from being neglected. I again thank the minister and his team for their efforts. The minister has worked extraordinarily hard and extraordinarily long to try to make sure that workers are protected, and I congratulate him on this bill. I congratulate my colleagues and those in the union movement and the labour movement who have worked incredibly hard to look at these protections in a very methodical and practical way. This bill allows people from my electorate of Macarthur and around the country to now have the option of secure work with secure protections for their working lives. I'm very proud to be part of a government that believes in the philosophy of this bill and closing these terrible loopholes that have allowed very poor people to be exploited.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this industrial relations bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Those opposite have been very calculated in how they've framed the debate about the industrial relations bill that sits before us today—very calculating indeed. We're told that this is all about closing loopholes. They want so much of our focus to be on this framing that they even titled it the closing loopholes bill. In fact, I have heard that the minister is in line for a Guinness world record for his relentless use of the word 'loophole'. The frequency and the intensity of his exhortations sparked my curiosity because in my time in this place I have learnt that when a Labor government wants to hide something they really lean into the framing, and they've done exactly that with this legislation.

But there is something they've missed. In their attempts to confuse and confound with loopholes of loopholes, they have missed that it is actually a word with a double meaning, and its other meaning reveals an apt metaphor for what is going on with this bill today and how this Labor government treats the Australian people. The word is derived from the Middle English 'loupe', meaning an opening in a wall, and 'hole', from the Germanic. Historically, a loophole was one of those slits in a castle wall that would allow an archer to shoot arrows down on an enemy and remain protected from those who wanted to see what was going on behind the wall or, indeed, wished to attack it. Nowadays, of course, it has come to signify a means of escape or a tricky way out, but for a long time the word represented a slight opening in a seemingly impenetrable wall. You see, just like a French mediaeval archer, this government loves to hide behind loopholes. We see it time and time again, and we see it today with this bill.

The minister and his union buddies have all been bunkering down in their own little comrades castle, constructing their dream legislation while selectively feeding pieces of information like arrows through those loopholes, never showing too much, never exposing themselves to risk of scrutiny. I think this is a far more apt representation of what we have seen from this Labor government when it comes to industrial relations and when it comes to this bill, but, thanks to Australia's parliament, the minister has been forced to put down his drawbridge and bring his 'frankenbill' into the sunlight for the world to see, and it is ugly. If it were up to the opposition, we would put a stake right through its 'frankenheart'.

Here we are, a year on from the charade that was the Jobs and Skills Summit, and not even those who played along then would stand up for this bad Labor government now. It's getting very lonely for the government on the battlements. It's not a surprise, because this really is a bad bill. It's as simple as that. The Albanese Labor government's closing loopholes bill will make life a lot tougher for Australian businesses that are already feeling cost-of-living pressures. This bill will increase costs, increase complexity and introduce more red tape that will likely lead to job losses. According to the government's own estimates, this bill will cost employers up to $9 billion in extra wages over the next decade alone. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations said that businesses will likely be able to simply pass on these extra costs 'through higher prices for consumers or third-party businesses'. Doesn't that just sound like something that comes out of the bureaucracy?

The reality is that the changes proposed by this bill are far from 'very modest', as the employment minister described them. The employment minister does not care that the job creators of Australia are telling him that it will be harder to keep people in their jobs. Mr Burke himself has admitted that the new laws will increase costs for consumers for everyday services that they have come to rely on. This is a radical reordering of Australian workplace law which every business organisation in this country has pleaded with the government not to go ahead with.

Industrial relations reform is without a doubt one of the most important of all of the economic reforms required to make Australia more productive and competitive. The focus of any industrial relations reforms must be to make us more productive and create more jobs. 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. Any changes must be designed to improve productivity, grow wages and enhance competition. These are the ingredients of a successful economy. That's not what we see in this bill. These workplace relations changes will add uncertainty and complexity to the employment of millions of casuals, contractors and labour hire workers. That's not good for the economy.

There is no reason to attack existing arrangements that are working well. Business groups and employers say that the proposed IR changes will smash productivity, investment and job creation. Jennifer Westacott, chief executive of the BCA, said:

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

I believe she also said that these measures are 'unnecessary' and 'unworkable'. She also said:

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

The government has failed to demonstrate how these new laws will make it easier for businesses to employ people, increase productivity, create a higher skilled workforce or raise living standards. In fact, this bill may even exacerbate our already dire housing crisis. Chief Executive of Master Builders Australia Denita Wawn said the government's goal of building an extra one million homes by the end of the decade 'will be significantly in jeopardy if the IR laws are passed, because of the constraints on productivity'. She also said:

… there is a real risk the radical industrial relations agenda being pursued by Minister (Tony) Burke will negatively impact these efforts.

It's like watching a lone dancer perform a different routine amidst a synchronised troupe—counterproductive and out of place.

Millions of Australians are already suffering under the crippling cost-of-living crisis of this government's own making. Why do they want to make matters worse?

These workplace relations changes will add uncertainty and complexity to the employment of millions of casuals, contractors and labour hire workers. That's not good for the economy, and it definitely doesn't support the housing and construction sectors. This bill is about eroding the choice and flexibility of individuals who want to work in their own time and on their own terms. The bill will introduce a new definition of casual employment that will replace the existing definition that was inserted in the Fair Work Act in 2021. This measure is unnecessary. The permanent-casual loophole has already been closed. All casuals have the right to convert to permanent status after 12 months if they work regular hours. The government plans to add a new right after six months in addition to the existing system allowing conversion after 12 months.

The new definition is three pages long and includes 15 factors to determine if an employee is a casual. An employee will be a casual only if they meet these factors. If not, then the business is breaking the law if they tell the employee that they are casual, even if the employee wants to be casual. Even the new conversion process is eight pages long and is separate from the existing conversion regime after 12 months. There will be two streams regulating the same thing. Employers can be exposed to involuntary arbitration by the Fair Work Commission if a worker or union disputes their decision or their interpretation of the definition. Employers would have no choice but to force workers to move to a permanent role, losing their additional income and choice of hours. The legislation will, in effect, discourage casual employment and make it too risky for many businesses to even consider.

We all want Australians to have safe, high-wage, sustainable jobs and to be rewarded for their hard work and experience. This sort of complexity and the costs associated with it will be impossible for small business to deal with. This bill will make Australians pay more in a cost-of-living crisis. It will add additional cost to businesses, especially our valuable small businesses. It will make it more expensive to build houses. It will weaken our economy. It will make a bad situation worse.

Whenever the government move legislation of this sort, they always stand at their dispatch box and they read quotes from all of the organisations and individuals who support what they are doing. This bill has no friends. These measures do not have support. Everywhere we go in the community, when we talk to business large and small and to people who work in this area, they cannot find a single good thing to say about this bill. That is actually quite surprising to me as someone who's been in this place for many years. What is even more surprising—well, perhaps not surprising—is that the minister for workplace relations has given himself extraordinary powers in this bill. He's given himself powers to make regulations. He has also given extraordinary powers to the Fair Work Commission. He's given them powers to make decisions that overturn previous concepts of common law—for example, 'employee-like'—and make them into something that they are not at this point in time.

The incredible intervention is bad enough, but, if you're someone who is subject to this bill, what it means is that you don't have any confidence, because you can't see what it will mean for you or for the people you represent or for the business you work in or for the industrial relations landscape that you need to know about because you need to provide the advice to businesses and workers. You don't know. You can't tell. You just get from the government, 'Well, it won't mean this,' or, 'It might mean that,' or, 'Wait and see,' or the dismissive laughing gestures that we so often see from members opposite—that we see all the time—with a smirk and a sneer and a jeer and a lack of deep, careful analysis. Well done to the Senate and Senator Michaelia Cash in the other place for actually putting off the detailed debate on this bill until February next year. That is so important. I think there are about 800 pages of the bill. I think there are maybe 500 pages of explanatory memorandum.

Like many in this place, I want to look at it in detail. I want to understand it. I want to hear from business and industry. I want to know what it really means. But what I do know is that, when I walk into small businesses, onto manufacturing floors and into communities across this country, they are exhausted and they are fed up. They are just beaten down with everything that they have to deal with. I know that the good members opposite know this because they are in their communities too and they hear the same things. They understand the cost-of-living crisis that their people are experiencing. With that knowledge, members opposite, please make the necessary representations to your minister. I am not sure what circles he is moving in, but this bill will be so difficult and so bad for our economy broadly and for our small businesses.

When I say small businesses, I don't mean just the business. I don't mean just the mums and dads who work tirelessly 24/7 in their own business, who don't pay themselves a wage, who work on weekends, who are struggling to get workers and who are at the point of not knowing what to do. It is a situation of such despair. I don't mean just the business; I mean the fabric of the communities in which those small businesses are. In rural and regional Australia, where I come from, those small businesses and the people who run them are the volunteers. They are the mums doing canteen duty. They are the people at school sports day. They are the communities. They are the fabric of our extraordinary, resilient and battling Australian communities.

We're not going to support reforms that will weaken our economy and continue to make a bad situation worse for Australian small businesses and families, and I urge the government to come out from its battlements, listen to the community on this issue and stop hiding behind its loopholes once and for all.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Safe and fair working conditions are one of the foundations of our Australian working life. These conditions give workers and their families a sense of security, hope for the future and the basis on which to build a productive and meaningful life. Labor governments have always understood this. It was Labor that introduced enterprise bargaining, outlawed sex discrimination in the workplace, passed the Fair Work Act and removed the WorkChoices program, and passed the secure jobs, better pay legislation. Labor governments continue to enshrine safe and fair working conditions as the cornerstone of industrial relations policy, and that's what this legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, is all about. It continues this proud tradition because what we know is that fair working conditions are not set in concrete. They can be easily eroded. They can be buffeted by a changing economy, new and different work practices, technological change and the pressure of consumer expectations.

We have all seen this happening over the past decade with an increasing reliance on the casual workforce, labour hire, gig workers and independent contractors. With these changes we have a growing insecure workforce whose conditions are not always safe and not always fair. I understand and the Albanese government understands that businesses need to make a profit and workers need to be secure and safe in their workplace. One should never be at the expense of the other. There must always be balance in our industrial relations system, to deliver for both businesses and workers. That is how we improve productivity. That is how we get better outcomes for businesses and for workers. But at the moment we know this balance is not right. So far this year, 91 workers have been fatally injured in the workplace, and that is 91 too many. We know that some employers are intentionally underpaying staff and taking advantage of labour hire so that people doing the same job are paid different wages, and we know that some businesses are taking advantage of casual workers.

The Albanese government recognises that the vast majority of businesses are doing the right thing. They value their employees, they care for them and they pay them accordingly. This legislation is about protecting workers from those unscrupulous employers who exploit loopholes and who put the success of their business above the welfare and conditions of their workers. Such unscrupulous behaviour has a detrimental effect on all workers. Take casuals, for example. If we want casuals to have a pathway to secure work, we need to close the loopholes in our industrial relations system. I note that casual employment does suit many Australians and plays an important role in our workplaces, but when someone is called casual on their pay slip or their contract, and yet is rostered like a permanent worker, then there's a clear loophole. A worker like this should be able to choose secure employment if they want it. The ability to treat someone as a casual, against their wishes, when they are working like a permanent worker, is simply unfair.

Under this bill, a casual will still be defined as someone who does not have a firm commitment to continuing, indefinite work, but now employees will be able to notify their employer that they wish to be made permanent if they believe they no longer meet the 'casual' definition. To provide certainty to business, casual employees will remain casual unless they actively choose otherwise, and, where an employee chooses to become permanent, no back pay will accrue. Our government acknowledges that most casuals who are eligible won't convert. Most will prefer to keep their loading. But those casuals who are supporting a household are more likely to choose security, because we know their rent isn't casual; their bills aren't casual.

If we want enterprise agreements to determine minimum rates of pay at a workplace, as they should, we need to close the loopholes. If we want gig workers and those in road transport to have safe work conditions, which they deserve, we need to close the loopholes. And, if we want labour hire workers to be paid fairly and equitably, we need to close the loopholes. On this point, I understand there is a legitimate role for labour hire in Australia. Because of the inherent insecurity, labour hire workers are usually paid higher rates of pay, and those cases are completely unaffected by this legislation. But, when a business agrees to rates of pay in an enterprise agreement and then asks labour hire workers to work for less, this is a labour hire loophole, and this bill will close it. As far as wage theft is concerned, it is already a crime for a worker to steal from an employer, yet it's not a crime an employer to steal from a worker. Through this bill, we will close that loophole.

Our nation's workers have waited for far too long for these changes. Now they have a government that is ready to stand up, to act, and to ensure our IR system is fit for purpose for the challenges posed by rapid technological transformation. Over the last decade, and especially through the COVID pandemic, we have seen enormous growth in preference for jobs that have flexibility and that have security. This reflects the changes in our modern workplace, and the increasing demands on workers juggling a range of different responsibilities in their lives. They want flexibility and they want security. But, since 2008, the number of jobs that have both high security and high flexibility has increased by only five per cent, despite rapidly rising demand. Unfortunately, the fastest category of growth in the Australian labour market has been jobs with low flexibility and low security. These jobs have increased by 29 per cent since 2008.

Our modern workforce want security and flexibility to manage their lives, to care for their families and to enjoy everything that our nation has to offer. But it is a challenge. It is often giving them jobs that offer neither security or flexibility. This bill is about changing that reality. It accepts that flexible work practices are required in the gig economy but it adds basic standards and reasonable, fair protections. We know that the gig economy has grown to cover passenger transport, food delivery, health care and many other industries. It should be noted that it has created many benefits for workers, including flexible job opportunities. But it is time to ensure that all gig work is secure, safe work.

It's not only in Australia that this IR reform is occurring. Countries including France, Britain and Canada, and several states in the United States, have already changed their laws to provide more rights to gig economy workers and create new categories of employment for dependent contractors. Like many of our friends around the world, the Albanese Labor government is committed to modernising workplace laws to deliver jobs that are flexible, secure and safe. In the gig economy, this means ensuring workers are entitled to appropriate minimum standards and protections. This means taking jobs that already have flexibility and retrofitting security into them. As the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has said, 21st-century technology must not mean 19th-century working conditions.

Those in the union movement and my colleagues on this side of the House come from a proud tradition, stretching back hundreds of years, of building a fair workplace, fighting for the eight-hour day, providing people with decent pay that can support them and their families, and ensuring safe, secure workplaces. But the technological changes that are arriving with the gig economy threaten to wipe away centuries of progress, to take us back to an era where there was no holiday pay, no minimum pay and limited protections and safety standards.

Unlike the former coalition government, who cast a blind eye to this challenge, the Labor government and the minister for workplace relations are proactive in reforming workplace relations across our nation. This approach is already reaping rewards for workers, who are now able to access 10 days family violence leave. The gender pay gap has also reduced, while we have seen a 15 per cent pay increase for aged-care workers, along with an increase in the minimum wage.

I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the work of the unions—particularly the ACTU and Sally McManus, and the TWU—businesses and community groups, who have all been consulted and have contributed to the development of this legislation. I commend their proactive commitment to seeing its introduction in this place.

This legislation underpins the Albanese Labor government's commitment to continuing our mission to enshrine safe and fair working conditions and practices into industrial relations policy. This bill puts flexibility, security and fairness at the centre of IR policy. It closes loopholes that exploit workers and recognises and supports the vast number of businesses that are doing the right thing and valuing their workers.

In closing, with this bill we continue the mission of all Labor governments who came before us, to make sure that safe and fair working conditions remain enshrined as foundations of our Australian way of life. I commend this bill to the House and I urge all in this parliament to support it, because, when we support it, we are supporting all working Australians.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In Romeo and Juliet, Juliet says:

What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet.

Of course, that's William Shakespeare using those lines in his play to convey that the naming of things is completely irrelevant. So it is with respect to the bill presently before the House, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment—and here comes the Shakespearean contribution—(Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. If it were just as easy as that! I've got some alternatives which I was just penning down when the member for Corangamite was eulogising the involvement of the union movement, which I'll get to at some point during this contribution. But here's an alternative: 'Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Complexity, Cost and Confusion) Bill 2023' or perhaps, more saliently, (Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Doing the Unions' Bidding) Bill 2023'. You see, there's nothing in a name, and the people of Australia ought not to be hoodwinked by what the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations would insert into the brackets. So it is that employer groups around this nation have come together and condemned and called out this effort, because they get that it's not about what's in the brackets; it's about what's in the bill.

Given that I am following on from the member for Corangamite, who made such glowing references to the union movement, let me say that it would be right for Australians to think, at a time when we've got almost record levels of employment, when employers are desperate to hold onto employees, 'Why are we looking to undertake these reforms?' I'm sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, as you travel around your electorate and speak to employers, you hear the same as me. Employers tell me, 'The challenge is finding people to fill roles.' At a time when the employment market is so tight, why are we looking to undertake these reforms?

The answer is a simple one. It's time to pay the piper, with respect, Mr Deputy Speaker. The piper is, of course, the union movement, who, for nine years, stood steadfast alongside the Australian Labor Party, providing gargantuan contributions to their campaign funds. Of course, these contributions don't come without strings. What we're seeing writ large in the parliament, both in tranche 1 and tranche 2, which is supposedly less controversial—let's all hold our collective breath for tranche 3, which I think has been described as the 'controversial' contribution to the reform agenda—is effectively the Australian Labor Party, through its minister, paying the piper and making good on that compact between the Australian Labor Party and its union bosses. This is about expanding union memberships, which are in decline across the country. It's about effectively acquiescing to a long list of union demands, which are all about the union agenda, which is to grow union memberships, union power and union control of the economy, in the same way that those very same unions exert immeasurable control over those opposite and their agenda.

I want to talk about a couple of specifics, and one in particular. I'm particularly concerned about the impact that this bill will have on group training organisations. In my electorate, many of the apprentices that are placed into host businesses aren't employed by those businesses; they're employed by group training enterprises. I had the great pleasure of visiting one of the best of such employers just last Friday. MTASA, Motor Trade Association South Australia, are, I expect, the largest single employer of apprentices in the automotive vehicle and mechanical space in South Australia. They use their economies of scale to train people to exceptional standards, and they place those apprentices and trainees in host businesses. I'm very concerned about what these changes will do to that model, because, of course, that looks a lot like a labour hire arrangement, but it's not labour hire in its traditional sense. So I'm very concerned about what impact that will have on the ability of that organisation to provide training to these individuals at that very high level.

But I'm equally concerned about what it says around flexibility. I said earlier that we're in a phase of the Australian economy where employees are in the strongest bargaining position they've been in probably my lifetime. That strong bargaining position has meant that individual arrangements can be entered into that speak to flexibility, remuneration and other things. But, effectively, by this approach we are going to disincentivise employers from taking up those flexible arrangements. We're saying to a young tradie that theirs is a life effectively of servitude to a large employer and they will not be able to effectively, entrepreneurially, develop their business and skills via a subcontractor model. There's nothing wrong with the subcontractor model. In fact, many people enjoy the flexibility that it offers, allowing them to work hours of their choosing on the basis of their own negotiated arrangements.

We should be looking to create more flexibility in the industrial relations system in this country, not less, but, of course, that's not a model that those opposite prefer. Those opposite prefer a very command and control style arrangement, where unions are at the heart of not only the industrial relations system in this country but also every small business, whether it's the tearoom, the car park or the factory floor. I visit many employers in my electorate, very few of whom have high levels of union membership. But, equally, I speak to their employees, and they couldn't be happier with the individual arrangements they're entered into, the flexibility et cetera.

The other impact this bill is going to have on the small-business sector in particular—small- and medium-scale enterprises—is that it's going to operate as a disincentive. Millions of Australians take the plunge, and I remember doing it myself, when I went from someone who was employed in a business, taking home a wage every fortnight, to someone who established their own business. I remember taking that plunge, signing the lease, sitting behind the desk from IKEA that I'd spent the weekend putting together and thinking to myself, 'Goodness this better work, because I've mortgaged my house to do it.' It's a real threshold question, and not one that's easily taken. I've got to make an admission: I had the support of my family in making that decision, and not every Australian has that. I remember my parents encouraging me to make that step and saying to me, 'Son, if it goes bad, we're there for you.'

Not every Australian has that safety net. But what those opposite are doing via this bill is raising that threshold even higher so that a young tradesman who has worked in that trade, has become a young professional, knows that they've got the business skill to operate their own business and can see a path forward now has to think seriously about how they would go about that, because that transition from employee to business owner can't go via the subcontractor model, which is, with respect, a soft-landing place for people, particularly in the building trades—going from working for a builder to running your own private enterprise. There is that space in the middle where you can continue to offer your services to your principal client, if you like, but have the ability to do additional work in that space. This is going to take that ability away from a young tradesman, and I think that is a very difficult thing to contemplate.

There is also the other concern that I have, and in the time I have remaining to speak I want to address this. I can't for the life of me understand why those opposite effectively make decision after decision after decision, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, that will do nothing but drive up the cost of living. Of course, members of the opposition, very many of whom who were here during the period of the last government, dealt with a crisis of their own. The COVID-19 pandemic was a crisis like none that I have faced while I have been in this place, and I've been privileged to be here for a little over 10 years. But we faced up to that crisis. We had a plan and we executed it. We didn't get everything right, but I'm not sure we made decision after decision after decision to make that crisis worse. We did our level best to assist Australians to maintain their lives—and save their lives—and livelihoods.

Yet those opposite, facing their crisis—because every government faces challenges—a cost-of-living crisis, come in here day after day as if the crisis is not taking place. It would be as if in our situation we had denied the existence of COVID-19. Of course we didn't do that. We faced up to it and sought to do our best in light of it. But we have members of the now government coming into this place, question time after question time, effectively telling Australians they've never had it better, when all the while every decision they are taking is putting greater pressure on cost-of-living challenges.

Whether it's the bill we will debate next, which is about ripping irrigation water out of irrigation communities, only to put up the price of fresh food in this country—and, for those that are listening in from home, returning 450 gigs to the Murray-Darling Basin is the equivalent of ripping out 35 million orange trees—or whether it is energy, fresh fruit or wages, which impact every single aspect of our lives, we're seeing prices going up.

It is time for those opposite to face up to their challenge. It's a cost-of-living crisis in this country. Australians don't want you talking about the Voice. They want you focused on their challenges. They don't want these reforms. There's plenty in a name, but nothing in this bill's name. It's not about closing loopholes; it's about driving up the cost of living.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Our government, the Albanese Labor government, was elected on the commitment to get wages moving. To do that, we do need to close the loopholes that are undermining wages and conditions, and that's exactly what this set of reforms are intended to do and what this bill is all about.

The bill contains four main elements: criminalising wage theft, introducing minimum standards for workers in the gig economy, closing the forced permanent casual-worker loophole and closing the labour hire loophole as well. We announced all of these four policies whilst in opposition and we took all of these to the Australian people at the election in 2022. People were very supportive of this in terms of providing those better conditions for workers.

This legislation is very extensive. It does a number of different things. First of all, it legislates a fair and objective definition of 'casual employee', with a new pathway for eligible employees to change to permanent employment if they wish to do so. It protects bargained wages and enterprise agreements from being undercut by using labour hire workers who are paid less than the minimum rates.

Importantly, it allows the Fair Work Commission to set out fair minimum standards for employee-like workers in the gig economy, introduces a new criminal offence for wage theft which applies to intentional conduct, allows the Fair Work Commission to set fair minimum standard to ensure the road transport industry is safe, sustainable and viable and introduces a new offence of industrial manslaughter in the Work Health and Safety Act. It also extends the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to address silica related diseases. Very importantly, it makes it unlawful to discriminate against an employee that has been or continues to be subjected to family and domestic violence.

All of these changes that are contained within this bill are not radical; they are very, very reasonable changes. All we are doing is making the current law work more effectively. Closing labour hire loopholes will simply require an employer to pay rates that have already been negotiated and agreed to. These are rates of pay that are already set for the work that is being done. Our employee-like reforms simply require workers to have some minimum standards benchmarked against existing award rates when they are working in a way which is similar to employees. Our wage theft reforms will simply strengthen the enforcement of existing rates of pay. Most employers out there don't want to be undercut by those who are doing the wrong thing. There is support for these changes. Our new definition of 'casual employment' will clarify what was always intended with casual work—that is, if you are working regular, predictable hours and you want to be permanent you will have that pathway available to you.

In this bill, the Albanese government is also standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees. We're closing the loophole that leaves people classified as casuals when they actually do in fact work permanent, regular hours. That means they work just like permanent employees but don't get any of those benefits of job security currently. We're legislating a fair, objective definition to determine when an employee can be classified as casual, and this will help more than 850,000 casual workers who have regular work arrangements, giving them greater access to leave entitlements and, really importantly, greater financial security. The fact is that household bills aren't casual. That's the reality. Rent isn't casual. Electricity bills aren't casual. School fees aren't casual. They are absolute certainties. But these people in insecure work do not have the same certainty about their hours or their regular income. The fact is that no-one will be forced to convert from casual to permanent employment if they don't want to. Employees should not be stuck as a casual when they are working just like permanent employees but don't receive the benefits of job security or leave entitlements. That's why we brought in this incredibly important change.

We are also closing the labour hire loophole. We know that labour hire has legitimate uses in providing surge and specialist workforces, and that will continue to be the case. But this bill amends the Fair Work Act to give powers to the Fair Work Commission to make orders that labour hire employees be paid at least the wages in a host's enterprise agreement. The bill is delivering on the government's 'same job, same pay' election commitment. The loophole is that the Fair Work Act allows employers to use labour hire workers who are paid less than the rates of pay agreed to in a workplace's enterprise agreement as a way to circumvent the agreed rates of pay. What the government is concerned about is the labour hire loophole which companies deliberately use to undercut the agreements they have already made with their workers. This loophole is simply unacceptable, and that is why we are changing it.

We are also introducing minimum standards for employee-like workers, particularly those in the gig economy. This bill will also extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of work, allowing it to better protect people in new forms of work from exploitation and dangerous working conditions. The bill implements an election commitment to allow the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for those employee-like workers, especially those within the gig economy. The bill provides a list of content that minimum standard orders can cover, like payment terms, deductions, insurance and cost recovery. We all know how important it is to address this, particularly when we have seen the growth in the gig economy and many great safety concerns. We have acted on that because we understand how important it is to have these changes there.

Very importantly, this bill makes it unlawful to discriminate against an employee who is or was subject to family and domestic violence. These proposed changes are so incredibly important because they ensure that workers are not penalised in any way if they disclose that they have been subjected to family and domestic violence. It's very important to have this in place for those victims-survivors. On top of this, we saw the government's reforms last year in terms of employees in this country having access to 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave. That indeed is a work entitlement that will save lives, and this change will also save lives. Particularly, on those 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave, this was an issue that many, many people campaigned and advocated for so many years. We were very proud to be delivering that as a Labor government and are equally proud to be delivering these changes to ensure that there isn't any discrimination against employees who are subject to family and domestic violence.

This government, as we have stated many times, is absolutely committed to ending violence against women and children in one generation. We've made that incredibly clear, and we have also had lots of bipartisan support for all of these measures. I know that everyone in this chamber shares that view, with all of us working together to get to that point. We have also had a record investment of $2.3 billion to address gender-based violence. So we do have that whole range of measures, but the aspects in this bill are incredibly important. This proposal is to implement a jobs summit outcome to provide stronger protections against discrimination by including a new protected attribute of 'subjugation to family and domestic violence' in the Fair Work Act. We know family and domestic violence can affect all aspects of a person's life, including their wellbeing and their productivity at work, and they should not be subject to discrimination in the workplace because of what has occurred to them. This proposal will clarify and strengthen protections and assist victims-survivors so as to make available to them these important workplace rights. These amendments will prohibit national system employers taking adverse actions such as termination of employment against employees because of their subjugation to family and domestic violence. So this is a very important provision within the changes of these bills.

Another one that I would like to talk about that is also incredibly important is that our government will make it easier for first responders who develop post-traumatic stress disorder to access workers compensation. We know that first responders suffering from mental health conditions such as PTSD can often find the workers compensation claims process challenging and stressful. It's so vital they get all the support that they need. As part of this bill, affected workers will no longer be required to prove that their job significantly contributed to their PTSD when making a compensation claim. This is referred to as 'presumptive provisions', effectively reversing the onus of proof from the injured worker to the employer. The specific reforms in this bill cover Commonwealth and ACT government first responders, including Australian Federal Police employees, ambulance officers and paramedics. This government will always provide support for and stand alongside the first responders who keep our nation safe. I'm very pleased to be referring to this too; as a former frontline police officer, I know how important it is to have these measures in place and how widely they have been welcomed, to provide that support to our first responders who do an incredible job.

In this bill, the government is particularly taking action to make our trucking industry safer, sustainable and more viable. As part of this bill, the Fair Work Commission will have the power to set fair minimum standards for the road transport industry. Setting standards in the road transport industry will save lives. That is the reality, not just for those in the industry but for all of us who share the roads. That's why these changes are equally important. For too long, we have all heard so many stories of the very deadly impact of the cost-cutting and many of the unrealistic deadlines, which are often placed upon many of those people. We saw that in the very starkly illustrated Senate report Without trucks Australia stops. That's why having this in place will make a major difference—unsustainable business practices and increasing commercial pressures are also threatening the viability of the road transport industry. That's exactly why we're acting and why we do have these very important changes here now. Under our legislation, the Fair Work Commission will have the discretion on what those minimum standards will cover, such as fair payment terms, and must be satisfied that its orders won't adversely impact the viability or competitiveness of road transport contractor workers as well.

We have taken very decisive action across a whole range of measures to provide greater job security, greater conditions and better wages for a whole range of workers, particularly those in the emerging areas such as the gig economy. That is an area we are all very familiar with, and for quite a substantial period of time people have been calling for changes in this area to ensure there's greater security and greater safety. So across a whole range of measures we have acted because we know how important it is to provide that support to workers. And we were elected on that mandate. We were elected on the mandate to get wages moving, to make workplaces fairer for everyday Australians. In conclusion, that's exactly what they've done. I certainly commend the bill to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, I thought it would be good at this point of the debate to give a few examples—workers stories, stories of people that I've met, people's stories that I've heard firsthand—of why this bill is so important and how the loopholes that exist in our industrial relations are affecting them. It's not something that is new to me; it's something that has been occurring in our labour market for the best part of two decades.

Yes, once upon a time if you were employed to work as labour hire in a workplace it was considered surge workforce. You'd come in; you'd get paid a premium above what those working on the site would get paid; you worked for a short period. It was incredibly important for some of those workers. They really enjoyed that short burst of work, particularly if they were uni students and they did that surge work during their holiday period or if they were people at that point of time in life working in that capacity. But there was reward for doing that insecure work. That was what happened, and organisations and firms would pay that premium to those workers to make sure they could get their jobs done.

However, what happened at some point in our industrial relations, particularly in organised industries where we have long-standing collective agreements, HR teams and companies started to work out that you could pay workers less if you went to labour hire firms. This happened in the mining industry. This happened in the manufacturing industry. And what happened next was it wasn't just for short periods anymore. People were engaged for long periods on these labour hire arrangements.

I'd just like to let people know what was occurring. I visited the site of a well-established bakery in my electorate—you might have heard of the brand Tip Top Bakeries. As a union official it was part of my job to meet workers and talk to them about what was going on. They had a few labour hire workers on site. One of those workers had been there for a decade on a labour hire arrangement. It wasn't a short-term gig; it was a decade. They were being paid less than their co-workers, who were on the collective agreement. This isn't uncommon. Unfortunately, this isn't rare. What we were seeing happen across our economy, particularly in manufacturing and in mining industries, were collective agreements that were negotiated by the employees employed under that agreement, but then as new workers came onto the site they weren't being directly employed. They were being employed by a labour hire company or a labour firm and they were employed on a different rate of pay, which quite often fell below the award. So they were doing the same job but not getting the same pay.

This wasn't just happening in manufacturing, and it wasn't just happening in my electorate; it was also happening at some of our big food manufacturers. I do want to acknowledge the efforts that some of our food manufacturers made to say to their labour hire firms: 'Look, we want to do the right thing. We want to see site rates be paid.' I want to acknowledge an abattoir in my electorate tried to address this issue when it was raised with them, but not all have done that. They saw the savings. In one particular case, they saved a dollar for the company and a dollar for the labour hire, and that worker literally got paid $3 an hour less than the other workers. And it was completely legal.

It is legal in this country to employ somebody on an award, and it is legal in this country to employ somebody under a collective agreement, and it's an employer relationship that is recognised. We have seen, in a number of industries and a number of workplaces, employers deliberately using a loophole to recruit new workers by having these labour hire arrangements in place. That is why this bill is so important. It's not just in manufacturing; it's in mining—it's rife in mining. It's in transport: one of the big gripes and concerns we have about Qantas is the fact that they went from directly employing all their workers to using subsidiaries and different companies, paying their workers less and breaking up the way in which they bargained. This has become such a common issue in our workplaces and in our community that it's really changed the traditional notion that we all have of what is a workplace, who is an employer and who is an employee. That is why we're working hard in this bill to close those loopholes.

We talk about wage theft. This is why I cannot believe the opposition's opposition to this. How many stories do we have to hear of migrant farm workers being exploited before we do something about it? We hear about $4 an hour for blueberry pickers around the Coffs Harbour area, some workers not being paid at all, and the Fair Work Ombudsman working overtime to try and recover money for these workers. When it becomes so systemic, we have to do something legislatively about it. You cannot expect there to be a Fair Work Ombudsman on every farm and in every cafe trying to clean up the fact that migrant workers aren't being paid properly. We need reform, and that is what our job is.

One of the other key areas that this bill is seeking to address is making sure that people are aware that if you steal from your workers that is a crime. If you knowingly and deliberately take money from your workers' pay, that is not allowed—that is a crime. We would say obey the law, whether you're that worker or that employer. Too many examples have gone through. These aren't rare cases; these are multiple systemic cases. It's occurring in some industries specifically, but it is widespread. We know that from the work that the ombudsman does. We know from the reports and the inquiries that were done under the previous government how big a problem this is. That is why we are looking to close the loopholes and make sure that people know that they cannot take from their workers.

There are changes to casuals. Once upon a time, casual was casual. I say 'once upon a time' because there was a period in Australian employment law when employers respected a casual was someone who came in infrequently—who didn't have that regular roster. The previous government said that they fixed it, but the problem is that they made the rules so hard that nobody has been able to successfully challenge their casual employment status. I do accept there are a few workers out there who like to have that flexibility on their roster, but there's a whole bunch that don't, and they are trapped in insecure casual relationships. If you get a regular roster every single week and you have that roster for 12 months, it is no longer irregular. It is a set roster, and you should be able to exercise your right as being a permanent employee. That is another loophole that we are trying to change in this bill.

On the transport industry and food delivery drivers: this is where we have to modernise our industrial laws to recognise the changing nature of work. People like to have delivery to their doors. Uber Eats, particularly, during COVID became a really big thing. I don't think there's anybody here, unless they live in an area where there isn't Uber Eats, who hasn't often used it. Yes, we do struggle sometimes to get those drivers in Bendigo, but those drivers are workers. Those drivers are workers, and they should be paid properly. Maybe if they had a minimum standard we'd get more of them in regional Queensland, in Shepparton and in regional Victoria, because it could be a job that guaranteed a minimum pay. That is what we're talking about: a group of workers who rely on an app for their work. It is the new form of lining up, waiting to be picked: 'Do you have work today?' It's now done remotely on an app. Those workers deserve minimum standards. That is the role of this parliament and what this bill does. It's modernising our laws to reflect the changing nature of work and saying to a predominantly migrant workforce, a group of workers who might be here studying or on another visa arrangement: 'You too are workers and you have minimum rights.'

In my part of the world a lot of these workers can be parents that are picking up extra money to help pay the bills. They're not that demographic that you sometimes assume it is when it comes to your Uber Eats delivery driver and so on. But they quite often turn over very quickly in these roles because they realise how exploitative they are. This bill says that those workers deserve a minimum standard, that they deserve a minimum rate.

I want to very quickly touch on the idea that this will scare small business, that this will create such a shock and horror for them. No, it won't, because, if you're doing the right thing by your employees, then it won't affect you. That's the critical point that those opposite always seem to forget. They seem to assume that every small business is exploiting these loopholes, exploiting employees. They are not. The vast majority of small businesses have a great relationship with their workers, and they get frustrated when big firms use their lawyers and their very expensive HR resources to undercut them, and they lose contracts. It happens in cleaning. It happens in security. It happens in hospitality. It happens across the board. So I say to you that small business, when they understand what these changes are, will be on our side, because these changes go after corporate Australia, who are exploiting workers, using their knowledge to manipulate the IR system—and shame on them for doing that. Shame on Qantas. Shame on BHP. Shame on all these big firms who implemented it as a business model to pay workers less. I know the fear campaign they are running. They are saying to those vulnerable workers, 'If this reform goes through, you will lose your job.' That's exactly what they are saying in those workplaces. The unions and workers can see it a mile off.

This is about restoring fairness and respect and saying to that insecure worker, 'After a decade of working in that mine, you deserve the same rights as the person who's been working there a decade and a day longer than you.' Quite often, the difference between being directly employed and being employed by the labour hire firm is the day that you started. Some of these labour hire arrangements go back that long. It goes back to when the corporates decided, 'Here's how we can save some money.' Quite often, the old-school workers who have worked in that mine for three generations can tell you exactly when that day was and how it broke the back of good, secure jobs in those regions.

We want to be a country that makes things. We want to be a country that has secure jobs in health, in education, in cleaning, in security, in hospitality, in every industry. These changes before us help bring back that job security and restore that relationship that so many employers and employees want: you turn up, you do a job, same job, same pay. You know who your employer is. If you get that direct relationship, you can have a decent conversation. That's the other thing on small business. They directly employ their employees. If you are a labour hire employee, it's really easy to get rid of you. You just get told that day that you are no longer required to be at that site, and then you're waiting for the next engagement—and that does happen when people raise issues.

Finally, on the changes that are happening around union officials being able to enter workplaces: it used to exist, and the world didn't collapse. You used to be able to go in and inspect the books and make sure people got paid the for the hours that they did. We used to do it. The world didn't collapse, and we had a lot fewer underpayments going to the Fair Work Commission. Quite often, that union organiser, or that delegate, sitting down with the supervisor was able to point out to them that they had missed an allowance, that they had applied the wrong rate and that was worked out. The world did not collapse.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They turn up at your house, where kids live. They don't have to give notice, union thugs—

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, I would like the Leader of the Nationals to withdraw the comment that union members are thugs. I'm a union member. I was a union leader. I was the head of the ACTU and I was the head of the ANMF.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't say union members were thugs.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't say that union members were thugs.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did you say then?

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said 'union thugs'.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not a union thug.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not saying that you are—

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not a union thug. I'm a member of a union and I was a leader of a union for many years. I think you should withdraw.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just withdraw it.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to withdraw.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the final time that I have, I want to give a shout-out to the hardest working unionists in this country—

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They turn up to homes.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're talking about me.

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

Order! The member for Bendigo has the call, and she'll be heard in silence.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And they are the workplace delegates, the people who put their hand up to represent their co-workers, raising underpayment issues and job insecurity issues. I thank them for their advocacy. That is why we have this bill today. It is through their hard work and their raising the changes they wanted to see in their workplace, not just in meetings in this place or with their local MPs but with their union leaders, who brought about this advocacy. They've fought for every one of these changes, and I thank them.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.