Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have here is a bill that has been a long time coming, in so many respects. The main pillars of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 were announced whilst we were in opposition over two whole years ago. Those pillars, of course, were taken as policies by us at the last election. Despite this extensive foreshadowing coupled with extensive industry consultation after the election, the opposition feel that they have been blindsided. Businesses have been blindsided, almost as if they were one homogenous entity, which is quite a contrast from their approach during the formulation of Jobs and Skills Australia, not to mention the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation and even the nature repair market framework.

But it is the allure of digging a trench and forming a battleline as part of the old war—the long war that those opposite have waged against those who earn a living wage and go about their working life, hoping to avoid suffering from unscrupulous, unjust or unsafe practices by their employers. You'd like to hope that that isn't too much to ask for. Despite what those opposite would portray of this side of the chamber, this bill is not a battle waged in some great eternal war or a struggle between employers and employees. Those opposite prefer to substitute employees with unions, as if that somehow makes it more palatable to a wider audience outside their own echo chamber. It literally took a global pandemic event for those opposite to entertain bringing in representatives from the union movement to consult on policy. That in itself demonstrates the gulf of difference between the approaches of two parties of government in this country. They'd obviously prefer to avoid like the plague—until there is one—speaking to unions.

Our government, the Albanese Labor government, takes a very different approach. It is one of collaboration and tripartisanship, working with employer groups, employee groups, unions and other stakeholders, which are all working in concert to further the national interest. This is a reality those opposite refuse to accept.

What is vividly at the forefront of my mind is the disgraceful display in this chamber on Monday, particularly by the member for Bradfield and the member for Page. It was little wonder that they were so angry when faced with the prospect of reading a couple of hundred pages of explanatory memorandum, because you'd have to wonder whether they've read House of Representatives Practice after the several years that they've been in this place. But it was their words as part of the debate rather than the procedure involved that got my attention. They spoke to the urgent need to pass four parts of this bill. They were saying how generous they were for passing these bills before Christmas.

But these provisions are not just uncontroversial; not doing so would be a kick in the guts to all those workers these bills set out to protect. I had to look up because I wanted to see them say these things whilst they relived their school debating glory days on the floor. I certainly couldn't hear any sincerity in their voices. I couldn't see any in their actions either. I fear that even to this day their copies of the explanatory memorandum are collecting dust on the bookshelves in their offices somewhere in the building, a bookmark sitting somewhere inside of them. If they had even bothered to do their reading, they'd have seen that their argument is one that completely rejects a lot of other measures in this bill—a lot of loopholes that are going to have a whole bunch of negative consequences for thousands of the workers that the members for Bradfield and Page seem to have overlooked as part of their first day of attempting to convey empathy toward workers.

What are they overlooking? It is a very long list. They seem to think that there is zero requirement for urgency in the need to introduce the provisions concerning industrial manslaughter. But, of course, they wouldn't see urgency. I know that a good number of members have echoed the sentiment that everybody deserves to return home safely after heading to work each day. Frankly, this should be something that goes without saying and doesn't need clarification as to whether both sides of the chamber see eye to eye on it. During their nine years in government, they showed no urgency on that front either.

What they also continue to show zero urgency on is wage theft. Seriously, if the roles were reversed, we'd have employees locked up indefinitely and charged with theft. Oh, wait—that is what happens! Why shouldn't everyday mums and dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters have the right to expect that, when they go to work to earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, they get paid correctly? It's not that unrealistic to expect this. Unfortunately, I have seen on far too many occasions that wage theft is a business model. I have represented countless workers in the road transport industry, helping them to claw back unpaid wages. It's not just unpaid wages; it's unpaid overtime and unpaid superannuation. We are talking about the difference between paying the rent or not, retiring with dignity or not. Wage theft has real consequences, and I make no apologies in supporting the closing of this loophole. But it is little wonder those opposite have no appetite for criminalising wage theft. It is an absolute disgrace that we have seen Victoria and Queensland criminalise wage theft on their own because they couldn't wait any longer. You know who else can't wait any longer? Australian workers.

On that note, another group that can't wait any longer is the road transport industry. It's an industry that carries Australia. It's an industry united in purpose to deliver reform to its sector through closing loopholes. This is a sector delivering between four and five per cent of Australia's GDP. The reason I say 'industry' is for clarity to those opposite, that I don't just mean—#triggerwarning—'unions'. I know this because I was part of the dialogue within our industry long before I came to this place. I have seen the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation, the National Road Freighters Association, NatRoad and others, along with the TWU, come together to discuss meaningful resolutions to save our industry, make it viable and save lives in the process. This is represented by 575 transport companies, 30,000 owner-drivers and over 650,000 transport workers across Australia. The simple fact is this: the current regulatory framework doesn't provide for viability within the sector. It is why the empowering of the Fair Work Commission to set fair minimum standards is so important. This will lead to a safer, more sustainable and viable industry.

We need to stop companies like Scott's Refrigerated Logistics from going into administration, with 1,500 workers waking up to find out they have no job. That is what this bill seeks to fix. Owner-drivers are being pushed to the wall, where a tyre blowout ruins their chance of breaking even for a trip. That is what this bill seeks to fix. Just last year there were 185 truck related fatalities, which included 44 truck drivers who lost their lives. That is what this bill seeks to fix. As to why the member for Bradfield and the member for Page don't believe in addressing this as a matter of urgency—it beggars belief.

The member for Riverina dismissively referred to these measures as nothing more than a means for greater union membership coverage within the road transport sector—this, despite the vast majority of both employer and employee organisations and business groups in this sector calling out for these reforms. But the member for Riverina, as he regularly says, was a union member for 21 years, and now he joins in the chorus on the other side of the chamber, which sees a whole industry united and discounts their joint position that widely supports these provisions in the bill. It's almost as if more workers joining a union is a price they feel isn't worth paying in order to avoid more blood being spilt on our roads.

The member for Riverina has probably attempted to see if he can refund his union dues over these long years. We all know he has better things to spend his money on, such as antique books. It was no surprise that the member for Riverina did not join his colleagues in their tantrum over the number of pages within this bill and its explanatory memorandum. The members for Gippsland and New England may prevent him from coming here to lead, but the member has certainly come here to read instead. I can vividly recall the member for Riverina holding aloft a very old leather-bound book in the Federation Chamber as a part of a point he was making on the Murray-Darling Basin. Instead of being armed with the latest data, he prefers to refer to a book published back in 1888—the good old days to some, perhaps; a simpler time. It's a hallmark of a true conservative if I ever saw one. Unless a book was printed by the dutiful hands of a monk—'No, I don't want to know about it.'

It's now my turn to explore a little. I might take a page out of the member for Riverina's book—though not from his antique book; from a slightly more contemporary book, the ninth edition of the Macquarie Dictionary. I do so because our use of language is important. Definitions are important in ordinary use but important still when prescribing legislation. The word in question I am reading the definition of right now is 'casual'. We hear a lot about what it means to be a casual worker, with those opposite and business lobby groups making further distinctions by coining contradictory terms such as 'regular casual'. It just didn't sound right to me in every way that I know casual work to be taking place in workplaces across Australia. The dictionary here defines 'casual' in a number of ways, including 'happening by chance', as in a casual meeting. The example given is: 'appointed to join the Senate to fill a casual vacancy'. The dictionary also gives 'unpremeditated, offhand or without any definite intention' and 'irregular or occasional'. The example used there is:

She was excellent at her job and she was willing to accept casual employment without any allowance for the time she must inevitably take off.

Other definitions include 'participating in activity occasionally' and:

Employed for a short period of time on a rate that is high compared with permanent staff rates but which does not include benefits such as holiday pay.

Lastly, it gives 'a worker employed only irregularly'.

It really makes you wonder, when reading through submissions and statements from the business lobby. Is it big business or is it our government that is making the radical departure from what we understand casual to mean?

The business lobby sure talk a big game about flexibility in the workplace, but, the second you draw the Uno reverse card on them, they suddenly appear quite inflexible with the nature and extent of their flexibility, which should be of no surprise to any of us, regardless of one's overall perspectives on industrial relations. I recall the member for Menzies's initial contribution to this debate, including a quote he gave from Jennifer Westacott, the former CEO of the Business Council of Australia. She stated:

Australians should have safe jobs, well paid jobs and rewarding jobs, but the government's radical shake-up of the industrial relations system will not deliver that.

The real radical notion is that the business lobby and their parliamentary proxies on the other side of the chamber walk a very fine line with casuals. They have casual disdain not for casualisation itself but merely for those that have pipedreams of having a stable and rewarding job. They had me in the first half of that—I'm not going to lie.

The Business Council have even attempted to do a bit of astroturfing, with their own special-purpose website, casualworksforme.com.au. It is very informative if role-play is your thing, and far be it for me to judge. Scrolling through the page, there are a number of examples of workers whose lives are about to be destroyed by the very prospect of obtaining secure full- or part-time work. We can see once more the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse showing itself after not quite making the cut in the Book of Revelation—'Conquest, war, famine, death and secure and stable employment.' It doesn't quite have the same ring to it as the others.

In one of the examples we meet Nick, a casual retail worker who is saving for a holiday. I hope Nick is a proud member of the SDA. As the website I mentioned states:

Nick's saving for an overseas holiday and his higher hourly rate as a casual is helping him reach his goal quickly.

But we skip to Nick somehow magically becoming part time and losing his dreams. His life is ruined. This scenario also fails to mention that Nick being on holiday, if he still were a casual employee, would be earning zero dollars and zero cents—nothing—for that entire time. This goes for casual workers on a holiday, but equally so when they are sick. We all know bills aren't casual. We can all remember the height of COVID-19, when many casual workers were left with a choice to make about whether they tried to mask their illness and spread it or stay at home and earn zero, nothing, nada.

The craven motives behind the stances and tactics of those opposite on this legislation are basically the only forms of transparency they are capable of consistently displaying. These loopholes need to be closed urgently and frankly. We need many of them closed yesterday, and much sooner than that too. For these reasons and so much more, I commend this bill to the House.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many of us have enjoyed the benefits of the gig economy. Getting food delivered at home through apps on our phones has made a big difference to our lives, and many of us do it regularly. Especially through the pandemic, it was something that, for many people, was a literal lifeline. Now it's something that, for many people around the country, has become a regular part of every week and we enjoy the convenience that it brings. We know that the big names of the corporations behind the apps are making an enormous amount of money off the food delivery services. They often charge a markup compared to if you went into the shop itself to get it. They make an enormous amount of money off the people who deliver it to our doors as well.

We don't often think about the wages and conditions of those people delivering that food to our doors. What are they working under? What do they actually enjoy? You probably think that, in a country like Australia, people who do that should be entitled to, at a bare minimum, the minimum wage and get a number of protections you'd get in an office job or a factory job. But, because of the way our laws have been structured up till now, many of those people bringing food to our doors and also increasingly working in other areas like aged care, or in care in general, or in disability care, where they're turning up to do a bit of work perhaps at the start of the day and at the end of the day, are in many instances not caught by things like minimum wage laws. Why is that? It's because our laws have allowed big corporations to say that those people aren't employees, that they're just independent contractors who happen to be running their own business, as if there was somehow some level of parity between Uber Eats and the rider delivering the food from the restaurant to our home. They say: 'That person could basically be a business. We'll treat them as a business, and they're responsible for looking after their own minimum wage. They're responsible for looking after their own insurance. They're responsible for looking after their own pay if they get sick.'

Most people, if they were made aware of the conditions that a lot of these delivery riders and increasingly many more people in the country work under, would be shocked and horrified, and would think it's absolutely unfair that someone could get paid less than the minimum wages and conditions that apply to employees simply because the big corporation that engages them has used a clever legal team to call them something else—to call them a contractor, to call them a standalone driver. These people aren't independent businesses in their own right; they have to do whatever the delivery service tells them, they have to do it in certain times and they have to do it according to certain directions. If they don't do that, they lose their work. In many instances, for all intents and purposes, they're employees but they don't get the benefits of employees.

The convenience that comes from the gig economy shouldn't come at the cost of the exploitation of the workers doing the work, who then deliver massive profits to the corporations that employ them. For a number of years this is something we've been concerned about. We've been concerned about this Uber-isation of work—it's not only Uber Eats; it has been creeping into other areas of the workforce as well, especially the care workforce. For many years this is something the Greens have been concerned about. I brought what I think was the first bill to this place that said it was time to put a hard floor under the wages and conditions of the Australian workforce, so that, no matter what the employer calls you, you get the minimum. I think that should go even further to some conditions. They should be able to bargain as if they're employees or workers. We need to stop the incentive for big corporations to use clever legal labels to call someone something that means they get fewer wages and conditions, which is what's happening to lots of delivery drivers and lots of care workers at the moment.

When I brought that bill into, I think it was, the last parliament, it didn't get support from the government at the time because we know that the Liberals are on the side of the big corporations and the Liberals want to do whatever they can to drive down wages and conditions for people. They don't care if a big corporate profit comes at the expense of the delivery driver who, in many instances, is risking their life and safety in having to navigate streets on their bikes through danger and through all weather. Tragically, we've seen too many of them get injured or lose their lives. It's good that now we're taking steps towards redressing that.

The government's bill doesn't go as far as the bill that I brought to this place to ensure that we get a hard floor under wages and conditions, so that there's no incentive for big corporations to find even more loopholes. But it is good that it addresses the decision of the High Court in which the High Court came to a very different position from what many people had understood to be the law and said, 'No, actually, if you put a label on someone's contract to call them an independent contractor then that's what we're going to give primacy to.' That just ignored the reality of the modern workplace, and it's good that that's going to be addressed. Part of the test for the government's provisions is going to be whether, at the end of it, we see fewer people falling through the cracks. We've got to make sure that these provisions work. If they need to be tightened, they should be tightened. As I say, it would have been good if the government had gone further on this front.

Likewise, on casual work, one of the things that we've seen in this country is a rise in the casualisation of the workforce. The first thing I spoke about was corporations using clever legal techniques to label someone as not being an employee, even though, for all intents and purposes, they are. The second thing that is rife in this country is the casualisation of the workforce. Casualisation, especially when you put it together with the uberisation of work, is destroying people's lives. It makes it impossible to plan for your life and your family if you don't have regularity and guarantee of work.

This is why, a number of years ago, I introduced the first bill to this place to tackle the rise in casualisation and insecure work in this country. When we had the inquiry into that bill, we did not only hear from people who worked in the areas that many people in this country would think of as being traditional casual areas—perhaps in retail or in shops. We also heard from people who worked in our universities—which are publicly funded and are always going be there—who'd worked in the same department of the same institution for eight to 10 years and were never entitled to a day of sick leave during that time because they were put on rolling casual contracts for that whole period. How can it be that you're doing work that you know needs to be done and that is publicly funded, year after year after year, and yet being called a casual? This move towards putting people on rolling contracts, and the casualisation of work, is pushing people to the brink. We heard from university staff who said, 'I have put off planning a family and having a family because I just don't know whether I'm going to have any money.'

It's becoming very difficult in this country for young people to even rent a house, because of Labor's rental crisis, but owning a home is even further out of reach for them if they go to the bank manager and say, 'I've only got a casual contract for the next four months.' But that's the reality for many people, including people in publicly funded institutions in this country at the moment.

Again, I introduced legislation to address this rising scourge of insecure work in this country. Under the previous government, and even the one before that, we didn't get a lot of action or traction on that, especially because the Liberals aren't interested in giving people secure employment.

Again, this bill doesn't go as far as we would like. The test is going to be whether, after a period of time, there are fewer people employed in the insecure workforce.

If it doesn't turn out that way then we should consider revisiting it to tighten it up, because the rise of insecure work in this country, together with Labor's rental and housing crisis and the increasing cost of living, is pushing people to the brink. If government can't step in and ensure that people can get an affordable roof over their head, afford to pay for their groceries and have ongoing work then what is government for? What is government for if it can't put in place the basics so that people can have a good life?

I hope that we get to see some change on that front. It's welcome that we're starting to see some change on that front.

I hear someone from the Labor Party interjecting now to back Labor's push for unlimited rent rises. Labor members from all around the country, all the premiers and the Prime Minister, met and they decided to back unlimited rent rises at a time of a housing crisis. The Labor member is interjecting in support of that, saying it's okay to have unlimited rent rises in this country. It's an interesting interjection from the Labor Party. But that's their position.

They're coming in and talking about affordable housing in the electorate of Melbourne. In the electorate of Melbourne we have the gasworks development, and the state Labor Party has just told us that they're going to pause all the affordable and public housing. So perhaps the member who is interjecting who is from Victorian Labor might want to go and have a word with the Victorian Labor Party, which is in the process of knocking down public housing in Victoria and ending public housing in Victoria by demolishing towers, including in my electorate. Then when it comes to public land, where they could build housing, they're putting a pause on public housing. Now he's gone incredibly silent because he knows that Labor is not only backing unlimited rent rises but knocking down public housing as well. That's the Labor position.

One of the other areas of industrial relations law that we need to address and fix is on giving people the right to log off when they clock off. We need a right to disconnect in this country. For too many people, technology, mobile phones in particular, has meant that their work life is creeping into their personal life and their employer gives them an expectation that outside of work hours they've got to respond to texts and emails. Our industrial relations laws were designed in the pre-mobile-phone age and the pre-email age. We've got to update it so that people have the right, outside of work hours, to switch off unless they're getting paid for it. There will be some people who will get paid an allowance or paid some remuneration to be on call. If that's what people bargain for and that's what happens then that's good. But if you're not getting paid for it then you should be able to ghost your boss after hours. You should be able to say: 'No, this time is my time. I need this to relax. Just because he can contact me doesn't mean it's right to.' We're finding this happens far too often. Not only are there texts saying, 'Can you just answer a question for me?' that end up with someone having to work for an hour or so to find the answer to that question and get back to their employer but what's increasingly coming in is people having to check their phones to work out whether they're going to have a shift or not because the roster wasn't done before they left work and they've been left waiting. All of this contact outside of work hours is making it harder for people to recover and recuperate.

We need a right to disconnect. It's getting strong support through the Senate inquiry into this bill. It's something that the Greens are going to continue to push for because a right to disconnect in our industrial relations laws, a right to log off and switch off when you clock off, is something that contemporary workers need.

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In September, the High Court ruled that Qantas had illegally sacked 1,700 workers at the height of the pandemic. This attempt to undermine legitimate prospective industrial action under the cover of the pandemic demonstrated their contempt for their own employees and indeed the very need to protect workers from acts of industrial bastardry just like this. Over several years Qantas has systemically decoupled its workforce from the organisation in an attempt to inflate unsustainable short-term profit margins at the expense of their greatest asset—their people. At every opportunity, they've outsourced their workforce, creating a web of 21 external companies and a further 17 subsidiaries, designed to avoid enterprise bargaining and dictate wages through labour hire loopholes.

In a recent public hearing of the House Committee on Economics, I asked Andrew Finch, Qantas's general counsel in the office of the CEO, how they ensured workers in this extraordinarily complex web were afforded proper pay and conditions, decent pay and conditions, how they looked after their own people, the people that look after us when we fly with them. He responded very tellingly that they require only that their supply chain comply with the law—the very bare basic law. Given their demonstrated contempt for our industrial relations laws, it is unsurprisingly clear that relying on businesses like Qantas to simply do the right thing by their own employees is not good enough and it's not working. In fact, he even went on to arrogantly defend Qantas's prioritisation of their commercial interests ahead of their legal responsibilities to their workers. This legislation will close the labour hire loopholes that companies like Qantas use to undercut pay and conditions for Australian workers.

While Qantas was found to be in breach of our existing laws on this occasion, too often companies get away with similar tactics. After negotiating and agreeing on a fair rate of pay and conditions with their workers, they bring in low-paid, contracted, labour hire workers who aren't covered by that agreement. Of course, we recognise the legitimate role that labour hire plays in providing surge and specialist workforces, and this bill won't prevent companies from using them. It will simply prevent them from using labour hire to circumvent agreed industrial instruments. It'll give the Fair Work Commission the power to order labour hire employees be paid at least the same wages in a company's enterprise agreement and deliver on the Albanese Labor government's Same Job, Same Pay commitment.

The labour hire loophole is just one of many that this bill will address. Despite some of the fearmongering and the hyperbole and the contributions from the Liberals opposite, it's absolutely not a radical piece of legislation. It is simply about bringing our workplace relations laws up to speed with modern economic settings. We know that our economy has evolved significantly over the past decade with changes to workforce employment patterns, an increased dependence on global supply chains and the emergence of the gig economy. Unfortunately, the previous Liberal government were asleep at the wheel as these changes were taking place and our industrial relations laws have not kept pace. We've seen that as our economy and technology evolve so too do the terms of workforce engagement. It is therefore essential that the laws governing these engagements also continue to evolve in order to protect the fundamental rights of workers.

We understand that hundreds of thousands of Australians rely on the gig economy for work. That's why these reforms are so important. Workers on these platforms shouldn't have to choose between minimum workplace standards and flexibility. No industry should be able to inflate profits by underpaying their workers or failing to provide safe working conditions under the false guise of flexibility. The reality with many workplace arrangements in the gig economy is that ultimate flexibility is afforded to the platform. Gig economy providers enjoy flexibility regarding their obligations to their workforce, they enjoy flexibility with the rates of pay for workers and they enjoy the benefits of a one-sided workforce marketplace. By largely underpaying their workers, they ensure that demand for their jobs remains high as desperate gig workers try to earn a living wage. When this exploitative, open-marketplace approach does occasionally tip in the workers' favour, such as during peak demand times like on a Saturday night, these platforms simply threaten workers with deactivation, essentially forcing them to work or risk losing access to their livelihood ongoing.

A survey conducted by the McKell Institute in conjunction with the Transport Workers Union found that 56 per cent of food delivery drivers had felt pressured to rush or take risks to earn enough and avoid deactivation. Not only that, the survey found that two-thirds of full-time gig workers earned less than the minimum wage and that 45 per cent have struggled to afford basic necessities like groceries and household bills. This means that, too often, gig workers are forced to work a huge number of hours every week, while all the time battling dangerous fatigue and facing the threat of deactivation. While the flexibility of the gig economy is often spruiked by platforms, the reality is that there is no flexibility for a workforce that can't afford not to work. That's why this legislation is so important—to ensure that minimum workplace standards are afforded to these workers and to ensure that the gig economy can operate sustainably into the future.

Under this proposal, the Fair Work Commission can set minimum standards for independent contractors working in the gig economy who have one or more employee-like characteristics, such as low bargaining power, low authority over their work or being paid at or below the rate of comparable employees. This ensures that basic protections are provided to vulnerable gig economy workers, while also not capturing those people who truly enjoy the potential benefits of contract work, such as real flexibility and autonomy over their work. Employee-like workers will also be protected against unfair deactivation under this legislation. They'll be able to apply to the Fair Work Commission to order a reinstatement if they feel that their deactivation was unfair, ensuring that workers cannot be punished for embracing the flexibility that the gig economy celebrates and promises them.

In addition to changes for gig workers, this legislation will enable the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for the broader road transport industry. Already, tragically, more than 150 people have died in Australia this year in truck crashes, devastating families and communities across our nation. The increasingly thin margins in road transport and logistics are creating a race to the bottom as enormous pressure is placed on drivers to make more deliveries more quickly. Not only is this dangerous for workers and other road users—and it is dangerous for both—but it is also threatening the viability of many operators in the industry. In the last financial year alone, 347 companies in the industry became insolvent, and many more are struggling on. Meanwhile, in a survey of employee drivers, one in four reported being pressured to drive past legal hours and skipped mandated rest breaks. One in five had been pressured to speed to meet deadlines, and one in five had been pressured to falsify their logbooks. Clearly, drivers and their employers are suffering. This legislation will help to turn this trajectory around. The creation of enforceable minimum standards in the industry will ensure that companies are unable to undercut each other by undercutting the pay and conditions of their own workers. It will enable those who do the right thing to compete, while also protecting drivers and the workforce more broadly.

The closing loopholes bill also delivers a new pathway for casual workers to seek permanent employment. There are over 850,000 casual workers who have regular work arrangements but who are employed as casuals without the benefit of leave entitlements or any sense of true financial security. Of course, some workers prefer casual employment, and they won't be forced to convert to permanent staff if they don't want to. However, for the workers that want and need the security and assurance that comes with permanent work arrangements, this change is absolutely essential. It allows casual employees who believe their working arrangements have changed so that they no longer meet the definition of 'casual' to seek a conversion to permanent employment. The option will be available to employees of large and medium-sized businesses after six months of casual employment and to employees of small businesses after 12 months of casual employment. Unlike the existing casual conversion pathway—which will remain—the new employee choice pathway is entirely employee driven. It empowers employees to seek the employment status that most accurately reflects the reality of their work arrangements. Importantly, despite the alarmism from those opposite, it does not affect the legitimately casual workforce that many Australian businesses rely on. It will, however, stop businesses from unfairly expecting and requiring permanent and regular commitments from staff without offering them a pathway to the job security that they so dearly deserve.

The changes in this bill are long overdue. For nine years, our industrial relations system stalled at the hands of the Liberals while our economy rapidly evolved, and the consequences upon workers, families and communities were massive. Workers went backwards as wages were deliberately suppressed, and we had our worst decade for productivity in over half a century. The reality is that the Liberals are ideologically opposed to higher wages and better conditions for Australian workers. They're opposed to workers getting their fair share of the dividends from Australia's economic pie. Former finance minister Mathias Cormann even admitted that low wage growth was part of the Liberal's economic plan. This approach not only left Australian workers worse off but it damaged our economy. While real unit labour costs fell by approximately 10 per cent under the former government, labour productivity growth also slowed materially for the first time in decades. By eroding pay and conditions, the Liberals were undermining the long-term efficiency of our labour market to inflate short-term business profit margins. That's why this legislation is so badly needed, not just to improve the pay and conditions of Australian workers but to restore some balance in the labour market. We need to move back towards an efficient equilibrium that realises the maximum productivity potential of Australian workers in the Australian economy.

This legislation was the result of countless hours of work by so many people. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations for his tireless efforts, as well as the ACTU and the broader union movement for their fierce advocacy over the years. In particular I want to acknowledge my friends from my union, the Transport Workers Union of Australia. They have been on the front line of the fight against the loopholes that this legislation seeks to address. It was the TWU that took Qantas to the High Court, refusing to accept their unlawful use of labour hire and winning compensation—and, importantly, winning dignity—for the 1,700 workers who were illegally sacked. The TWU has fought for gig workers in food delivery and transport, signing charters with major gig companies to lift standards, and fighting for compensation for the families of delivery riders who have, tragically, been killed while working. I want to give a special shout out to Mem Suleyman and Mike McNess from the TWU Vic-Tas branch, as well as Michael Caine and Nick McIntosh from the TWU national office. I have seen firsthand the blood, sweat and tears that these people have poured into defending their members and, indeed, all Australian workers—particularly when the former Liberal government abdicated all responsibility. I'm so proud to be part of a government that stands alongside them—the TWU and the entire union movement—in standing up for Australian workers, their pay and their conditions and, indeed, their safety. Every worker, regardless of the terms of their engagement, deserves fair pay and conditions. For those reasons I commend this bill to the House.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The federal electorate of North Sydney is the third-largest business centre in Australia, with some 30,000 small- to medium-sized businesses calling the community home. These businesses, the people who have built them, those who work in them and those who buy from them are the backbone of our community. As such, those living in my electorate are very aware that the current economic climate is creating unprecedented challenges for them. It is imperative that any legislative change that directly impacts these businesses be reviewed through a process that involves deep listening. As North Sydney's federal member, it has been my privilege to do just that when reviewing the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. The opinions I express today represent the input of hundreds of North Sydney residents, who have provided invaluable commentary to help me and my team come to a position on this legislation, and I'm honoured to be able to now advocate for them in this place.

From the outset, let me say there is good in this legislation that my community welcomes. However, they ultimately fear that the devil is in the detail and that this good is a smokescreen to enable less favourable employment practices to be progressed. When you overlay the fact that our current Fair Work Act has over 800 sections, covers 121 modern awards and has more than 100,000 separate wage rates and allowances for employers and employees to navigate, it is little wonder that, when a bill like this one is introduced in an omnibus form, many in the wider community feel both unease and concern. The community of North Sydney supports wage growth and improved worker standards, but it also recognises this can only be achieved if the businesses themselves are operating successfully and efficiently.

With that said, my community welcomes the establishment of a new protected attribute in the Fair Work Act to improve workplace protections against discrimination for employees who have been or continue to be subjected to family and domestic violence. So far this year a woman has been killed every five days by an intimate partner, while many thousands more have continued to struggle to navigate a system that needs to be turned on its head. These changes proposed in the legislation are a welcome step in the right direction.

My community also welcomes greater support for first responders, including police, firefighters and paramedics, suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, just as they support expanding the role for the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to cover silica and silicosis. They also support the small-business redundancy exemptions in insolvencies and support introducing a new criminal offence for intentional wage theft. However, to this second reform, they insist that it be focused on capturing those that are truly pursuing this course of action with intention, not just those who are falling foul of our incredibly complicated award and work system.

Broadly, my community also favours the Fair Work Commission having the power to set fair minimum standards for employee-like workers, including those in the gig economy and road transport industry workers. However, many also express concern that these growing responsibilities for the Fair Work Commission must be matched with increased funding and resourcing and that any change in this area should ultimately still enable employees to work in the terms that they wish to work within, not to which a union would wish they could work to.

There are, however, six key areas that are cause for concern in my community. The first is a fear of the pace and scale of change and the potential for unintended consequences. Coming off the back of other recent significant industrial reform moved by this government, there is a general fear, particularly among small to medium-sized businesses, that there could be several unintended consequences that come with this legislation. In truth, this is the second tranche of an extraordinary amount of change in a relatively short period of time. I just wish this change was matched with the same efforts in climate action. Even large businesses with human resource teams are putting forward that they expect to struggle to get their heads around it.

Perhaps most concerning, however, is the message the scale of reform is sending to the business community. It's a message which is hard to miss and seems pretty clear: this government is expressing a relatively low opinion of those in business. Any successful business knows it is only as strong as those that work with it or for it. So to pursue such broad reform based on an argument that it is required is deeply concerning and insulting to many. The simplest solution for many employers in the face of this commentary will be to just not get involved, meaning they won't risk employing someone on a casual or contract basis. I believe that for many employees this would be to their disadvantage.

The second area of concern is that my community believes there is a specific role for labour hire workers in business, and this legislation complicates it. Several business operators have raised concerns with me around the labour hire or same job, same pay measures, and I confess: when I first saw this legislation, I was also concerned. Previously my partner and I managed and owned a recruitment agency, and when I read this legislation I was immediately struck by the challenges it will create for a business that frequently either deploys or employs temps. Would their pay be based on what was negotiated with the employing company, like the one we owned, or would it require the employing company to pay the temp on the same terms as the company to which they were being deployed? If it was the second option, how would a business that may have upwards of 150 temps across 20 to 30 businesses at any point in time manage their payroll effectively? Frequently, in any business environment, being able to scale up and down—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor 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.