Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1) acknowledges the position previously taken by the House that the division of a bill in the House in which it did not originate is undesirable;

(2) without departing from this position, distinguishes this occasion on the basis that it involves the division of a Government bill in the Senate, at the initiation of the Government, setting it apart from previous occurrences;

(3) therefore concurs with this action taken by the Senate on this occasion; and

(4) agrees to the amendments made by the Senate.

We have a chance right now to close loopholes that have been undermining pay and safety in the workplace. We have an opportunity as a House right now to change the law to criminalise wage theft, to stop companies using labour hire arrangements as a way to cut pay, to change the law to ensure better support for first responders with PTSD, to change the law to protect workers subjected to family and domestic violence from discrimination at work, to change the law to expand the functions of the asbestos agency to also include people affected by silica and to close the loophole in which large businesses claim small business exemptions during insolvency as a way of avoiding redundancy payments.

We hear so many times in this House about the challenges people are facing with cost of living. There is no stronger way of acting on cost of living than to improve people's wages. There are no people with a worse wages deal than the people who are having their wages stolen. We should never forgot the 7-Eleven footage of the worker being marched across to the ATM in the corner, having to take out their pay that had just been deposited and hand half their pay to their employer, knowing full well that if they had walked around behind the counter and taken the exact same money out of the till, it would have been the worker who had committed the criminal offence. It should be against the law for a worker to steal from the employer. As of today, we should change the law so it's illegal for an employer to steal from a worker.

I want to acknowledge this is in front of us today because of good work that has happened in the Senate involving the Senate crossbench. I want to acknowledge the constructive role played by the Senate crossbench, including the Australian Greens. In particular, I acknowledge the member for Melbourne and Senator Barbara Pocock. I want to acknowledge Senator David Pocock, Senator Jacqui Lambie, Senator Tammy Tyrrell and Senator Lidia Thorpe. All these people have decided to stand on the side of working Australians.

I am proud to be part of a government that made a decision that it had been going on too long in this place that every time someone found a loophole that would undermine tax revenue, the parliament would come in with a taxation laws amendment bill to protect the revenue of government. But when a dodgy employer came up with a way to cut the revenue that is meant to go into the bank account of a worker, for too long this parliament has done nothing. Well, that should end today and that should end with this vote that will come today.

I say to those opposite: 34 times voting to keep wages down probably ought to be enough. It was only a week ago those opposite went through a series of measures in this bill and said, 'Well, if the Senate agrees, and you can do it right now, what is standing in the way?' Well, I say to those opposite: the Senate agrees we can do it right now. Don't stand in the way. Australian workers have a right to have safer workplaces and we can legislate for that right now. Australian workers have a right to know that we will close the loopholes, in particular the labour hire loophole and wage theft that have been used to hit the pay packets of Australian workers. If those opposite have any integrity when it comes to claiming that they care about issues of cost of living, step one is to give people better pay packets. We have the chance to do that today. I commend the resolution to the House.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very sad day for keeping the cost of living low and creating more jobs. This is a very sad day for all of those who take a risk to create jobs and opportunities, because Australian businesses have been sold out today by the Albanese Labor government. They've been sold out by Senate crossbenchers who have teamed up in a dirty deal with this government to pass highly damaging changes to this country's industrial relations system.

Today the unions, the paymasters of this government, are celebrating their Christmas gift while Australians who are grappling with a cost-of-living crisis will foot the bill. The simple fact is that we've seen members of the crossbench side with the government to pass through highly damaging, prescriptive, interventionist, ill-thought-through, productivity-sapping, prosperity-damaging regulation before it has been properly scrutinised through the Senate inquiry process. We've seen something that has been an absolute trademark of the way this government operates.

When they know they're doing something grubby, something to be ashamed of and something that will not stand up to scrutiny in the full light of the examination process, they use every trick in the book of parliamentary process to avoid the scrutiny that the Australian people expect their parliament will be able to carry out on their behalf. They have been desperate to rush through this legislation, because they've always wanted to hide the true intent of this legislation. What we've seen from this government is, at every stage, every possible sneaky, tricky mechanism to avoid debate, avoid scrutiny and resort to untruths because they knew they could not, in the court of public opinion, make an objective, fact based case for this set of payback measures.

This is dancing to the tune of the union bosses and running through the to-do list that the union bosses have had for years and years, all while the percentage of Australians who are actually members of unions sinks and sinks and sinks. Now only eight per cent of private sector employees are members of a union. But, of course, this government knows who pays its bills and pays the donations. Do not be fooled; this is what this is all about. We know that this government does not have the right priorities.

This is a desperate ploy by an embattled government. They're trying to get a headline because they know they've had an absolutely dreadful month. They know that the Australian people are reeling at the shock of nearly 150 hard-core criminals being let out while the two hapless and hopeless ministers yawn and say, 'There's nothing we can do about it.' They've been desperate to bring on some kind of political fix, and so they've done a deal which has led to what we are seeing. The fact is that the costs that are incurred as a result of these legislative changes will ultimately be passed on to 26 million Australians. These are changes that are incompatible with a modern labour market that needs to be flexible, dynamic and rewarding for workers.

This will be a particularly devastating blow to this country's mining and resources sector, which is the engine room of the Australian economy. Look at the Labor Party and the Greens. Who do they think pays the taxes and the royalties? Who pays for the roads, schools and hospitals? Why is this government determined to try and damage the industries that are so central to the prosperity of this nation? That is what this legislation is about.

The process that has occurred here has been appalling. The time that has been available is, frankly, entirely unsatisfactory. The Australian people would be absolutely shocked if they knew the process this government has embarked on. I seek leave to move the consequent amendments, amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Senate amendment (1), subparagraph (b)(vi), omit the subparagraph, substitute:

(va) Part 6 (closing the labour hire loophole);

(vi) Part 7 (workplace delegates' rights);

(2) Senate amendment (1), subparagraph (b)(xi), after the subparagraph, insert:

(xia) Part 14A (amendments relating to mediation and conciliation conference orders made under section 448A of the Fair Work Act 2009);

(3) Senate amendment (3) (proposed new table items 7, 8 and 20A in subclause 2(1) of the Bill), omit the table items.

(4) Senate amendment (9) (proposed new Divisions 3, 4 and 6 of Part 15 of the Fair Work Act 2009), omit the Divisions.

I don't pretend in any way that these amendments make this acceptable, but they're a desperate attempt to try to address some of the most appalling aspects of this legislation.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the Prime Minister, the member for Hawke and the member for Hunter are not in their seats. Interjecting while out of your seat is highly disorderly. If that continues, they will be warned.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the adoption of the Senate amendments and the passing of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Those opposite, clearly, are going to vote against it. That's what they do. They just don't like workers getting a fair go. They don't like workers being properly paid. What is scary about this bill? What this bill provides for is common sense, decency and fairness. It is stopping companies underpaying workers through the use of labour hire. It is criminalising intentional wage theft. It is introducing a new criminal offence of industrial manslaughter. It is better supporting first responders with PTSD. It is better protecting workers subjected to family and domestic violence from discrimination at work. It is expanding the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to include silica. It is closing the loophole in which large businesses claim small-business exemptions during insolvency to avoid redundancy payments to people who've lost their jobs.

This is one of those times where the Australian interest is quite clear. This is a balanced industrial relations legislation designed to also make sure that it benefits those businesses that are doing the right thing. If you have two companies competing and one of them is using labour hire loopholes in order to drive down their costs and gain an unfair advantage against a company that is sticking to enterprise agreements and paying people proper wages and conditions, then what you do over a very short period of time is get a race to the bottom. We know that that was their conscious policy. A deliberate design feature of the coalition's economic architecture was low wage growth.

When we passed the first tranche of legislation, do you remember what they said? November 2022, the Leader of the Opposition: 'Labor's laws will revive the crippling economy-wide strikes.' Maybe I've missed them! Industrial disputes and days lost are down, not up, from when they were in government. The shadow minister, Senator Cash, said it would return Australia to the dark ages, would close down the economy and would leave supermarket shelves bare.

The truth is that there are now more than 14 million Australians in jobs for the first time, there are a record number of women in full-time employment, real wages have grown two quarters in a row and there are record participation rates. We have had an unemployment rate with a three in front of it more times since we have been in government than previously since records began, by many times. There have been fewer days lost to industrial disputes. It was 128,000 in their last quarter; the most recent quarter was 10,200.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Petrie will cease interjecting.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know, of course, that they continue to out themselves about what their views are. Today Senator Cash said:

Those on the coalition side of the chamber will always stand with the employers of Australia.

There it is: with the employers; against the workers. We recognise that good employers value their workers. That's why this is connected to enterprise bargaining. That's why this will encourage good behaviour. That's why, for all their bleating about Qantas, which is one of the companies that have used labour hire loopholes in order to have people working side by side with the same experience and the same conditions to drive down their wages, we don't hear anything about that now. They will never stand up for working people. That is the truth.

Remember when during the election campaign the former Prime Minister said any increase in the minimum wage would wreck the economy? That is what they said. I stood proudly with a $1 coin during that election campaign and proudly said that I didn't want people to fall behind. This legislation is about people getting ahead. Those opposite can't talk about cost of living when they support wages being in decline. We on this side support good employers and we support workers. (Time expired)

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) to the Senate amendments, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Senate amendment (1), subparagraph (b)(vi), omit the subparagraph, substitute:

(vi) Part 7 (workplace delegates' rights);

(2) Senate amendment (3) (proposed new table item 8 in subclause 2(1) of the Bill), omit the table item.

(3) Senate amendment (9) (proposed new Division 4 of Part 15 of the Fair Work Act 2009), omit the Division.

Firstly, I'd like to talk to the government amendments that have come down from the Senate. I'd like to acknowledge that, finally, the government has decided to split the bill. This has been the desire of many of the crossbench for a period of time because we have recognised that there are many important parts of the bill that support people who need it right now, including to support for those suffering domestic violence and those suffering silicosis, to ensure that people get the correct redundancy payments and also to ensure that people do not have their wages stolen from them. This is absolutely important. I don't fully support, however, the split as it is, and one of the amendments is about that split.

I also wish to urge the government, as it considers what it does next with the rest of the bill, to take some positive steps to make it easier to employ people in this country. The government could take some positive steps for business that would also make a huge difference to workers. These are things such as making it easier to have increasing part-time flexibility for part-time workers. The minister and I have spoken time and time again about award simplification because I would still like my niece, when she asks me if she is being paid the right amount, to look that up herself rather than have me spend half an hour on the Fair Work website, trying to work it out for her. There is significant work to be done that would benefit workers and would benefit business, and I urge the government to seek that common ground much further.

The specific amendments I am making are pretty simple. The Senate amendments have the effect of shifting most parts of the Fair Work bill into a separate bill which will be considered next year. In addition to the parts being shifted out, I would like to add division 1 of part 7. This division deals with workplace delegates, providing them with additional protections and rights, and imposes a requirement on businesses to provide delegates with paid time off for training. The bill provides a carve-out for small businesses—defined as those with fewer than 15 employees—but otherwise provides no guardrails on the number of delegates or how much paid time off they can receive.

The minister has told this House that this would be policed by Fair Work, but many businesses would like to see clear, legislated guardrails such as reasonableness tests given the size of the business. As somebody who has run two different businesses, the idea that someone in my workplace may have an unlimited amount of time off that I am obligated to pay for with absolutely no control or guardrails is concerning. It's nice that Fair Work might police this, but, honestly, when you're trying to run a business, you just want to know pretty simply what you're allowed to do and what you're not allowed to do. I'm afraid that the legislation as drafted does not do that enough for business. We need to make it easy for businesses to do the right thing, because most Australian businesses want to do the right thing but do not want to have to go back to Fair Work and work out what they're meant to be doing. I continue to urge the government to look for simplification so that businesses can know what they are doing.

I appreciate that, at the moment, it's not appropriate to move an amendment to impose this test in the House; however, I'm simply asking that the government shift this division into another bill, which means it can be considered as part of the Senate inquiry and appropriate guardrails can be considered and adopted. It is a sensible measure which will provide clarity, support small and medium-size business and not be contrary to the government's policy intentions, so I encourage the government to support it.

I also encourage the opposition to support it. I have to say that I sat through the original debate on this bill earlier—I think it was the other week—and I watched the opposition vote time and time again against sensible amendments from the crossbench, including amendments that would remove union powers for delegates and remove the right for unions to go into workplaces without notice. I do not understand the opposition's reasoning on this, when these are the challenges that you as the opposition say that you're trying to preserve for businesses. It is time to work constructively with the whole House to make bills better.

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

It gives me great pleasure to rise today and speak on the Senate amendments to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. For the last 27 years I've been a labourer, I've been on the end of a shovel, I've driven trucks and I've worked at sea as a seafarer. Throughout the time of my professional career, I've often been at the coalface when it comes to things like wage theft, and it's a really important day when we see provisions within our industrial relations framework that criminalise wage theft.

Far too often during my time as a union official at the Transport Workers Union, I was sitting across a table from unscrupulous employers, both small and large, who had been taking calculated risks and ripping off workers. The problem you have with that is that, for a company, a few dollars doesn't make a lot of difference, but for a worker it means the difference between whether or not you have a roof over your head, the ability to pay the bills and the ability to feed your family. More importantly, it also affects your ability to retire with dignity. That's why making sure that wage theft is criminalised is so important. A vital part of our society is that, if you go and do a fair day's work, you get a fair day's pay. It's not un-Australian to expect that.

I note that both Sally McManus, the secretary of the ACTU, and Michele O'Neil, the president of the ACTU, are here in the chamber this afternoon. They are two giants of trade labour movement. They've done a lot of work for the working-class people of this country, and I commend their work on this bill.

That gets me to the next point I want to talk about, which is the same job, same pay. I know it's an issue that is very close to member for Hunter's heart as well. There have been quite a few workers from the TWU who have been affected by this, most notably the Qantas workers—the under-wing workers. They saw their enterprise agreements effectively usurped by the former head of the company, Alan Joyce, through unscrupulous practices of outsourcing through labour hire. It is vitally important that we close the loophole whereby a company can actively seek to undermine an agreement that has been negotiated in good faith, as a result of which you have multiple employees—not just one or two, but potentially four or five—working under a wing loading an aeroplane who are all being paid different rates of pay. It's absolutely outrageous that this is acceptable in 2023. That is why this bill is so important. The return of dignity in the workplace is important so you don't have workers being pitted against other workers for turning up and putting in a hard day's work.

I note the member for Wentworth made a few comments about delegates' rights earlier. I spent the best part of my time at sea—10 years in the offshore gas and oil sector—on the back deck trying to keep my work colleagues safe, and for most of that time I was a delegate. You become the conduit between the workforce and the bosses. It is vitally important that you have empowered delegates who feel like they have the ability to speak out on behalf of those who don't feel like they have a voice to ensure that they stay safe and to ensure that they have the right to be respected in their workplace. It isn't too much to ask. On the other side are the bosses, who have their own associations that represent their workers. It isn't too much for us to ask for unions to look after our workforce and it's not too much to ask for delegates to be their representatives in the workplace. That ensures an effective conduit on issues of importance.

I commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to voting on it in a very short while.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak further on the amendments that have been circulated in my name, to explain the effect of the amendments to the House.

There has been agreement reached over a number of weeks as to matters that the coalition would be very pleased to support in relation to this industrial legislation: the small business redundancy exemption; changes to the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder for first responders: changes to the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency; and protections against discrimination for those who experience family and domestic violence. The coalition has supported those measures consistently, and we continue to support them.

The difficulty that has occurred today is that, at short notice and with, certainly, zero consultation with the opposition, the government has reached agreement with a number of crossbenchers in the Senate to strip those four elements out of the 270 pages of its closing the loopholes bill, which covered a very wide range of matters, putting them into a separate bill. So far, so good; the opposition can absolutely support that. But the government has also put in at least two aspects which are deeply, deeply problematic. The arrangements in relation to the rights of union delegates are deeply problematic and would see small businesses around the country facing extraordinary cost burdens. This would be enormously damaging.

Of course, there are the so-called labour hire arrangements. What will happen is very clear from what has been said in the course of this debate and from questions asked by the opposition not being answered adequately. The government tells us that there's a process by which service contractors can establish that they're not caught by the so-called same job, same pay labour hire provisions. But, in fact, it's a cumbersome process. It requires them to engage in a separate legal process and it doesn't deliver the certainty that's claimed. It's far from clear, still, despite the assurances, that companies which are service contractors in the mining sector—or, indeed, from my own experience in the telecommunications sector, where all of the big telcos use outsourced providers to do specialised work such as rolling out networks facilities, building towers and other things—won't find themselves automatically, and by force of law, having the industrial conditions of the company they're contracting to imported so that it applies to all of their workers.

That creates enormous uncertainty; it's most undesirable and the opposition's clear view is that that matter should continue to be investigated by the Senate committee. If it can be demonstrated through the Senate committee process that the fears we're articulating, which have been raised with us by many businesses, are groundless, then let that process go through and have that demonstrated. But, for some reason, the government wants to rush it through now. The purpose of these amendments is to make it very clear that, if the coalition has these amendments accepted by the government, then the coalition is in a position to support the amended bill—the 'shrunken down' bill, if I can refer to it in that form, or the 'compressed' bill or the 'reduced bill. So far, it has not been reduced to a form that is to the satisfaction of the coalition, but if it slims, reduces, further by the removal of the measures that we have specified in our amendments then we are ready to support it.

We are a constructive opposition engaging in a positive and constructive fashion. We've worked very rapidly, despite the lack of consideration by the government, to be in a position where we can be very clear on what it is we are prepared to work for. But we're certainly not prepared to support measures that would grant extraordinary rights to union delegates—rights of entry that are not shared, frankly, by the police. This is just remarkable. That is what this government is supporting. That would be a disaster for businesses around the country, it would be a disaster for productivity and, ultimately, it's a disaster for all Australians, because real incomes are going down and this kind of productivity-sapping change is going to make that much worse. I offer that explanation to the House of the basis on which we have moved these amendments.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fairness and equality are fundamental human rights that we must protect and uphold in our society. Those opposite did nothing. When the bill was coming through, not once did those opposite speak about a worker's rights—not once. For me, coming from a worker's rights background, that is disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful, to not speak about it. All they spoke about was how it was going to hurt the bottom end, how it was going to hurt this and how it was going to hurt that. Remember when they said the sky was going to fall in when we gave a $1 pay rise to the lowest-paid workers in Australia? I remember that. The sky didn't fall in. I know that people in my area of the Hunter got to spend more money, got to look after their family, got to do more things together as a family, because they got that $1-an-hour pay rise. If you ask me, that was an amazing we did as an Albanese Labor government.

I've lived and seen firsthand the inequality of labour hire in the workplace. The growing use of labour hire firms by employers has become a scourge, not just in the Hunter but right across Australia. It is a business model that is used by bosses to undercut pay and conditions for workers, and it drives a race to the bottom for employers looking to dodge their responsibilities in their workplace. This is really important reform in order to improve job security, wages and conditions for workers in Australia.

When I was working at Mount Thorley Warkworth—as the minister said earlier, when he gave me a glowing review, and thank you for that too—I worked with Gary, Benny, Yatesy and Adam. Three of us were full-time workers with Rio Tinto and two were casual labour-hire workers getting paid $30,000 less than the three of us in that car crew. We were doing the same job and not getting paid the same pay. We were working exactly the same hours, exactly the same rosters—except the difference was they got no holiday pay, they got no sick pay, they got sent home when it rained. They couldn't call up a safety issue, because they had a carrot dangled in front of them the whole time that they're going to have a permanent job one day. They were told, 'Just do the right thing, keep your nose clean, and you'll get a permanent job.' They couldn't call a run-up when it was wet, when it was unsafe going down those ramps with a 600-tonne truck fully loaded with over-burden at 20 kilometres an hour. They couldn't do things like that in the rain. They couldn't pull them up because they were too scared that they would never get a full-time job and actually get what they deserve, which is holiday pay, sick pay and the same pay as full-time workers working next to them. We took holidays together and we got paid; labour hire guys didn't. We took sick leave and we got paid; labour hire guys didn't.

This bill will have a life-changing impact on workers in the Hunter and in the mining industry all around Australia. This will be such a big, big part of what is going to come, and this Albanese Labor government is the government that has delivered this. I started on this campaign when I first got selected to run as candidate for the Hunter. I was lucky enough to speak to Tony early on in the piece and 'same job, same pay' was something that we spoke about very heavily on the very first day. Same job, same pay—I went to mine site after mine site, talking to contract labour hire workers. I was there at eight o'clock in the morning and I was there at 10 o'clock at night at some of the sites, telling them that we were going to do this.

Now, I'm so proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is actually delivering on our commitment. Unlike those opposite, who all say that the worker is no good, that the workers aren't here for the people. Workers are what makes Australia—blue-collar workers, people like me with my background. I'm a blue-collar worker. I left school at 15 to go and become a tradesperson.

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

You're the only one over there.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Remember, all you guys did was talk about the bosses when this legislation came up. Not once was a worker spoken about. Just remember that. I can tell you, everyone on this side remembers that. That's disgraceful, and you guys are the ones who have to live with that. This is very personal to me. It's not very often that I get up here and have a bit of a blow-up like this, but—seriously—you are on the wrong side of history here, and I'm so glad that I'm on the right side of history.

Thank you to Leigh Shears from Hunter Workers. We've got Sally and Michele here from the ACTU—I'm glad you are here to see this today, because this is a massive change in the fabric of Australia. Thank you, Minister Burke, for getting this going and putting your whole heart and soul behind this. This is going to make a massive difference to people of the Hunter and to people of Australia. Thank you all.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the Senate crossbench, particularly Senators Pocock and Lambie, for ensuring that the mammoth Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 was split. This bill in front of us now has some positive changes in it. It provides clearer rules around small business insolvencies, simplifies compensation for first responders, expands the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency and improves protections for employees subjected to family and domestic violence. I support these elements of the bill as I supported attempts to have these elements passed through the House when they came here as private senators' bills. But I don't want to see schedule 1 part 7, expanding union powers, in this bill that we're passing today. The government knows that this part of the bill is controversial. When we debated the omnibus bill in the House, I spoke and proposed amendments to ensure that the bill goes no further than closing loopholes.

In my second reading speech, I noted that there were some instances in which the expansion of union powers went further than required to close a loophole, and an example of this has reappeared in the bill. By including division 2 of part 7, this bill introduces a series of new rights for union delegates employed in workplaces. I note that there's no limit on the number of union delegates permitted within a workplace. Additional benefits for union delegates include uncapped time off for union training; making employers engage with delegates on any matter they wish to raise, even when the matters are fanciful or unrepresentative of the priorities of the majority of employees on site; allowing unions to demand their delegates be given subsidised access to various benefits; and inserting union delegate terms into all modern awards and agreements. In effect, these provisions give union delegates preferential treatment over other employees.

The case has not been made for these changes. They've not been backed by any identified problem to be solved or by specific difficulties experienced by delegates which could not be addressed by working with employers or using the enterprise bargaining system. That's why I support the member for Wentworth's amendment to limit these increased union powers. I encourage the coalition to support that amendment, too, and act according to principle, not according to politicking.

I'm also very concerned about the inclusion of part 6, relating to labour hire. The government says it's closing a loophole that allows business to engage labour hire providers in order to save costs by paying these contractors less than employees being paid to do the same job. I agree that this is a bad practice. Throughout all our briefings and discussions, it seemed clear that this change was aimed at certain businesses and labour hire companies. I'm glad to see that service contractors have now been excluded from this change, which I spoke about a few weeks ago, although the process is still cumbersome and difficult. I still have concerns about the additional complexity created by this, and the potential impact on employers beyond the two or three employers at which the government says this legislation is aimed. These changes still add complexity to an already complex framework. The additional admin burden for labour hire and host employers, as they try to wade through EBAs and previous agreements to find the correct rate of pay, adds yet another degree of difficulty. There's also a risk that this change affects competitiveness and productivity, as pointed out by numerous business and industry groups today. I'm especially concerned for my state of Western Australia and the potential impact on the mining industry.

I would prefer to wait until after the Senate inquiry is complete to debate these changes. They are significant and they deserve proper scrutiny. Pushing this change through prior to the Senate inquiry doesn't send the right message about the government's willingness to hear reasonable voices and fully understand the consequences of these big changes. Removing the parts of the bill relating to delegate rights and labour hire, as per the coalition's amendment, would address my concerns and allow me to vote in favour of this bill, but the combination of overreach, driven by union interests, and lack of scrutiny by the committee process in relation to labour hire means that, despite being supportive of some parts of the bill, I'm not able to support it in its entirety in its current form.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These laws have been a long time coming. Workers around the country have been fighting for the best part of a decade to ensure that a lot of these loopholes are closed, including labour hire workers. At this point, I really want to thank all the workers across Australia, the union delegates, the union members, the union leadership, the ACTU and all other trades and labour councils across the country for the hard work, vision and courage they've been possessed of to ensure that these changes are finally going to be made law. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction. Our government is about getting things back where they should be, to make sure that our country is a fair one for workers.

As a member of the Australian Labor Party, I am absolutely unapologetic of the fact that I stand with workers right across Australia. I urge those opposite to do the same. I've met too many people who have suffered the pain of insecure work. I spoke about my own experience of insecure work in my very first speech in this place. It devastates communities. It's not just about individual lives. When people don't have a secure job, they cannot make that commitment to the local sporting group. They cannot participate in the parents and friends associations. They can't make plans. They can't think of what a good life for them and their families might look like. It holds people back. Making sure that we're taking action here to ensure that labour hire workers are treated the same as the people they work next to every single day in the workplace will go a long way in giving certainty to those people. I'm really proud to stand with them today.

I've met too many workers, particularly young, migrant and women workers, who have experienced wage theft. We talk in this place of the cost-of-living crisis. We hear, frankly, ridiculous MPIs day after day in this place about the cost-of-living crisis. Now, given the opportunity for people to be paid their lawful wages and for consequences to follow when that doesn't happen, those opposite are voting no. We're talking about people who are paid $4 an hour, for goodness sake. We're talking about making that a crime.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Frankly, I can't believe those opposite are interjecting when we're talking about some of the poorest people in this country. We're talking about people who are forced to live in shipping containers in workplaces. We're talking about people who experience wage theft and have been too afraid to come forward and speak about it, because they fear nothing would be done, and who have put up with horrendous things, like sexual assault. I have met these workers. I urge those opposite to speak to those workers too. I do not understand how anyone in good conscience could think of not supporting this legislation before us today.

I really thank those people in the other place who have been constructive, who want to see a better Australia for everyone. When we were elected, we said that it was a better future for everyone; that we would leave no-one behind. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 goes a long way to making sure that no-one is left behind, that people who work alongside one another are treated the same, and that those who have experienced some of the most horrendous treatment at work and wage theft now have a course to correct that. This will act as a disincentive to employers who seek to do the wrong thing.

What we're talking about here is simply not rewarding bad behaviour. We shouldn't be encouraging employers to do these things. There are plenty of employers around the country who do the right thing every day. We're making a criminal offence of industrial manslaughter. I would have thought everyone in this place would think that any worker who goes to work should come home safely and alive, and that if that doesn't happen, if their employer does not have a sufficiently safe workplace for people, then that should be a crime. I simply am astounded that, given this opportunity to build better workplaces, safer workplaces and stronger communities, those opposite have yet again said no. As I said at the outset, I thank every worker across Australia who, for many, many years, has been working hard to this point. I am proud to stand with them today and every day.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 4.30, I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the amendments moved by Mr Fletcher be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the house do now adjourn.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The House stands adjourned until Tuesday 6 February 2024.

House adjourned at 16:56

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 09:30.