Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The closing loopholes legislation is deeply personal to me. My parents, like many migrants, came to this country seeking a better life. They found it through secure jobs with good conditions supported by a union, a foundation that allowed our family to thrive here. But, unfortunately, well-paying jobs with good conditions have become increasingly elusive because of those opposite. They had low wages as a deliberate design feature of their economic plan. This bill aims to fix that, ensuring that our industrial relations landscape upholds the basic tenet that a fair day's work gets a fair day's pay. The Fair Work Act has been a cornerstone of our industrial relations system, balancing the needs of businesses and workers alike. But, as our economy evolves, so too must our laws.

The emergence of the gig economy and precarious employment conditions demands the attention and action of this place, because we do not want to become a nation where you need tips to survive. That's what the closing loopholes bill is all about. This legislation addressed those modern challenges, ensuring our legislation reflects current realities faced by thousands of gig workers across the country. It addressed the sorts of realities faced by food delivery riders in my electorate—workers like Zhuoying Wang, who sustained an injury at work and was offered free food instead of workers compensation. It will allow the Fair Work Commission to make orders for minimum standards for new forms of work, such as gig work. This is about ensuring some basic minimum standards so that drivers and riders like Zhuoying Wang don't have to choose between their pay and their basic safety.

At the core of this piece of legislation was the desire to build on the government's efforts to get wages moving. With current cost-of-living challenges, we know that taming inflation and getting more money into people's pockets is the best way to raise living standards. On every one of those fronts, we're getting on with it. Headline inflation is now at its lowest level in two years. Monthly inflation has a three in front of it for the first time since December 2021. These figures show we are making welcome and encouraging progress to the inflation challenge. Our policies are helping. The 0.9 per cent rise in the wage price index in the December quarter means wages were 4.2 per cent higher through the year—the equal-fastest annual growth since 2009.

Since the election, nominal wages have been growing at an annualised average of 4.0 per cent, compared to 2.2 per cent for our predecessors. Real wages growth is back, but we know there is more work to do because things are still tough. That's why our cost-of-living tax cuts are so important, because no matter what you earn you'll get to keep more of it. We want every Australian worker to take home more of what they earn. But, unlike those opposite, we want them to be safe while doing it. That's why it's so disheartening that the opposition couldn't get behind this legislation, and this really shows what the Liberals are all about. It shows that they have learnt nothing from their decade of presiding over low wages; that they're fine with maintaining the dangerous status quo for gig workers and truckies; that they're okay with maintaining loopholes that undercut enterprise agreements between businesses and their workforce; and that they're okay with not giving long-term casuals a better pathway to permanency and the job security that comes with it.

Those opposite want workers to earn less and work more, whereas we on this side of the House want workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the closing loopholes bill, which concerns a radical reordering of Australian workplace law. There are four areas particularly around this legislation that I'll address: the massive increase we see in this legislation around union interference in the workplace; the disbenefits of penalising casuals in the way that this law does; the way that this is going to impact on the gig economy and gig economy workers; and, particularly, the ways in which Labor has the right-to-disconnect laws completely wrong. These are four elements that all form part of the so-called closing loopholes bill.

This is a move back to a very centralised industrial relations system, the like of which we haven't seen since the 1970s and 1980s. To say this is closing loopholes is disingenuous. In this place we all want Australians to have safe, high wages. We want them to have sustainable jobs and to be rewarded for their hard work and experience. Primarily, with the closing loopholes legislation the government has failed to identify how this legislation will increase productivity within our country—how, in the long term, it will create more and more jobs for Australians. If those opposite cannot understand the importance of increasing productivity within our workplace relations system then perhaps they will accept the words of their former prime minister Bob Hawke: 'The only way in which we can lift real wages in the longer term is by lifting productivity. If we don't lift productivity, we can't afford increased real wages.' Again, from Bob Hawke, 'Productivity is the key to improving living standards.' Bob Hawke again, 'We have to look at productivity as the means by which we can secure better living standards for Australians into the future.' This closing loopholes legislation, though, is silent about productivity and how any part of Labor's policy is going to lead to further long-term jobs. It is an attack on the gig economy; on casual employment; on owners and drivers—those who want to be their own boss; and it gives unions unprecedented rights-of-entry into businesses.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can hear those opposite arguing, but when we look first of all at the union agenda—this was a welcome present for the unions—the unions were salivating over it. These measures are designed to grow not just union membership but union power and control of our economy, the same way that the union movement already controls this government.

Why bring in legislation that attacks gig workers, casual employees, and tradies—those who want to be their own boss? Why bring in legislation that attacks independent contractors? Because these are people who do not normally want to join unions, this is an attempt to bring them into the great union family. Instead, these IR changes should be focused on enterprise bargaining. They should be focused on a modern workplace system, not on punishing those who want to remain as casuals.

If we look first of all at what this Labor government are attempting to do to casuals, they have said, 'Oh, this is a casualisation of the workplace; this is very unfair to casuals.' No, there are many casuals who choose to work as casuals and should be able to have that right. They don't need to be told by the Labor Party or by unions that they can no longer be casuals. The definition of casual now extends to three pages—to work out what a casual employee is! The legislation now also gives unprecedented rights for people to go straight to Fair Work, straight to courts and to have an external party again interfering in the relationship between employers and employees, which, in 2024, should be a much more flexible system.

Then if we look at the right to disconnect: on the face of it, yes, of course employees need a reasonable time away from the workforce. However, modern technology has provided flexibility to the workplace. That flexibility needs to be two ways, so, again, we do not need the Labor government telling employees and telling employers when and where they can and cannot work.

Closing loopholes is bad law. It is about unnecessary interference in what was a flexible workplace relationship system. (Time expired)

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

Here we go again, same old Labor, coming into this place, moving another motion supporting Australian workers. How dare a government move motions in support of workers simply because they have championed legislation in this place that means higher wages and more stable and secure employment for Australian workers, leading to an economy where Australian workers are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. How dare a government have the sheer audacity to look at two situations, one with a worker taking from that till and getting prosecuted and another where an employer frequently steals from their employees and suffers the indignity of paying those wages back months or years later. This is a government that proudly wears as a badge of honour passing a law to criminalise industrial manslaughter and another one to solidify viability and road safety in our road transport industry.

I bet that even the mere thought of some of these measures is enough to make some of the members of this chamber sick to the very core. I can certainly guarantee that no member sitting on this side of the chamber suffers from such an affliction. I am not here to make those opposite feel better or to assuage their guilty conscience, nor do I make any apologies for bringing that about and nor does the Albanese Labor government. To all of those things and so much more contained within closing loopholes, those opposite had so many opportunities to show workers that they may not always be on their side but that they might put a bet each way on the fights that count. No.

In this 47th Parliament, those opposite had 48 opportunities to do this, and how did I arrive at that number when the motion clearly states 36? That's a great question. Around two weeks ago, when my colleague the member for Hawke submitted this motion for consideration, it was true. The Liberal National Party had seen the chance to do the right thing by Australian working families, and 36 times they said no. One worker, they may feel genuine compassion for. But when they pluralise them, a collection of workers, or a union, that really makes them feel very queasy indeed. They so often substitute their great boogieman, the union boss, they all have visualised in their very imaginations, and, like the bull staring into the red, they don't look at those standing behind them—Australian workers. Just like the bull, many a time they come to regret charging blindly at the red cape at the expense of forgetting what is behind it. Australian workers will remember. They will remember that, since the member for Hawke stood here two weeks ago to the day, those opposite had 12 opportunities to stand up for Australian workers. But since that motion was before the chamber last week, 13 historic moments have taken place. This parliament passed the second, and what appeared to have been the final, act of closing loopholes. And 12 more times the Liberal and National parties turned their backs on everyday Australians—13 reasons why indeed.

Life went on for those opposite, even after they were dragged kicking and screaming to their eventual support of the Albanese government's tax plan. They don't need to worry about listening to everyday Australians. You don't need to listen to the thousands of gig workers they wanted to deprive of minimum standards that will keep them safe on the job and keep them able to carve out a decent living, filling a role that the 21st century has unearthed. But those opposite can always choose to have pizza dropped off at their door and choose not hear and see the story behind how it got there. And they chose to 48 times in a matter of months. That's 48 more reasons for Australians to know that wages are moving again in this country. It's not due to any measures by those opposite in government or through their support in opposition. They are moving in spite of them, even to this very day.

I have a tip for those opposite. We shouldn't become a nation where workers rely on tips to survive. Australian workers need a government in their corner and have needed one for years. Last year AiG said that the Fair Work Commission should exercise restraint and caution when setting the minimum wage. This is, of course, different from 2018, before the pandemic, when AiG said:

… An excessive increase would reduce the job security of low paid workers and would reduce employment opportunities for the unemployed and underemployed.

The champions of flexibility are pretty inflexible when it comes to raising your wages. It's a shame the opposition sing hymn and verse from their sheet.

There you have it. Yesterday was not a good time to lift wages. Today isn't either, and tomorrow never will be. Working families across Australia had 48 more times to see whose side those opposite are on, and it certainly isn't theirs.

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's an interesting address from the member before me. I was here for the Hawke-Keating government. I was here for a number of incoming governments, including the Howard government, the Rudd-Gillard governments and now this government.

Going right back to the Hawke-Keating regime—they opened up the labour market. They did a deal with the unions for the betterment of this nation, and they put flexibility into the labour market. John Howard and his team were great supporters of small businesses and families, and they endeavoured to open up the labour market as Keating and Hawke had done, following in their footsteps. And along came the Rudd-Gillard governments. The Gillard government, particularly, brought the curtain down on industrial relations and started to stifle the labour market completely. Now this government has gone right over the top on those changes and made doing business more inflexible for people who want to engage.

At five o'clock this morning, when I was having a walk, there was a guy out there obviously doing the Bidfood deliveries—whatever the company is. I've seen a few of their trucks around, delivering to restaurants very early in the morning. And I thought: 'That guy's got two jobs. He's doing one delivery in the morning, and by nine o'clock he's sitting at his next job. I reckon that guy's got two jobs, and I reckon the guys before him have two jobs.'

I read the other day that some people are now so stretched that they're going for three jobs. That's not unusual. I had three jobs when I was young too. It was sort of a normal thing for us to do. The flexibility was driven by our employers who, if you were a good employee and they wanted to keep you on, either paid us more, gave us some time or just encouraged us, as young people, to take that opportunity.

For a lot of these people in the gig economy that you talk about now, quite often it's their second job, because they want to get ahead. All this loopholes legislation does is put a real crush on that debate. It puts a real crush on their opportunities. It puts a real blanket over, especially, small- and medium-sized businesses, who will have to deal with issues they haven't dealt with before. I know people in this Labor government who know what they're trying to do with flexible working arrangements. Parents, university students and all the other people that do these jobs want the flexibility to deal with their employer as they would see fit—to suit them, not to suit a stringent set of rules laid down by a Labor government with a lot of people who've never run a business and who've never run a pizza shop. These are hard businesses to run—and the smaller the business, the harder it is and the harder the owners have got to work. It's a fact now that, if you're a casual, you get paid all your entitlements in the hourly rate. You get paid your long service leave, your holiday pay and your super within the confines of your hourly rate. If it's $20 an hour for a full-time worker, it's $30 an hour or more—$35 an hour—for the employee that wants that flexibility of working part-time. You don't have to say, 'Joe Blow, we insist that you conform to our rules.'

The worst part of this is that it's such detailed legislation—it's perplexing, it's complex, it's unwieldy and it's really hard for people in business, and startups especially, to get their heads around this. I think Australia will pay a terrible price for the legislation that the government has put before the nation now and that it's passing—a terrible price.

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The passage of the closing loopholes legislation marked a crucial moment in the livelihoods and wellbeing of Australian workers. This landmark legislation championed by the Albanese Labor government marked a significant step forward in protecting the rights and dignities of workers across our nation. We proudly stand here today having achieved a milestone in our ongoing commitment to ensuring fairer wages, safe working conditions and job security for all Australians. As a former union delegate and organiser, I have witnessed firsthand the struggles faced by workers in precarious employment situations. The reforms contained in this landmark legislation represent a bright future for every Australian worker.

First and foremost, let us acknowledge the significance of closing the labour hire loophole. This loophole has allowed dodgy employers to exploit workers by sidestepping established agreements and undercutting wages. By empowering the Fair Work Commission to enforce minimum standards for labour hire employees, the closing loopholes legislation sent a clear message that such practices will not be tolerated in Australia. Furthermore, the criminalisation of wage theft is a critical measure in holding accountable those who seek to unlawfully withhold wages from their employees. We have closed a gap where an employer stealing money from their employee's pay cheque is treated no less than if that employee stole from the till. No longer will employers be able to enrich themselves at the expense of hardworking Australians without facing severe consequences. The legislation will ensure that justice is served for those who have been victims of a wage theft, and will be a powerful deterrent to those considering such unethical action.

Additionally, the introduction of industrial manslaughter as a criminal offence underscores our commitment to prioritising the safety and wellbeing of workers. By imposing significant penalties for breaches of safety standards, we have taken proactive steps to prevent tragic and avoidable accidents in the workplace. Furthermore, the Albanese government has provided greater protection and stability for casual workers and gig economy workers. We have given casual workers the opportunity to transition to permanent positions, granting them access to vital benefits and security. Similarly, we have established minimum standards for gig workers, ensuring that they are not subject to dodgy practices that compromise their financial security and wellbeing.

By setting fair minimum standards for the road transport industry, we are prioritising safety and sustainability in one of our nation's most vital sectors. This measure not only protects the rights of truck drivers but also safeguards the broader community from the dangers posed by unsafe practices and inadequate standards. The passage of this government's landmark closing loopholes legislation represented a landmark achievement in our ongoing efforts to ensure safe and secure employment for all Australians. It's disheartening to note that instead the coalition has continued to choose prioritising their own interest over the wellbeing of Australian workers. Despite widespread support for measures aimed at closing loopholes and enhancing worker protections, the coalition has voted 48 times against legislation to get wages moving in this term of parliament. Their refusal to support a minimum standard for gig workers, reforms to the road transport industry and improved conditions for casual workers highlights a disturbing pattern of disregard for the rights and dignity of working Australians. This serves as a stark reminder of the importance of a Labor government in representing Australian workers.

The closing loopholes legislation is a testament to Labor's commitment to stand up for the rights and dignity of Australian workers in the face of persistent opposition and obstruction. Let us continue to strive for a future where every worker is treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not really sure about the merit of having these motions to debate legislation which we've just debated a few months ago in the same parliament, but I don't criticise the particular member who moved this. I'm sure it has probably been a practice for some time and, no doubt, under the previous government. We've had all the debates on the legislation that this motion refers to, but I'll take the opportunity to stand up here because I want to reiterate something I've said to the business community before—particularly to small businesses and family businesses. And that is that when you hear this appalling rhetoric from the government, accusing anyone who is in business—anyone who takes a risk, puts their capital on the line, works hard, wants to contribute to our economy and, hopefully, employ people—then you can think to yourself, 'There's one side of politics which thinks I'm evil and that all I'm looking to do is exploit the people who work for me'. I want those people in the business community—particularly the small business and family business community—to know that there's the other side of politics, which thinks quite differently.

Here in the coalition, we appreciate the people who take a risk, put their money on the line and start a business. We know that 70 per cent of businesses will fail in their first three years, and we know that people can lose a lot in taking that risk. So when they're successful, good on them—and thank you to them for what they contribute to our economy. And there's nothing wrong with big businesses, because the bigger the business the more successful they've been, the more people they employ and the more they contribute to our economy. They help to pay for the great standard of living that we have in this country. The private sector and the business community are the heart of our success, so people who want to demonise them, think they're evil and talk about them in derogatory ways, as if they're one big group, should be ashamed of themselves. They should reflect on the fact that these people are the ones doing the heavy lifting in our economy.

The member for Monash made a great point, which reminds us of the value of members who have served for a long time in the parliament—the experience they have and the things they can reflect on. He talked about the Hawke-Keating era—about opening up our economy and introducing flexibility into the workplace. This was particularly with the Keating government and enterprise bargaining; the concept of saying, 'There have to be ways in which employees and the employer in a particular business in a particular enterprise can come together and talk about ways in which they can have flexibility from the straitjacket of some of the awards et cetera that are mutually agreed upon and which are to beneficial to the employees and the employer in that business.' The Rudd-Gillard Fair Work Act really deconstructed all of that, and what we've seen from this government are further retrograde steps away from flexibility and mutual benefits for employees and employers.

All these things that the government are talking about were not things they made any virtue of in the election campaign. They never talked about all this re-empowerment of the union movement in a campaign. This agenda was all hidden from the voters. All the measures that we're seeing coming through with these salami-slicing tactics in these various IR bills to benefit the union movement were never going to be campaigned on, because this government was never going to want to shine a light on what it was going to do to repay the union movement for the enormous financial backing that the union movement gives it in its political quests.

But we also know that there is always a price to pay for that support, and we see it in a lot of elements of these industrial relations reforms that are about the union movement—things like not requiring an employee's approval to increase deductions from their pay packet, that little gem that was in one of the bills last year, and so many other things that benefit the union movement, who come into the chamber to look down upon these votes and see, with great pride, their handiwork in action. I am sure that these union bosses brag to each other about what they got for the donations that they gave to the Labor Party in the last campaign.

So we're onto this, and I think the Australian people are onto it as well. To the businesses that are going to suffer because of the treatment they receive and the aspersions cast against them for doing nothing other than growing their business, employing people and contributing to our economy, we apologise for the derogatory terms hurled at them. We support them and thank them, particularly small businesses and family businesses, for what they do as the backbone of our economy.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A few weeks ago in this place, I met with a delegation of gig economy workers. Those workers, whose livelihoods depend on gig work, opened my eyes to the harsh realities lurking behind the convenience and efficiency of our convenience economy. In recent years, the gig economy has permeated every aspect of our day-to-day lives. From ordering food to booking a ride, gig economy platforms have seamlessly integrated themselves into our routines, offering flexibility and convenience at the palm of your hand. However, amidst that convenience lies a hidden truth here in Australia: the workers powering these platforms are often subjected to precarious employment conditions, low pay and limited job security. While we enjoy the convenience, we now know that the workers who support some operators in this business model grapple with the uncertainty of irregular income, the absence of benefits and the constant pressure to accept unfavourable terms in order to secure their next gig.

There aren't many people living in Australia who believe that workers should be paid below the minimum wage or that they should not be protected by fair and decent working conditions, but that's what's happening today. Gig workers need protection, and locals in Bennelong have contacted me to tell me that they want these workers to have better rights and better pay. Locals support better protections for gig workers because of the awful stories of danger and exploitation that we have all seen on the news over the past few years.

Recently I met with Zhouying, who used to work for one of those companies. Without notice, her gig economy employer slashed her base delivery rate and imposed unrealistic deadlines, endangering her safety. In her quest for fair pay and fair conditions, Zhouying bravely organised worker protests. However, her actions were met with retaliation from the company, leaving her financially vulnerable and unable to meet her basic needs such as rent and food.

Similarly, Nabin, a delivery driver here in Canberra, works for multiple gig economy apps. After factoring in expenses, he barely earns $13 60 per hour—sometimes as little as $4 per delivery. At this rate, to pay the bills, Nabin is forced to work gruelling hours, sometimes exceeding 70 or 85 hours per week. He struggles to make ends meet. The constant fear of being deactivated from the app due to perceived inadequacies only adds to his stress and anxiety, forcing him to rush through traffic in a bid to meet unrealistic targets. The lack of transparency and accountability in gig economy platforms exacerbates the exploitation of workers just like Nabin, who are forced to accept unfavourable working conditions to pay the bills.

These are just two stories, but they reflect the harsh realities faced by gig economy workers in this country, who often find themselves trapped in a cycle of exploitation and instability. People like Nabin and Zhouying are the reason why the government's closing loopholes legislation is so important. That legislation represents a crucial step towards ensuring that workers like Nabin and Zhouying are afforded the protections and rights that they deserve. It sends a clear message to business that wage theft, unsafe working conditions and exploitation will not be tolerated and that every worker, regardless of their employment arrangement, deserves to be paid at least the minimum wage and to be treated with dignity and respect.

The closing loopholes legislation will better protect workers from exploitation and dangerous working conditions while also ensuring that gig economy workers are afforded the same rights and protections as traditional employees. By setting minimum standards tailored to the gig economy, the government acknowledges the importance of preserving flexibility and autonomy for workers while ensuring that they are not subjected to unfair treatment or exploitation. It ensures that gig workers across the country can continue to embrace the flexibility and autonomy that working for a digital platform provides, trusting that they will receive fair treatment and adequate compensation.

This legislation is not just about closing legal gaps. It's about standing up for the dignity and rights of every worker in our nation. It's about ensuring that no worker is left behind in the rapidly evolving landscape of the modern workforce. At the end of the day, this government wants workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn, whereas the Liberals want workers to work longer for less. (Time expired)

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.