Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

The fundamentally crazy propositions that this minister is putting are a load of nonsense. I know, Minister, that you have had some setbacks in this bill but you should not start doing vaudeville when you're in the trouble. That is what you have just done. Having Allan Fels look at something doesn't mean that the government will implement the recommendations. If you are thinking it does mean that, get up and say so. You only have to look at the last inquiry this government had—when the Chief Scientist, Dr Finkel, was asked to look at electricity supply issues in this country—and the biggest change that Dr Finkel proposed concerning the clean energy target, which the government won't deal with because the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is so weak, so jelly-backed, that he can't stand up to the climate change deniers. So there is absolutely no guarantee that anything Dr Fels does will end up being in legislation. The response to Dr Finkel's work is another example of this government's talking big and delivering little.

The minister also accused me of saying that Labor would not support the bill. We have not said that. What we did say was that there had to be amendments, and we have proposed a number of amendments. So you, Minister, are behaving badly and what you have just said is off the planet. Labor's amendments are intended to make the economic decision-makers accountable for the contracts they enter to. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that under Labor's amendments a small business would be held accountable for contraventions by big companies when they have no reasonable way of either influencing the conduct of a big business or knowing about its conduct. Extending potential civil liability across the supply chain is about stopping big business and companies from negotiating contracts which can only be fulfilled by the underpayment of wages. This is about making the economic decision-makers take an active role in ensuring that the people who do the work to supply the goods and services are not exploited. In the introducing the bill into the House Mr Dutton said in his second reading speech, in reference to extending civil liability to franchisors:

The Fair Work Ombudsman is required to act as a model litigant and will pursue prosecution only in cases where penalties are appropriate.

So the mum-and-dad renovators of Australia have nothing to worry about—Mr Dutton has made it clear. But Minister Cash comes in here, having suffered a number of setbacks, and goes on this rant about mum-and-dad renovators ending up in breach of the act. It is just nonsense. Mr Dutton also said in the second reading speech:

The regulator will also be in a position to support businesses, especially franchisors, franchisees and small businesses, to understand these changes and take any necessary simple steps to ensure that their networks are aware of their obligations under the Fair Work Act.

This is from the representing minister in the House of Representatives, who seems to understand the bill better than the minister in the Senate. What has just been put is nonsense. I repeat:

The Fair Work Ombudsman is required to act as a model litigant and will pursue prosecution only in cases where penalties are appropriate.

If that holds for the government's scheme for franchises, it hold for Labor's amendments as well. I would have thought that rather than trying to put fear into young couples carrying out a home renovation, maybe the minister would have spent a few minutes talking about Baiada, that chicken-processing company that ripped workers off mercilessly. Did we hear anything about that? Not a word. Just this rant, this raving on about how young couples carrying out home renovations are going to end up breaching the law. An absolute nonsense!

Previously the minister spoke about Labor cutting funding to the Fair Work Ombudsman. Let me tell you, if the trade union movement had decent rights of entry and did not have the impediments that this government has put in place to the unions representing the members, then you wouldn't need this massive bureaucracy called the Fair Work Ombudsman. The trade union movement could do what it's done over many years—ensure that its members, and by ensuring its members then non-members, are well looked after without a massive government bureaucracy to try and do it.

The reason that this government runs these scare campaigns is because they know what they're about. They are about fundamentally reducing the capacity of workers to get access to the trade union movement, through restrictions on right of entry, through restrictive anti-union policies and legislation like the ABCC. It's like what it tried to do when it got control of the Senate—take away workers' rights to bargain through Work Choices, forcing workers in small companies around the country to negotiate directly with their employer in an unfair bargaining position.

This is about ensuring that companies like Baiada, who set about destroying workers' capacity to get paid for the work that they're doing through these arrangements with labour hire contractors, are held responsible. That's what we have to do—make sure that vulnerable workers are protected. If this minister really was concerned about protecting vulnerable workers, then the situation that was exposed at Baiada through a combination of the trade union movement, Four Corners and the media exposing it—something would be done about it. But this minister wants to go down this stupid path of saying this will chill the Australian economy and stop young people renovating their house. I have heard a lot of stupid arguments recently, from the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, down, arguing that there is some communist control taking over the country. This just shows how crazy this government is. This government has lost the plot. If anyone wants to see why this government has lost the plot, go back and look at the Hansard of Minister Cash's response prior to my contribution. It was absolute nonsense. It was all about protecting big business; all about protecting businesses that are ripping workers off; only concerned about making sure business can get their nefarious way with ordinary workers.

Vulnerable workers are the issue. Let's deal with protecting vulnerable workers. I think that's why Senator Marshall, in his contribution, indicated that under this government there is a failure in the operation of industrial relations in this country, where companies can get away with doing what Baiada did almost unscathed, where vulnerable workers get ripped off every day on the job. It is not the prettiest job; it is not the best job in the world—processing chickens—but somebody has to do it. If you do it, you should be paid appropriately for doing that work. We should not have this minister raising the spectre of young home renovators being in breach of the law because Labor wants to make sure that those that make the economic decisions actually bear some responsibility. What a load of rubbish we just heard from the minister.

Our amendments are about doing what the Franchise Council of Australia asked us to do—that is, to look more widely at this and not target the Franchise Council themselves. These amendments will also ensure not just that vulnerable workers in franchising operations are given some protection but that workers in all arrangements across the country are given some protection. If the principle is good enough for franchising companies, it is good enough for those employers who are exercising the economic decision-making at the plant level to make sure that their subcontractors and their labour hire companies are paying workers the appropriate wages and conditions. That's what the minister should be thinking about and addressing—not just part of the economic activity of this country. As the Franchise Council itself said, 'You should not look just at us; this is a problem across the economy.' So we've taken that on board and looked at it, and we are moving these amendments so that, if vulnerable workers are being ripped off, there is accountability not only in the franchising industry but across industry to deal with those issues. That's where we are on this matter.

If the trade union movement in this country had decent rights of access and if this government were not setting about creating an atmosphere of fear and loathing towards the trade union movement, workers would be better paid and we could ensure that workers got paid penalty rates. When 700,000 workers are losing their penalty rates, the Prime Minister and the minister simply support that proposition. We are about fairness in the workplace. We are not about Work Choices, in the context of the Howard government and the antecedents of this government. We are determined that vulnerable workers should be protected. These amendments will protect workers in franchise areas and workers doing work for labour hire companies from being ripped off by companies that know what's going on.

These are important amendments, and we would certainly hope that the crossbench would apply the same principles that they've applied to the previous amendments to this bill. The principles are the same; the situation is the same—vulnerable workers are being ripped off. I would ask that the crossbench provide the same support they've given in the franchise area to this area, because the issues are no less important. The rip-offs are no less egregious. The pain and suffering for vulnerable workers is not less if you're being ripped off by a labour hire company than if you're being ripped off in the franchising industry. We would ask that some common sense apply and that the raving of the minister is ignored, that the crazy argument the minister just put up is ignored, and we get on and protect all vulnerable workers in this country.