Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The comments and questions that I have for the minister relate particularly to the application of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019 to some groups that we seem to be being led to believe are not affected by the bill—in particular, women workers, migrant workers and low-paid workers. I ask these questions because I spent 17 years in the union movement representing many of those groups—representing many of Australia's women workers, migrant workers and low-paid workers. So far today, there's nothing that the minister has said that convinces me that these workers won't be targeted by this bill and by the government. So I seek clarity on some issues in relation to these groups, because I'm extremely concerned about the future that those workers will have under this government. I'm particularly concerned because, for these groups, unions are needed more than ever before. We have a persistent gender pay gap between women and men, we have rampant exploitation of migrant workers on farms, in cafes and in retail franchises, and today we have the lowest growth on record. Of course, that's hitting some of our lowest-paid workers hard. I'll give you, Minister, some examples that I'm concerned about and then some questions for your response.

On the issue of industrial action and unions receiving demerit points, I'm thinking of the early childhood educators that I've represented in my working life. The minister has said specifically that this bill won't affect childcare workers and described claims that the bill may affect childcare workers as 'outlandish'. These, of course, are workers who are dedicated and professional. Ninety-five per cent of early childhood educators are women, and they are some of the lowest-paid workers in the country. But it seems to me, from listening today, that this bill will impact anyone who decides that they can't win the respect and recognition that they deserve within the constraints of the Fair Work Act, and it will impact anyone who then decides to try to win that respect and recognition by taking direct protest action or unprotected industrial action.

Unprotected industrial action, as we've heard from other senators today, can occur in a variety of situations. It occurs when the Fair Work rules don't work for workers to have a say and make their case. Take those early childhood educators who have walked off the job six times over the last couple of years in a fight for equal pay. They did that because the Fair Work rules just don't help them. They really can't bargain workplace by workplace across the tens of thousands of individual workplaces that they're operating in: council centres, non-profit centres, for-profit centres and standalones. Because they don't have access to enterprise bargaining, they therefore don't have access to the protected industrial action system in order to make their wage claims effective, and they really have no mechanism to win a wage rise of the scale that they need other than engaging in direct protest action—and that's what they've resorted to. Walking off the job six times in the last two years, they've taken that direct protest action.

It could perhaps be argued that walking off the job might constitute unprotected industrial action in that sector, it could perhaps be argued that these employers are operating in the federal system and it could perhaps be argued that walking off the job in childcare centres could have a significant community impact. So, if that action had been deemed unprotected and obstructive, my understanding is that those union members could have had their union referred for disqualification of officials, to be put into administration or to be deregistered. Of course, that would hurt tens of thousands of educators, who are already so undervalued and underpaid. The union is their voice, and my concern is that this bill is trying to take their voice away. My concern is that early childhood educators could be affected by this bill, contrary to the minister's statements last night. I'll come to my question about that in a moment.

I'm also thinking today about the idea that this bill delivers equivalence between the corporate sector and unions on what we are calling paperwork breaches. I'm particularly thinking about that in relation to the wage theft that I've seen firsthand in the hospitality industry. We've already covered today that wage theft is rampant and out of control. We're still waiting for action from this government from the Migrant Workers Taskforce.

The Fair Work Ombudsman investigated hospitality last year and found something like 70 per cent of businesses to be non-compliant with the award. That noncompliance included breaches like not providing pay slips to workers, which was an example that the minister cited this morning. It's my understanding that there's no suggestion that those 70 per cent of businesses in hospitality who were found to be non-compliant with the award be deregistered or wound up. It's my understanding that there's no provision in this ensuring integrity bill to allow unions to apply to deregister companies that underpay workers or steal their wages. But it is my understanding that the very union that fights against wage theft now has to deal with this bill.

If a union racks up three paperwork breaches then it is in the firing line. Those breaches could be as minor as how the union keeps the credit card details of its members up to date or how the union submits paperwork in order to visit sites when investigating the wage theft that we're talking about. It's my understanding that, to make matters worse, it could be the very employers that the hospitality union is investigating who apply to the court for orders disqualifying a union official from office. It seems that there is no equivalence for unions in this. The union can't apply to have the directors of companies that steal wages disqualified, and there's no suggestion that the bill could be used in any way by unions to have companies that underpay their workers wound up.

The third area of concern I have in relation to the bill and the experience of some of Australia's lowest-paid workers relates to the recent merger of two of the largest unions in Australia—United Voice and the National Union of Workers, which merged to form the United Workers Union. I have concerns about what might have happened with that merger had this law been in place at the time. The merger was democratically decided. Thousands of union members voted in support of it. In fact, 45,000 union members chose to take the time to vote—in their own time they voluntarily voted in that union election. Over 90 per cent voted yes. That, of course, is exactly as it should be—union members deciding the future of their own union. They talked about it, debated it, thought about their future and voted.

Under this bill, employers can apply to block union mergers through the proposed public interest test if one of the unions meets a threshold of contraventions. It's an internationally accepted human right that union members get to freely decide what happens with their union, who it joins with and who leads it. We know from that United Workers Union case that union members are extremely engaged in their unions and have significant ownership of their unions. This bill denies those union members the ability to decide the future of their union. It allows them to be stood aside while employers and the courts decide the future of the union instead.

Again on the issue of corporate equivalence: I don't recall any union being asked whether they approve of the merger of two corporations. The government may claim that this bill is to bring the regulation of trade unions in line with that of corporations, but it seems like that is not true. Unions can't seek to have a company director disqualified when that company has been endangering people at work or stealing their wages, unions can't apply to have a corporation deregistered or wound up and unions can't apply to stop companies from merging. So, having listened to the debate today, it seems to me that this remains an extraordinary effort on the part of the government to hand over power to employers to shut down unions, and that includes unions of women, migrant workers and low-paid workers, who the government have been claiming will not be affected by this legislation.

My questions to the minister relate to those examples I just gave. The first question is in relation to early childhood educators. If those early childhood educators walking off the job six times, outside of any application for protected industrial action, was deemed unprotected action or obstructive industrial action, can you confirm that the union for early childhood educators could face deregistration proceedings under this bill?

The second question is about the example of wage theft in hospitality and the provisions of the bill in relation to that. Could you confirm whether it is the case that an employer being prosecuted by a union could apply to disqualify the official conducting that prosecution? Further to that, is there anything in this bill that would allow unions to apply to have companies that have been found to underpay workers wound up? If not, is the government proposing such legislation?

Finally, in the case of the merger of two unions that represent a lot of our lowest paid workers, migrant workers and women in this country, could the merger of United Voice and the NUW have been reversed, after being approved through a ballot of members, by application of the public interest test—on the application of a disaffected employer—if one of the unions had met the threshold of contraventions? So my question is: could the merger have been stopped after being approved by the democratic ballot of members? Also, Minister, in relation to the merger provisions, I am seeking clarification as to whether contraventions that occurred prior to the law being in place would be counted towards the threshold for any future mergers. I thank you for your answers.