Ben Small (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the important reforms under this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021. As the Morrison government has demonstrated throughout this pandemic, this government is determined to implement measures that will help business to regrow jobs—and they are coming back strongly, with more than 93 per cent of the jobs lost with this once-in-a-century pandemic already being filled by hardworking Australians. We are about boosting wages, enhancing productivity and implementing measures that benefit both employers and employees.

Before I go through the reforms in detail, it's worth reflecting on what we've heard from the contributions so far, which I've been listening to very carefully. Thus far, I've heard from those opposite on the Labor benches that they didn't turn up to work during the pandemic, when over here on the government benches the Morrison government was all about protecting lives and livelihoods through a once-in-a-century pandemic. We've also heard hyperbole, unsubstantiated misrepresentation and a misconstruing of basic statistics. Senator Polley referred to the December quarter growth figures. It is worth reflecting that as Josh Frydenberg, the federal Treasurer, has very pleasingly been able to announce to the Australian people in recent days, the December quarter was the second consecutive quarter, for the first time since 1959, that the Australian economy achieved a growth rate of more than three per cent—the first time since 1959.

The government's modest, sensible, non-ideological and incremental changes that are being contemplated here today are reflective of the cooperative spirit that we so successfully embraced in this nation's approach to the pandemic. The fair work amendments address known problems with Labor's Fair Work Act that are currently stifling job creation and wages growth in this country. The changes made will provide certainty for both businesses and employees, clearly defining casual employment and giving casual employees a statutory pathway for converting their employment to permanent full-time or permanent part-time employment should they so choose. I find it staggering that those opposite have suggested here today that defining the nature of employment at the start, with clarity for both the employer and the employee, is somehow unfair. Nothing could be father from the truth. At the same time, the Morrison government is for the first time providing every worker in Australia who works under a casual employment arrangement a clear, consistent and defined pathway to convert that employment to permanency.

I've also heard claims today about legitimising permanent casual arrangements. I find it staggeringly arrogant and so typical of those opposite that they would seek to tell those Australians who instead choose to work under casual arrangements on an ongoing basis that they can't. In fact, it reflects the recent rhetoric out of the Labor Party that they would seek to impose a $153-a-week pay cut for those Australians who would lose the 25 per cent casual loading on their earnings. Indeed, we would extend our successful JobKeeper flexibilities around duties and location of work to businesses in the retail and hospitality sectors that were so terribly hit during the course of the pandemic.

We give employers greater confidence to offer secure, part-time employment, facilitating additional hours of work for part-time employees in the retail and hospitality sectors who want more hours, and for the first time those hours, under these flexibility arrangements, would include the leave entitlements and workplace entitlements with regard to unfair dismissal protections that are currently declined to them. Those hours are currently filled by casuals. So, basically, Labor and the Greens are entrenching casualisation in the Australian economy by opposing these very sensible reforms.

These amendments are the result of thorough and extensive consultation with unions, employers and industry. Sadly, Labor has decided to oppose every single one of these modest, incremental and non-ideological changes. Have we heard yet today a single element of reform that could be improved with a suggestion from those opposite? No, we have not. We have heard mistruths. We have heard misrepresentations and hyperbole. Those on the government benches are actually focused on delivering outcomes that put more money into the pockets of Australian workers and take less tax from them. It is Labor and the Greens who currently stand in the way of these needed reforms, because who do these reforms most impact? Who are Labor and the Greens currently blocking from more wages in their pockets? It's those casual workers who need flexibility; younger Australians who were hit hardest by the job losses at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; those Australians who are crying out for the ability to work extra hours under flexible arrangements, who desire having for the first time the right to convert casual employment to full-time or permanent part-time work.

So apparently it is too much to ask that the Labor Party adopt a mature approach to industrial relations and focus on the needs of Australians rather than keep their union masters happy. We don't live in the fantasy world of the Greens. We live in the real world, where pennies are actually earned here rather than raining down from heaven. We're a healthy and wealthy society, and that enables us to focus on the needs of those who are most disadvantaged in our communities. Indeed, for those workers in the gig economy that the Greens seem particularly focused on when we talk of a minimum wage or a floor, imposing those sorts of arrangements imposes a cap on their maximum earning potential.

With regard to casual employees, we are fixing Labor's failure to define 'casual employees' more than a decade ago now. We are introducing that clear definition of what it means. It provides certainty around when a person is a casual employee and certainty to both them and their employer as to the rights and obligations that accompany that.

The government firmly believes that all employees should be classified and paid correctly. Wage theft and exploitation are never acceptable, and we'll turn to the improvements and enhancements that the government seeks to make with respect to enforcement provisions in a little while. The ability for some employees to double dip on their entitlements, by being paid a casual loading as compensation for not receiving leave entitlements and then being paid those leave entitlements on top of that, is grossly unfair, and I think any objective assessment in the mind of the average Australian would certainly agree.

In the event that an ongoing employee is misclassified as casual, the bill will ensure that casual loading amounts paid to that employee can offset against claims for leave and other entitlements, eliminating any potential for double dipping. This potential for double dipping represents a $39 billion liability for Australian business. We're not just talking about big business and corporations here; we're talking about small and medium-sized enterprises across Australia that are the backbone of the Australian economy.

By opposing these changes, Labor has decided that it is standing in the way of casual employees who want to become full-time employees for the first time. We've heard claims today about an explosion in the level of casual employment across the Australian economy. That is simply false. Since the early 1990s casual employment arrangements have applied to approximately 25 per cent of the Australian workforce. So let's not cherrypick from the December quarter just a few months ago; let's look at the statistics that are borne out over the course of decades.

We've heard claims that these reforms are racist and sexist. Frankly, those sorts of claims have no place in a debate that's focused on putting more money into the pockets of hardworking Australians. Has Labor actually read this bill? I wonder, because earlier today we heard claims that employees would have no right to arbitration in anything other than pursuing action through the Federal Court, when, instead, employees have protections around the right to convert at section 66L and have the detail surrounding the dispute process—including that initiation from a discussion with the employer the whole way through the process—at section 66M, and the Fair Work Commission have the arbitration process to prevent employers abusing any limitations on the conversion right, described at section 66H.

Under schedule 2 of the proposed reforms, the government's greater flexibility will improve the opportunities for Australians to work more hours in the hardest-hit sectors post-COVID. The bill allows those workers in those sectors, who together employ more than one-third of casual employees, to work together to agree on additional hours for part-time employees who want them. This will increase working hours and wages and encourage employers to offer more permanent secure roles with benefits paid, including sick leave, over more traditionally flexible arrangements like casual roles. That is what this government is about. Those opposite, by standing between these reforms and those Australian workers who want them, seek to show their true cause.

With respect to enterprise agreements, these enterprise agreements encourage job creation, wage increases and productivity growth. We know this because enterprise agreements, on average, put 69 per cent extra earnings in the pockets of Australians when compared to the awards that would apply in other cases. We have seen reports suggesting that Labor sees those employees wanting those higher wages provided by enterprise agreements as merely collateral damage in this fallacious and unsubstantiated war. So much for Labor being on your side—not if you want higher wages, higher productivity, higher flexibility and more control in your own life.

To assert that the Fair Work Commission needs to approve these agreements in 21 days, in a tick-and-flick exercise, is patently false. The Fair Work Commission very clearly has the ability to extend that approval process where the merits of the application bear that out. But make no mistake: these reforms don't allow the Fair Work Commission to stand between Australian workers who desire more money in their pockets and an expedited agreement-making process. There's no automatic union involvement in that, but it's not precluded in any way. Should any single Australian entering into a negotiation process appoint a union, then so be it; they're at the bargaining table. When nine per cent of the Australian private sector is covered by unions, why on earth would we listen to those opposite and tell the other 90 per cent of Australians that they need to have a union between them and their employer? It's not borne out by the choices that Australians make every day when they choose to keep their hard-earned money in their pocket or spend it on their families, rather than giving it to the union movement, who keep our colleagues over there on the opposition benches in check.

From the Western Australian perspective, the greenfields agreements changes are essential for securing the ongoing massive infrastructure investment in the resources and energy sectors that we desperately need as we recover from COVID-19. The maximum period of time that an agreement can run for is eight years. It's not automatically eight years; it is a maximum of eight years, and only when it includes a mandated increase in salary annually. What prevents that sort of very positive arrangement that facilitates investment in massive projects, generates jobs and drives taxation revenue that pays for the sorts of things that keep the Greens in this chamber? It is the opposition to these sorts of reforms.

We talked about compliance and enforcement before. The changes in schedule 5 introduce stronger protections for employees through measures that not only include tougher penalties and orders to deter noncompliance but, when noncompliance occurs, get wages underpayments recovered and into e pockets sooner. What stands between employees and that money that they would have in their pockets sooner? Again, it is the opposition and the Greens who stand between us and very sensible, incremental and non-ideological reforms. The Morrison government is about jobs and more money in the pockets of Australians. I commend these reforms to the Senate.