Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have a great deal of pleasure in talking about the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023 because it has critically important aspects, even though some of them might be quite simple, straightforward variations of the bill for many.

This bill has been a matter of discussion for some considerable time. Parts of it come out of the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, which found that the corporations and financial services law needs to be simplified to ensure that its intent is met. There are also reforms coming out of the ALRC review, which go to the point of unfreezing the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 so that the current version of the act applies to the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, the ASIC Act, creating a single glossary of defined terms in section 9 of the Corporations Act; repealing redundant provisions, including definitions that are no longer used and cross-references to repealed provisions; correcting errors; and improving clarity, with a particular focus on terms defined as having more than one meaning and definitions containing substantive obligations. In effect, this bill makes it more straightforward and easier to apply. These are critically important aspects of making sure that we have a more effective and efficient system.

I noticed that the discussions yesterday regarding the bill went to some of the efficiencies that could be driven but also the importance of looking at what's happening in the insurance industry. There are a number of very important inquiries relating to the insurance industry going on in other areas—in particular, the parliamentary inquiry into insurers' responses to the 2022 floods, which is being held by the other place, the House. That inquiry also has an important role to play in making sure we have a more efficient system when dealing with insurance. That inquiry will be looking at the February to March 2022 floods in South-East Queensland and New South Wales, which are the costliest natural disasters in terms of insurance. When we say 'natural disasters', we should say 'natural disasters that become humanitarian disasters', because natural events are a regular occurrence, of course, in this country, but a humanitarian disaster is one that we have to make sure we are fit for purpose to deal with. One important aspect of that is insurance costs. Another is the capacity to build back better when those disasters hit.

I know that that inquiry was called after the Assistant Treasurer visited communities impacted by floods in South-East Queensland, with Graham Perrett MP, and in the Northern Rivers, with Janelle Saffin, the New South Wales state MP. Following a visit to flood ravaged towns in the Central West of New South Wales last month, Mr Jones announced an inquiry alongside the member for Calare, Andrew Gee MP. Those terms of reference are incredibly important because they go to the issue of how we deal with multifaceted issues that face us with insurance—not only making sure that we have an easier process for dealing with financial matters, including insurance matters, but also looking at the broader insurance questions that are plaguing many within our community with the ongoing challenges from the increasing number of natural hazards that are becoming humanitarian disasters within our community.

Also discussed yesterday was the fact that this will drive a series of efficiencies and get rid of some of the cumbersome red tape. Those on the opposite side see red tape often in the sense of when there are protections for workers or protections for various people. That's red tape they want to get rid of. Getting rid of this red tape will actually drive efficiency. Through these amendments it is replaced with a clearer and more purposeful way of dealing with these particular matters in this legislation.

I note the number of people who have been killed in the food delivery industry. In the last two years 13 people have lost their lives—and those are just the ones that have been reported. Thirteen young people were working in Australia. Many of them were visa holders. In the food delivery industry they are paid by the job and are paid such a small amount of money. They have to push themselves to get the job done. If they don't get the job done, they find themselves deactivated by an algorithm.

I really dislike the terminology 'termination'. It sounds horrific when somebody has just lost their livelihood. It's very blunt language. The language has now turned to something that is even more blunt and even more disconnected. It's a bit like the language of the 1970s that was used to describe lives lost overseas in a war—'collateral damage'. In the food delivery industry where there's no regulation or exceptionally very little regulation—certainly no labour regulation and rights—people are deactivated. They are having their jobs terminated and having their livelihood deactivated by an algorithm.

When we talk about the cost of living and more efficiencies to drive the economy to have fewer costs, including the issues talked about in the Australian Law Reform Commission recommendations that go to this treasury laws amendment bill, we have to look at the broad cost-of-living impacts. The cost of living impacts right across the economy and the community.

I look again at food delivery workers and the effects of not having regulation, in comparison to the regulation we're getting rid of here. I've heard a number of people on the opposite side over a period of years say that it's incredibly important that we have a more efficient and productive workforce. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. In actual fact I'd be really disappointed if someone disagreed with that. I'm looking in a certain direction in the room to see whether there is disappointment from everybody in the room here, but I hope certainly all of us here believe that productivity is a positive thing for the economy, community and business—and, importantly, when I say 'community' I mean the workforce and those who live and work in it, because that's really why we're striving to get better outcomes.

When we look at productivity we also have to look at the decency of what we deliver as a community. One of the things Australia is so proud of is delivering, by and large, a better society in comparison to many other communities around the world by giving people rights. Giving people rights and working people rights brings not only better outcomes but also more fairness. I describe it this way. Good companies abide by the laws and strive to do the right thing to have a productive company and have a good outcome for their shareholders and their business. Also driving that is having good outcomes for their customers and, incredibly importantly, their entire workforce.

When you look at the gig industry those opposite have said that they believe that having workers being paid minimum standards is something that doesn't work for the community. So many people have lost their lives. Their loved ones have seen the devastation on our roads. They have lost loved ones as a result of chasing wages that are as little as $6 an hour. Having to make those deliveries in all sorts of weather, regardless of the consequences of having to rush from point A to point B—those same workers operated and worked during the COVID period, at great risk to themselves, to make sure they were able to put food on their tables and provide medicine for their families and themselves. To say that they don't deserve to have minimum standards and shouldn't have access to things like workers compensation, sick leave or, at least, a minimum hourly wage rate or flexibility arrangements to bring their payments up in line with similar payments, no less than the minimum wage—when they say that it's all too complicated, it reminds me of what they've said before.

There's been consistency from those opposite regarding gig workers. I have to give the Liberal and National parties some credit here, because they have been absolutely consistent. They believe that having low wages in the economy is a way to drive the economy forward. When it comes to gig workers, many on the opposite side—I hazard to say it's not all of them, certainly in private—have said that it's too complicated to give gig workers rights. That would be adding red tape, putting more regulation in.

Heaven forbid! For someone not getting paid at least the minimum wage, not getting workers compensation and not getting potential access to sick leave, delivering food to the doors of Australians right across the country or picking people up to take them from point A to point B, let alone delivering a parcel with Amazon—to say that those people don't deserve minimum standards and minimum rights is an absolute outrage. When you don't give minimum rights to those people working in those segments of the community and the market, you say to the entire labour market outside those industries that that approach is okay. You then say that this is the way you can run a workforce, so, you have situations with companies like Mable.

Many of Mable's workers are paid well below the minimum wage. That company is making profit on the revenue that it receives from the federal government, in comparison with companies where people are employed as employees and they get sick leave, they get training, there is accountability, there are requirements and the aged care royal commission standards are met. Mable don't give workers compensation, don't have training requirements, don't have ongoing obligations, don't meet the standards that need to be met by any decent A-grade company—the good employers—but they do one thing: they are driven by a profit margin. They are driven by an ambition to make more money. For those people that aren't getting paid minimum wages in those sorts of industries, that aren't getting training or getting skilled, it is actually having an affect on some of the most vulnerable people in our community and the chance of those people getting the right services, which they deserve.

I'll make this very clear: this is not to say the people working at Mable deserve anything better or less. Those people working at Mable, and many good, well-meaning people working at Mable, deserve to get paid the minimum wage. When they don't get paid the minimum wage and they don't get the minimum standards, not only do the carers and the people they're caring for lose but also those companies and workers that provide a better standard of service lose.

When we're looking at what we should be doing about regulation, this is an important bill, because it does start moving an efficiency within regulation, getting rid of red tape. This is an important aspect of how we make things more efficient. It says very clearly that there's a way and means of coming together and doing things in a smarter way. But when we start looking at cost-of-living questions right across the economy, we need to look at all the cost-of-living packages that can help Australian people.