Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of these four private senators' bills, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023 and the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023. I believe the contribution made by Senator Watt on behalf of the government was a fundamentally flawed contribution for these reasons. In the first instance, the arguments put forward by Senator Watt are undermined by the various start dates in the government's bill. Even if the bill were passed this year, it wouldn't change the fact that the proposed effective date for the casual conversion to commence is 1 July 2024.

The proposed effective date for the new definition of 'casual employee' is 1 July 2024. In relation to regulated labour hire, the bill states that a regulated labour hire arrangement order cannot come into effect before 1 November 2024. In relation to the unfair contractual terms, again the proposed effective date is 1 July 2024. In relation to criminalising wage theft and an increase in penalties for underpayments, again the proposed effective date, if not set, is 1 January 2025. In relation to the work health and safety aspects that the minister has referred to, the date is 1 July 2024. As I said, though, in relation to the proposed amendment to right of entry—the new process for allowing worker representatives to obtain permission to enter a workplace without the current requirement for 24 hours notice—what he again conveniently forgot to remind the chamber is that that commences on 1 January 2024. Maybe that's why the minister wanted this legislation rushed through the parliament.

I also take issue with the comments made by Senator Watt in relation to the motivations of the crossbench. The crossbench have been very, very clear as to why they are bringing forward these bills. The omnibus bill is considered one of the most complex and confusing bills to ever hit this parliament. I see in the papers that, allegedly, the minister himself is negotiating with employer groups to already—allegedly—make changes to the casual provisions. We see another article today that says that, allegedly, they're going to make some changes in relation to the gig economy aspects of this bill. I would have thought that that would indicate that the minister himself has already worked out that the legislation is complex and it is confusing, but, worse than that, it is flawed. But, in relation to the four elements that these four bills deal with, there is overwhelming consensus—in particular from the employer groups—that these four parts of the government's omnibus bill don't require further explanation. They certainly don't require further exploration. They can be passed through the Senate. Then it will be for the government to determine whether or not it wants to play politics or, when it gets to the other place, facilitate the timely passage of these four bills before the end of the year.

There are some of us in this chamber who actually want to be constructive when it comes to the passage of the non-controversial parts of what is, as I said, a very, very complex and confusing omnibus bill. Minister Burke has been asked to provide comment as to why the government has stated it won't split the bills, and the best the minister can consistently come up with is, 'We want to ensure that workers get paid correctly.' But, again, the minister's argument—and excuse—is undermined by the start dates in the government's own legislation. Maybe the minister is ignorant as to the start dates. Maybe the department hasn't told him what the start dates are. But given that the commencement dates are not until, in any event, after the Senate committee reports on 1 February next year, his entire argument for not being able to split the bill just falls away.

As I said, though, what is unfortunate in the minister 's arguments is that he needs to be upfront with the Australian people as to the one part of the bill that does commence on 1 January 2024, and that is in relation to the right of entry provisions.

As we know, that is something that unions have long been asking for. Why have that start on 1 July 2024 when you can tick off quite conveniently another one of those agenda items on the lists of the various unions and deliver it to them on 1 January 2024? Quite frankly, Minister Burke's excuses were nothing more and nothing less than a cynical exercise by the minister to give the Albanese government a cover for trying to rush his wider controversial legislation through the parliament.

I think it actually is a great shame that the Labor Party would use the issue—and both Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock have addressed this—of post-traumatic stress syndrome in our First Nations responders as a reason to try to ram through the whole bill this year or, for that matter, using changes to silica related diseases or, for that matter, using discrimination against people suffering from family or domestic violence as an excuse for trying to rush through the bill this year. Alternatively, they talk about wanting to ensure that workers get paid. Well, guess what. What do they think the small business redundancy change is going to do? If it passes, that's going to make sure that, for a big business that through, say, insolvency becomes a small business, the small business exemption in relation to the payment of redundancy that is currently available to small businesses actually does not apply. For the employees of that particular business, which is now smaller business under the relevant threshold, guess what. They don't miss out on their redundancy payment. But, again, the Labor Party stand here today full of excuses.

Had Senator Pocock and Senator Lambie perhaps redrafted these four provisions—had they made changes to them—there may have been an argument in which the government could say: 'We need to consider them further. You've made some changes to what we had proposed. We need to consider them further.' But, you see, Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock haven't done that. The bills that are presented to this parliament are in the identical format to what is currently in the government's legislation. The only difference is employers across the nation, within reason, agree that these four elements can be passed this year and don't require any further explanation or exploration throughout the committee process. On that basis, along with the coalition, along with the crossbench, we are prepared to be constructive in relation to the government's omnibus bill and pass today those elements of the bill that do deliver for Australian workers, that do deliver for those suffering from or who have been victims of family and domestic violence, that do deliver for those who were employed by a larger business but through no fault of their own are now employed by a smaller business and may not therefore be able to get a redundancy payment, that will deliver for those in relation to the asbestos authority, now taking on the remit for silica related diseases.

Senator Pocock went through this in great detail. Those first responders who work each and every day on behalf of the Australian people see terrible things. They, quite frankly, see things that no other person should ever have to see, and on our behalf they discharge their duty each and every day. The Labor Party are prepared to pay politics in relation to the change to post-traumatic stress syndrome and the presumption that their job and what they saw actually did cause the post-traumatic stress syndrome? Wow. That's the 2023 Labor government under the current Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese.

Let's also have a look at what the employers say about these four changes. The Australian Retailers Association support the splitting of the bill. They have some massive issues in relation to, for example, the casual elements of this bill, because they actually employ a lot of casuals.

But in relation to these four parts, they say, 'No, we don't have any issues with these four parts. We agree; let's all be constructive and pass these elements through the Australian Senate, and should Mr Albanese, as Prime Minister of this country, decide to show a bit of leadership, decide to show that he is not playing politics with this bill, pass them through the lower house next week.'

The Business Council of Australia has urged the Senate to split the government's massive omnibus workplace relations bill and support the four private senators' bill. They said:

The Government's radical workplace relations changes are a threat to jobs, they're bad for business and bad for workers and they shouldn't be rushed through the Senate,"

They then said they 'strongly support … splitting these bills and the coalition's efforts in calling for more time to properly scrutinise the 800-page omnibus bill'. Have a look at what the Master Builders Association of Australia states. They also say that they support the crossbenchers moves to split the IR bill. Denita Wawn, the CEO, said the government's 'attempt to hold additional protections for workers hostage to an ideological anti-business bill is wrong'.

Senators Pocock and Lambie have put forward splitting of the bill. They say this is a sensible approach to ensure the non-controversial and broadly supported elements of the bill are passed without delay and they urge the government to support these bills.

Let's look at COSBOA, because small businesses have gone into meltdown over the government's proposed changes to the way they have to employ people. COSBOA are also being constructive. They represent small businesses in this country. Let's look at what their position is. While opposing most of the changes, COSBOA says 'less contentious elements of the Bill should be carved away from the Closing the Loopholes package'. It said:

Those measures include provisions to close a loophole in the small business redundancy scheme, establish workplace protections for family and domestic violence survivors, expand workers’ compensation for employees experiencing PTSD, and reshape Australia’s asbestos safety regime to also cover silicosis and other silica-related diseases.

We also have the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They said splitting the bill is a sensible proposal that will allow the Labor Party to proceed quickly with the non-contentious elements of the legislation. They say business is supportive of the implementation of work health and safety measures relating to PTSD for first responders, domestic violence and silicosis. They, like so many others, believe that the more complex parts, the more confusing parts, of the bill do demand greater scrutiny. The government, through the media, is currently announcing changes to these more controversial parts on the run—I mean, we haven't even seen the drafting of these changes—which shows the step taken in the Senate today is the right step forward if you want to be constructive in the omnibus legislation.

As I've said, the coalition are prepared to be constructive. We are prepared to support the passage of the non-controversial parts of this legislation. Senator Watt could not provide one credible reason. He said a lot. Some of it even sounded good, but when you scratch the surface and you look at the facts that do not sustain Senator Watt's arguments, guess what? They fall away completely. Quite frankly, this is a test for the government. Will they actually support the crossbench and the coalition in being constructive in relation to their own legislation? Only time will tell.