Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) to questions without notice asked by Senator Farrell today relating to insecure work.

What we've seen over the last 12 months is extraordinary service, extraordinary sacrifice and extraordinary dedication by the essential workers in our country and a dawning realisation that essential workers are not only those who put out fires, rescue us in natural disasters and provide police, emergency and health services but also hospital staff, cleaners, security workers, workers all through the supply chain striving to keep essential goods available, workers in our ports and airports and public servants in Centrelink, Health and Tax. ACTU secretary Sally McManus pretty much summed it up when she said, 'The economy, local businesses will not be able to recover if workers are facing pay cuts.' She was of course talking about the plans of this government to cut the wages and conditions of workers in this country under IR laws. She went on to say: 'Families need the confidence to spend. You can't heal the economy by hurting working people.'

Prime Minister Morrison, summoning his best sincere face, announced, 'We're all in this together,' in April last year. 'We've got to put down our weapons,' he declared. Well, it's quite clear now that the Morrison government has picked up those weapons and is armed to the teeth. Its plan is a pathway for employers to cut pay due to the impact of COVID-19 on their businesses, to wipe out back-pay claims for misclassified casuals and to have so-called flexibility for part-time workers to pick up shifts without overtime rates.

The Minister for Defence, in her answer, talked about the BOOT, the better off overall test. The government wants to suspend rules that prevent enterprise agreements from undercutting minimum award standards. Just to put this change into perspective: it wasn't even discussed—it wasn't even on the agenda—at the government's 'We're all in this together' IR meetings last year. We know that suspending the BOOT will result in cuts to take-home pay for one in four workers that are covered by enterprise agreements. Weaker BOOT protections will spur a wave of new enterprise agreements, allowing employers further opportunity to suppress labour costs, which are already tracking at their slowest pace in postwar history.

We know that the government's proposal would also allow part-time employees covered by the 12 awards in the retail, food and accommodation industries to work extra shifts at ordinary rates, without the overtime loading. This has been referred to as 'part-time flexibility', but in truth we all know that it's casual employment by another name. Allowing extra work without overtime will cut take-home pay. This will allow employers to effectively use part-time workers as yet another form of casual labour. This government believes that any job can be casual so long as workers are desperate enough to accept it. There can be no doubt that this will feed the further spread of insecure employment without paid leave entitlements.

In the news today we see that the proposal by the government on the bill has been labelled as an immediate threat to public health by a significant group of public health experts from the Australian National University. Casual workers, who have no sick leave, have already borne the brunt of this pandemic, and now the government is brazenly attempting to legislate to have as many casual workers as possible. In reality, the changes to both part-time and casual employment rules will discourage new hiring. If existing employees can't be costly flexed in line with employer needs, why would you hire anyone else?

This bill has been spruiked by two 'hollow men'—marketing man Prime Minister Morrison and Attorney-General Mr Christian Porter—and it's a scam. The changes that it will introduce will be marketed by these hollow men as a trigger for post-pandemic job creation. But, again, that claim is hollow. It's a hollow claim made by hollow men. The statement that they made back in 2020 that 'we're all in this together' was very short lived. These are hollow men and they should leave IR alone. (Time expired)

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to Senator Urquhart's reference to 'hollow', what is hollow and, more than that, disappointing—profoundly disappointing—is that we're in a position in this country where there are reasonable things that could be done to improve our industrial relations system that are in the best interests of employers and employees, that are fair and reasonable, that have checks and balances and that would promote more employment and, in particular, for young people who have not had the opportunity for employment that other people have had in our society, promote the opportunity for them to get their first job and to get experience. It's a real shame, a profound shame, that we can't come together and come up with a system of reforms to make it easier, not harder, for small business—in particular, small business—to take that step to hire that extra worker, to give that young person a go, to give young people more hours and to provide them with more opportunities and, therefore, more experience so that they can progress in their career, and in their life, with the benefit of that work. It's a real shame, I believe, that what are relatively modest proposals for IR reform have once again become bogged down by an ideological debate.

In relation to casual workers, I'd just like to make the initial observation that I went back and looked at the 2009 Fair Work Act, and the definition of 'casual worker' in that act was totally unacceptable; it wasn't there. It wasn't there. I don't know what the thinking of the then government was at the time with respect to how they defined 'casual work' in the Fair Work Act. I'd love to know. I should maybe go back and have a look at the parliamentary record. But there was no definition of 'casual work'.

In the industrial reforms that are being put forward by the government, there actually is a definition of 'casual work'. Is that an issue? Do people have an issue with that—that casual work is work where there is 'no firm advance commitment' to ongoing work? It seems an absolutely fair definition to me. So this reform seeks to actually provide a definition of casual work. The implication of the then Labor government's abject failure to put in a definition of casual work is that so many small businesses have been absolutely blindsided by a decision of the courts. Small businesses paid someone who'd been hired as a casual worker the extra loading—because they're a casual worker, they're not getting annual leave et cetera, so they're paid the extra 25 per cent—only to then find out that the law did not consider them to be a casual worker and the business had a liability to pay those workers the entitlements which they missed out on, notwithstanding the fact that they'd been paid a 25 per cent loading. How any reasonable person can look at that set of circumstances and determine that reasonable and fair reform is not required is absolutely beyond me. What do those opposite think will happen if small businesses across this country face claims, years old, with respect to allegations that entitlements have to be paid out, when the 25 per cent loading was paid?

This is an area that needs reform. It needs to be fixed. This is a problem. I call upon those opposite to actually address that particular problem of where a small business has paid someone the 25 per cent loading on the reasonable understanding that they're a casual, and then it's determined years later that they weren't a casual and that same person applies to be paid out their entitlements. What is your answer to that particular problem? That is the question that small businesses around this country are asking every day: if you do not support this change, what is your answer to the issue of double dipping? (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak on the motion to take note of the answer given by Senator Payne to a question asked by Senator Farrell. That was an interesting speech. I've got a bit of time for Senator Scarr, but I think he needs to have a look at some of the facts around what's happening out there in the workplace. In actual fact, it would be useful to look at what's happening with regard to the WorkPac case, the mining industry and labour hire. In the case of the mining industry, a decision was taken regarding workers who had clearly been ripped off. They were operating as permanent workers but being paid as casual workers; they were getting paid 40 per cent less for doing exactly the same work as the permanent employees standing beside them. Let's be very clear: a casual employee working for a labour hire company was being paid 40 per cent less than a permanent employee who was getting annual and sick leave entitlements, and all those protections you would expect from permanent employment. The decision in that court was clearly about employers double dipping. Of course, that decision was peculiar to the particular circumstances that the court considered. It considered the fact that those workers received rosters 12 months in advance. I don't know too many small employers who give rosters 12 months in advance. I can understand why they wouldn't. I don't see many employers in many other industries giving rosters 12 months in advance. But, if you do, maybe the WorkPac case does apply to you, and you've been double dipping and ripping off casuals, just like what's happening in the resources industry.

I'd like to hope that those opposite just don't understand. I'd like to hope that they don't really know because they don't really look at the consequences; they read the propaganda sheet that they receive. Unfortunately, too many of them clearly understand too well that this is an attack on job security for part-time workers by casualising their performance. When an employer in the real world says, 'I'd like you to do your part-time overtime at flat rates, and you have one of two choices,' the person says either no or yes. And everyone knows what happens, in too many circumstances, when you say no to your employer. If you do say yes, what happens to the other part-time worker who's receiving those overtime payments for the exact same role? Funnily enough, the person receiving the proper penalty and exercising their proper rights is not employed, is not engaged. It's not true to say that every employer operates that way. But, when they do, their competitors have no other option but to meet the market requirements. If one player and rips off part-time workers in one market and gets a cheaper rate, then those companies that are competing are under pressure to take the exact same steps. How can it possibly be seen in isolation? When someone makes that decision in a workplace, it's not in isolation, and it isn't in isolation across a market. So, when decent employers, good employers, thoughtful employers don't want to go down that course, there is a consequence. That gets us down to the BOOT test. You know, bad business are licking their lips at this bill. They can't believe their luck. Some are even coming forward with suggestions of how they could take money from workers. McDonald's even put in a submission that they should be allowed to cut their workers' pay if the workers eat some chicken nuggets on their break—the old company store approach.

This bill that the government is talking about is part of the government's multipronged attack on Australian workers. I note Senator Bragg is spearheading the attack on workers' superannuation. Let's not have dignity in retirement, heaven forbid; that's the premise of the well-off and parliamentarians. He believes that cutting your superannuation will somehow trickle into your pay, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Perhaps he can work with McDonald's on their plan to not pay superannuation but to give people fries. The BOOT test, as has been proposed by the government, clearly is a substantial wage cut. Any simple review of the proposals from this government shows that they cut wages on penalties, on shift allowances, on annual leave payments. There is a cut right across public holidays. There's all that capacity to have that effect. (Time expired)

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is like groundhog day time and again. I have never seen an IR scare campaign that the Labor Party can't get behind. Really, that is what is so sad and desperate when it comes to the modern Labor Party. I would like to support Senator Scarr in his comments. Potentially, what is the most disappointing part of the modern Labor Party is their inability to ever have a sensible discussion about reform. They are totally incapable of looking at any changes without running back to the old scare campaign tactics. I don't know why we are surprised. When you look at those opposite and those in the other place, at times you start to wonder and question whether or not it is la-la land that they live in when it comes to running a business, when it comes to employing staff. We know having ever run a business, having ever employed people, having ever faced the burdens of red tape—having looked at the challenges of being every part of a business from payroll to marketing to HR—is not part of their preselection criteria. We on this side know that those opposite and those who sit on the opposition benches in the other place have little to no understanding of the challenges of small business, and that is completely obvious when you look at the way they have politicised and tried to respond to the current COVID pandemic and to the efforts the Morrison government has made in securing small business's future and in ensuring that those small businesses are able to survive and rebuild on the other side of this pandemic.

Yesterday, watching Sally McManus be the spokesperson for Labor, the spokesperson for industrial relations reform, when we know there is not an employer that Sally McManus wouldn't like to see the back of, there seemed to be this disconnect when it came down to it. Labor want to talk about jobs, they want to talk about pay and conditions, but they just want to demonise all employers. There is an inability to accept from Labor that employers are the people who create jobs. We can support employers and ensure their businesses can succeed, we can cut red tape, we can make it easier for those businesses to do what they're good at—conduct their core business—so that more jobs will be created boosting the opportunities and options for all Australian workers. But, of course, 'options', like 'choice', is a dirty word for the Labor Party. Why do the Labor Party hate choice? Why do they think Australian workers are so incapable that they can't make a decision? What's better for them? Is it better to receive loadings, to continue working as a casual? Is it better to move to a permanent position?

But why do the Labor Party have so little faith that Australians and Australian workers are able to make that choice?

Why do they think it's appropriate to cut casuals' wages, if that's how they choose to remain, by on average $153 a week? I am looking forward to Mr Albanese, the opposition leader, coming out and explaining to workers why, whilst removing their choice, he determines they should take, on average, a $153 pay cut.

We know that this will be about choice; there will be an option for workers. We know that this flies in the face of the groupthink ideology so embraced by Labor that unions know best: 'Do as we tell you.' When we look at the behaviour of some of the union bosses, we know it's: 'Do as I say, not as I do. We know best for you. Big Brother will look after you; don't you worry about that. Don't challenge your little head with any of those independent thoughts.' But, again, we can't see a Labor Party here that's actually looking out for workers, because we know what it is about. It's only about one job in the country, and it's a job that's looking very shaky at the moment. This is all about the job of opposition leader Anthony Albanese. That's perhaps why now, after the industrial relations spokesperson for Labor, Tony Burke, came out, declaring that all Australians in insecure work should be able to take all their leave entitlements with them, at a cost to business of up to $20 billion a year, we see Mr Burke running away from that a little bit. Perhaps that's as he's trying to remain as supportive of his neighbour Chris Bowen as he looks to the future of his own career. (Time expired)

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

When asked today about why the government's new IR laws are designed to make insecure work even more entrenched, the government again ignored the expert advice of 23 law professors in this country who say that these IR laws will not only fail to address the wage stagnation that is absolutely plaguing our economy at the moment and fail to address the insecure work that so many Australians face today but in fact actually exacerbate these problems. Again the government has decided to ignore these 23 law experts today. They've decided today to double-down on their tired old false claims—false claims that we've heard over and over and over again from that side of politics and false claims that somehow cutting pay is important to boosting jobs. Somehow cutting pay is going to boost jobs and boost the economy—that is the tired old play from this Liberal government. They have doubled-down on false claims today that making more Australians casual and insecure is going to somehow boost the economy and false claims that somehow scrapping the better off over all test is going to magically leave Australians better off overall, when it is clearly designed to leave Australians worse off, apparently, according to this government, in service of a stronger economy.

Australians see through this Liberal government's spin. They know that, in the middle of this health crisis and in the middle of an economic crisis, the Liberal government is actually just reaching into the bottom drawer to pull out their tired old playbook and to pull out their tired old plans—attacks on workers, attacks on unions, attacks on people's basic rights at work, cuts to workers' pay and cuts to workers' rights. That is the recipe that this government has for Australians to get through this pandemic and to set the economy on the right foot. Australians know better than to believe that. Australians know that they have faced persistently low wages under this government, even before the pandemic, and they know that Scott Morrison's response to this industrial relations bill will only make that problem worse. A pay cut is not going to help the stagnant wages of Australians. Casualising more Australians is not going to address the epidemic that we have of insecure work in this country.

Wages were flatlining under this government even before COVID-19, and it is a big problem. It's a big problem for workers who can't afford to put food on the table for themselves and their families and it's a big problem for the economy as a whole. What we actually need is for people to have pay packets so they can open their wallets and spend in local businesses in their communities. That's what we actually need to get this economy moving. We need people to have secure jobs to get this economy moving. People need the security of a pay cheque next week, the week after and the week after that and they need hours of work next week, the week after and the week after that in order to be able to spend in local businesses in their communities and give our economy the boost it needs.

Under this government too many Australians are stuck in low-paid and insecure jobs—casuals, contractors, freelancers, labour hire workers and gig workers. People are stuck in jobs with no certainty of work for the next day, the next week or the next month ahead. We actually need a government that has a plan to boost wages and to boost job security, not to make more workers casual, not to deliver a pay cut to more Australian workers and not to hang out the very essential workers who saw us through 2020. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.