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

Senator Pocock, yes! This happened to me last night, and I rise in continuance on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This is a bill that will deliver secure jobs and better pay for Australians. It's a bill that puts respect for women workers at the heart of our workplace laws. It's a bill that makes better wages a deliberate design feature of our government's agenda.

This bill is urgent, because working Australians deserve a better life right now. After 10 years of low wages as a design feature of economic policy of the previous government, we've seen a race to the bottom on wages and conditions across some of our most essential sectors, many of which are now facing unprecedented workforce shortages. These workers simply cannot afford to wait any longer, like early childhood educator Kylie Gray who told me that if her wages don't improve soon she will have to leave the sector that she loves after 15 years simply because she is losing hope and she can't afford to say. There are workers like security officer Pete Watkins, who has seen his wages fall over the past 10 years from seven per cent above the award back down to the award, all because security officers can't negotiate to protect wages across multiple employers today and they get undercut by dodgy security operators. Workers like Sheree Clark can't wait a day longer. She's been living in a caravan park, waiting for secure hours in her part-time contract in aged care—one of Australia's most essential sectors. She is waiting for secure hours so she can improve her income and sign a lease on a house. This is not how we should be treating our essential workers in Australia today. These workers can't afford to wait another day, let alone another 10 years, to see real change in their working lives.

Our current industrial relations system is broken and outdated. It's based on an economy that doesn't exist anymore. It's based on an economy that looked very different from today, and it's a system that is no longer delivering for employers or for employees. It's a system that locks out thousands of workers from the benefits of bargaining. All work is valuable, and every worker deserves a chance to have a seat at the table where they can be heard, where their experience and expertise are recognised, and where their work is valued. What this bill isn't about is conflict. This is actually about balance and it's about respect. It's about respect for the voice of working Australians, like the essential workers I just spoke about. It's also about respect for the needs of business. This bill is about getting the balance right to build a strong and fair economy that benefits everyone.

Just six months ago, we promised the people of Australia that if they elected Albanese Labor government we would get wages moving and we would deliver secure jobs. That's because we know that good, secure jobs mean better lives. We know that after 10 years of falling wages we can't afford wait another day. I'm proud that today we are getting on with the job: fixing a broken system, getting wages moving and delivering on our promise to deliver a better, brighter future based on good, secure jobs for all Australians. Thank you.

(Quorum formed)

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm speaking on a bill called the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, but I reckon it should be renamed the 'Let's Give Union Bosses a Return On Their Investment in the Labor Party Bill 2022'. In terms of this new National Anti-Corruption Commission that has come into being, I wonder whether we're going to see a referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission in relation to the relationship between the unions and the Labor Party. This bill actually isn't about higher wages, which we all support. This bill is about the Labor Party government giving a return on the investment that was put into the election of a Labor Party government by the unions. That is what this bill is all about. It is an acknowledgement that the Labor Party, which is defunct on the ground, won the election due to the campaigning strengths of the union movement as a political and campaigning movement. For that, the Labor Party has to return a favour to the union bosses, and that's what this bill is all about. It is about empowering union bosses. It's about empowering union thugs to go into small businesses across Australia and intimidate business owners, intimidate workers and threaten them, because that is the business model of the union movement.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And that's what John Setka confirmed.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And that, as my colleague Senator Henderson has confirmed with her helpful contribution, is what John Setka, the thug of all thugs, has confirmed—we talk about first among equals; he is the thug among equals, the first thug I suppose—in relation to what he wants to see out of this Labor Government, and that is a return on his investment.

This is not for the interest of Australians. This is not for the interest of business owners and those who run businesses. This is all about the union movement. That is sad. Look at what is facing Australia at the moment. We are looking at a growing unemployment rate. We are looking at a growing inflation rate. We are looking at mortgage rates going up. This has all happened since May, by the way, for those who may be listening. It's all happened since the election of this Labor government because we all know that Labor will always cost you more. Labor is effectively bringing in a de facto federal payroll tax, because what it is saying to small businesses across Australia is that they have to pay anywhere between $14,000 or $15,000 and $80,000 to participate in relation to the provisions under this bill.

What the Rhodes scholars opposite don't realise is that when you're a small-business owner you depend on the income from selling goods and services, but you also have your costs. If your costs are going to go up in one of your columns—for example, suddenly you've got to pay $70,000 or $80,000 to participate in negotiating wages and salaries for your employees because you're compelled to because you have union thugs on your doorstep—that means you actually, irony upon ironies, which the Rhodes scholar runners up over there don't realise, won't be able to afford to give people the pay rises that you want to give to them.

The money will go into this great big black pot, this vortex. But the people who the left claim they want to stand up for and claim to represent are actually going to lose out under the provisions of this bill. It is very sad that the Mensa society members over there don't realise that because, and I cannot emphasise this enough, this is not about giving Australians higher wages and higher salaries. This bill is not about that. This bill is about empowering the union movement.

When you look at what has happened to the union movement in Queensland and Australia—I am a senator from Queensland—the Labor Party came out of the shearers' strike in western Queensland in the 1890s. You sometimes wonder what those genuine workers, those shearers, who wanted to have a political movement, would think about when they look at the modern Labor Party. Would they go: 'Really? Is this the movement that is supposed to represent working Australians today?' Of course it doesn't, because the Labor Party and the union movement's support for working-class Australians has disintegrated. They've been captured by the wokers. They've been captured by the trendy-dendies who like to live in the city and like to ride their bikes everywhere and claim to be all for public transport. They fail to understand that the reason that union membership in Australia has declined over the last 30 or 40 years from the 50, 60, 70 per cent of Australians who used to be members of unions is the failure of the union movement to stand up for working Australians.

I heard my colleague say earlier today that the union membership at the moment is at about 14 per cent of the workforce. I actually thought it was a little bit lower. I think that within the private sector it's about 10 per cent. I think the 14 per cent takes into account those who are in the public sector. In the private sector—in small businesses, in medium businesses and in large businesses—only one in 10 Australians are members of a union. The other way of putting it is that 90 per cent of working Australians are not members of a union, yet we have this bill in front of us which is all about empowering union bosses and trying to arrest the decline of union membership. It's all about trying to ensure that union bosses can turn up on a small business's doorstep and force, threaten, cajole and bully workers to try and join a union. It is sad that one of the so-called key accomplishments of this government, in the six months that they've been in power, is going to be a bill that actually does nothing to increase the salaries and wages of working Australians, but instead increases the power of the union bosses.

You should always look at what people say and then what they do. What is interesting is that when the Labor Party went to the election, this was very much a secret deal between the union movement and the Labor Party. Why I say that is that no-one knew about it. This was a secret deal that was locked away. It was clearly nutted out and probably signed with a handshake. I don't know, perhaps it was a spit in the hand type of handshake or a wink across the room between the Prime Minister and the union bosses to say that if you help us get elected we will repay the favour. We will repay the favour by bringing in pieces of legislation that will help the union movement.

My opening comments about the National Anti-Corruption Commission weren't said in jest. They were actually quite serious. If there was a secret deal between the Labor Party and the union movement—in terms of cash for policy, campaign funds for policy, campaign funds for legislation—it's something that we should know. It is something that should have been put on the table before the election. It wasn't. It was secret. Therefore, what else is in this deal between the Labor Party and the union movement? What else is there?

We can talk about what the Labor Party are going to do, for example, in relation to electoral reform. We all know that the Labor Party depend on the union movement, so they're going to bring forward reforms that will put a cap on expenditure. They are gong to bring in a financial gerrymander—the Queensland model. They'll bring that in here federally. It will effectively remove the fairness that exists between political parties at a federal level, between those on the Left and the Right, and ensure that there is a financial gerrymander that favours the parties on the Left. You can only look at Queensland where political parties are capped at $15 million each for their electoral expenditure but unions are capped at $10 million. There are 26 unions in Queensland. Twenty-six times 10 is 260. So unions can spend $260 million in an election in Queensland, plus the Labor Party's $15 million. The LNP, my party, the party of the grassroots, will be out spent 20 to one. That is not fair. Whatever your views may be of the left and right of politics, we should all believe that there should be a fairness between the left and the right in terms of how they participate or are stopped from participating, how they are encouraged to participate in Australia's democracy.

What we are seeing here is what happened in Queensland, the financial gerrymander that effectively locks the LNP out, is that Labor through this bill is ensuring that come the next federal election they will be able to go to their union bosses and say, 'We delivered this piece of legislation; we helped entrench and empower union bosses'—not unions, but union bosses—'in Australia's industrial and political system; therefore we need you to make sure that you come out under the changes that we've made to election expenditure rules at a federal level and campaign vigorously against the election of the Liberal National Party.'

That is why this is of most concern. This bill is not about helping working Australians. This bill is not about helping small businesses. This bill is cash for policy at its most base. It is bordering on corruption in terms of the payback between the Labor Party and the union movement. This bill was not taken to the election. This bill was a secret deal between the Labor Party and the union movement, not to assist working-class Australians. It was all about helping the union movement.

I say to those business organisations, let this be a lesson to you. You thought you could sit down and deal with this Labor Party, and this shows that the Labor Party played you. This shows that for those of you who went along to that summit—by the way, they had a band that summit they had here a couple of months ago, and they paid $7,000. The Labor party used taxpayers' money to pay for a band that cost $7,000—good on the band, we all love live music—at a summit talking about how the Labor party can entrench itself in power. These business organisations went along and sat there and nodded their heads and said, 'Yes, we can do a deal, we will work together, let's go back to the Keating-Hawke tripartite arrangement.' Of course that didn't happen. The Labor Party and the union movement took you like a hot dinner and are still eating you up and asking for seconds.

So I say to those acronyms out there who represent businesses across Australia, stand up. Stop your wittering and whingeing. Stop your complaining. Stand up and join the fight against this Labor Party. What is happening this week in the six months of this government shows overreach. The overreach that normally happens in the third or fourth term of the government is happening at six months. So just imagine what is going to happen in the New Year. So join the fight and stand up for small businesses.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. There have been extensive negotiations on this bill by the Australian Greens, led by our leader, Adam Bandt, and my wonderful colleague, Senator Pocock here. We think that there are going to be in amendment some important changes that are going to improve this bill overall. Overall, the Australian Greens think the bill is an in credibly important bit of legislation which will result in better conditions and, as the bill says, secure jobs and better pay for workers, particularly some of the amendments working on making sure that the better off overall test actually does mean better off overall for all workers, and increasing things like the ability to access unpaid parental leave.

A central rationale for this bill, which the Greens support and which has been put forward by government, has been the need to increase wages. We support that and we agree. But we also believe that in the middle of the cost-of-living crisis that we are facing government needs to also do more about raising the rate of income support. I want to focus in my speech today on the link between the benefits of raising the rate of income support and how that then flows and feeds into better jobs, better pay and more secure work for workers.

Inadequate income support means that, currently, if you're on the JobSeeker allowance then you get income support at the rate of $48 a day, which is not enough to live on by a long shot. The cost of living now means that the estimate of what you need not to be living in poverty is $88 a day, and yet JobSeeker only gives you $48 a day. The idea of course—and people say this—is that people don't want to be on JobSeeker for long periods of time. But a lot of people are. People are also on JobSeeker and do part-time or casual work. That's all they have access to, or it might be all that they're capable of doing because of health issues, but they boost their income by doing small amounts of work. But at the moment, if you do those small amounts of work then you can only earn an extra $75 a week, or $10 a day, before your JobSeeker payment starts cutting out at the rate of 50c in the dollar. That's a 50 per cent marginal tax rate for people on the lowest incomes in this country. And you only need to earn $1,300 a fortnight, or $92 a day, when your JobSeeker rate cuts out entirely.

I note that the Henderson poverty line shows that what you need not to be living in poverty is $88 a day, and yet JobSeeker cuts out completely if you earn only $92 a day. I've spoken many times in this chamber about the benefits to people of increasing the rate of JobSeeker, and I'll go into that again in this speech. But in terms of the nexus between the rate of JobSeeker and better pay and jobs for people, this undercuts that drastically. If you can only earn $92 a day before your income support cuts out entirely then that sets up the conditions for people working on the black market, people working cash in hand and people accepting really exploitative conditions which aren't in the formal job market, because they desperately need the money to survive.

That undercuts drastically our whole industrial relations framework, because you then have one unscrupulous employer who is paying people at way below the award rate, or below the rates that have been bargained for in enterprise bargains, because those people are desperate to get that money—and this is without any of the checks and balances of our industrial relations system. That's versus other employers who are trying to do the right thing by paying people properly and providing the right conditions; they can't compete against unscrupulous employers. So raising the rate of income support, in and of itself, is going to be an incredibly important mechanism to increase wages, to make sure that people who are working are being paid an appropriate amount for the value of their labour.

As well as having people living in absolute abject poverty on income support being bad for workers it's also incredibly bad for the people who have to survive on that. They need to get by while living in that quagmire of poverty. We know that the current rate is inadequate and we know that it has been inadequate for years. We've heard that from the community and from politicians. The community has told politicians clearly that the payment rate is inadequate. We know that people have to make really incredibly difficult choices about whether they pay the rent, pay for food or pay their medical bills. They're choosing between seeing a doctor or keeping the heating on. And people who are facing domestic violence, homelessness and many other challenges are trapped by a payment that is far too low.

As well as hearing it directly from community members, we've heard it directly from the peak bodies across multiple sectors—the same ones who are supporting this legislation before us today. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Council the Social Services have all, at different points, acknowledged the need to raise the rate, and urgently.

I want to share two stories with you today from people who have been forced to rely on income support payments. They will also give you an example of how living on inadequate income support reduces their ability to engage in paid work. If we are serious about getting people work, supporting people to be in work and supporting people to be able to move into paid employment, we need to be reducing the rate of income support as well as doing all of the important measures that are in this bill.

The first story you want to share with you is an anonymous one. This person begins:

I have been living on poverty on Centrelink payments, Austudy, Newstart and JobSeeker since leaving high school almost nine years back. I have never been able to afford housing that meets my needs as a disabled person with trauma from multiple domestic violence situations from various cohabitors. I can barely afford anywhere to live at all, actually, and the fact that I am once again likely having to find a place to live with current prices within my greater area starting at 70 per cent of the full JobSeeker payment is soul crushing.

I spend hundreds of dollars a month on medication and medical equipment I need to live on a day-to-day basis. I can't afford to see specialists for things like my ADHD or autism. I can barely afford basic foods. Almost any meat I buy is nearly off, any veg frozen, any snack half price or made from scratch. Almost all of my money goes directly to rent, bills, food and medical. The paltry leftovers aren't enough to keep my car on the road. I have to ask for help pretty much each year to cover CTP et cetera. (Also, almost every job I have ever applied for has specifically stated that applicants need a car, so people on JobSeeker are literally priced out of being able to work.) New clothes are cast-offs from friends or the clearance section at an already cheap store. I have never been able to buy my own phone—which, by the way, is needed just to access Centrelink payments, and an up-to-date phone with reasonable technical specs is a necessity for the vast majority of jobs I've worked or applied for.

COVID supplements—which merely raised me to around the poverty line, not even properly out of poverty—changed how I could live and feel for about a year. I didn't have to count every cent to make sure it would last two weeks till next pay. I was able to get medical care I desperately needed to get but couldn't before afford. Even then, though, I had to rely on the goodwill of the specialists to charge much less than the usual rates. I could afford car service and registration without having to beg others for help. I felt vaguely human and part of society for a brief time. My mental health, despite the turmoil of the time, had never been better.

I would like to continue to take the medications that allow me to get up of a morning and do anything other than stare into the distance. I'd like to be able to afford taking any of the jobs I have been applying for, in industries important to Australia but currently struggling for workers. I would like to be able to afford glasses that don't give me a headache. I'd like to be able to afford chicken that I don't have to immediately take home and sniff and hope it's not gone bad. I'd like a lot of things that you and so many take for granted as part of your everyday lives and would cost you and Australia so very little. I just want to be human again. Is that so much to ask?

The second story is from Miranda. She says:

Currently, I am completely burned out and have been for at least five years. Five years ago, I had a 15-year-old in and out of hospital and in a wheelchair. I also had a 13-year-old living with ME/CFS and at school part-time, when he wasn't getting a cold that left him in bed for six weeks at a time. As a single parent, I was also working 30 hours a week, twice the number of hours required, yet still needing income support. I had a breakdown that year and have never recovered.

I lost my job when my bosses retired before lockdown in 2020. When the COVID supplement was introduced, I was able to pay my rent, bills and provide for my kids. The younger one was bedbound with ME/CFS. My second job was down to an hour a week.

Once my youngest turned 18, just before Christmas, I lost family tax benefit and child support as well as JobSeeker being back to the normal rate. I still have the casual job that varies a lot during the year, from three hours a week to 25 hours a week. I had another one that came to an end recently.

This year, I was diagnosed with autism and ADHD. My younger kid, who still lives at home, was also diagnosed with autism. This kid is still mostly bedbound with ME/CFS too. I can't in good conscience subject him to the torture that is mutual obligations, as this will send his health backwards.

I have been dealing with job search agencies & mutual obligations on and off for over 20 years, since I was fired for being pregnant. Not once have they helped me get a job. Instead, I have been advised to straight out lie to potential employers about my circumstances!

I am worried about how I will continue to pay rent as it's $10 a day more than JobSeeker… however there are no rentals in the area, cheaper or otherwise. Both my son and I have high health needs and I'm still completely burned out.

JobSeeker needs to be raised so that I can take care of my health, and my kids health, keep a roof over our heads, pay our bills, as well as have a better chance of finding employment and other opportunities to bring in an income.

I want to say thank you to all the advocates who have been fighting to raise the rate of income support. We hear you, and we will keep fighting for change.

As Miranda and the others have told us, there is clear evidence that things can be better and clear evidence that raising the rate of income support is critically important for secure jobs and better wages for workers. For a decade, the Liberals left the payment rate below the poverty line, but for a brief window with the COVID supplement we saw how things could be different. People spoke about the differences that being able to afford food and a safe place to stay made in their lives. People could afford their medical bills and their energy bills. Research showed that the COVID supplement halved the rate of poverty in Australia. Particularly, it also showed that more people were able to enter the job market. More people were actually able to get work during COVID because of the increased rate of income support. It shows again that connection between work and actually supporting people who are out of work on JobSeeker.

That experience in the midst of a crisis showed us that there can be a different way. We can raise the rate of income support and meaningfully reduce poverty and increase conditions and better jobs for workers in Australia. This is an approach that the Greens have constantly advocated for. I do want to, again, acknowledge the important work of my predecessor in my portfolio, Senator Rachel Siewert, over many years, particularly her work chairing the inquiry into the adequacy of Newstart and related payments.

We included a commitment to raise the rate of JobSeeker in our election platform with a clear, costed policy. The Labor Party have been reluctant to do this and are yet to put forward one of their own. At the same time, they have been carrying forward the Scott Morrison stage 3 tax cuts and insisting on giving $250 billion over the decade to the ultra-wealthy. We put forward clear amendments to a bill that recently passed through this place, and I thank Senator David Pocock for his support of those amendments. I also want to thank Senator David Pocock for his important advocacy during the negotiations on this bill for the need to raise the rate and for pushing the government to act. If the commitment put forward by the Labor Party as part of the negotiations over this bill does lead to a meaningful increase in the rate of JobSeeker, then we will welcome it. But there can't be an excuse for further inaction and delaying action, because people are living in poverty now. The skyrocketing cost of living is real now. We need to have an increase in the rate now.

To wrap up, as my colleagues have indicated, and as I said at the beginning of my speech, the Greens are supporting this bill. We will also continue to actively advocate for an increase to the rate of JobSeeker. If the government's commitment as part of those negations leads to meaningful change, we will welcome it, but it cannot be an excuse for inaction. We will continue to push for a guaranteed liveable income so that there is genuine support for everyone who needs it.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to this piece of legislation. The reason that this legislation is so contested is that it will have a significant impact on the IR landscape in Australia—quite frankly, in a negative way. We have already had small businesses and medium-sized businesses saying that they've got unions on their doorstep and they're being threatened by the unions. This bill isn't about the workforce and workers in this country, as the Labor Party spin machine would have us all believe. It's a union life-support bill. It's about providing power back to the union movement. With private sector union membership sinking to somewhere around 10 per cent or less, unions are seeking a way back, and the government is providing it to them through this legislation.

Businesses are already telling me they're being threatened by unions and being told that this legislation gives the unions the opportunity to go after non-union workplaces. We know that—businesses that have been working cooperatively to create arrangements for their workforce and are seeking to expand their workforce. We all know that there's a workforce shortage in this country right now, and so the bargaining power actually is with workers. Businesses are seeking good workers, good employees, because that's important for their businesses. And we are seeing a growth in wages across this country because of the balance of the market in Australia. We are seeing a growth in wages. The Labor Party wants to dismiss that reality, that fact, but everywhere I go, in every workplace that I talk to, they are all looking for workers, and they're all willing to pay for workers who will work hard for them and provide strong productivity. But the non-union businesses are also telling me that the unions see this legislation as a ticket to come after them.

So don't be fooled by the rhetoric from Labor. This legislation is about reinvigorating union power. It's not about workforce. The objective is to drive up union membership by standing over workers in businesses and in industry—and driving up Labor Party revenues, quite frankly, through the union movement. How do we know that for sure? The CFMMEU have belled the cat. John Setka's out there, and he has said he looks forward to having the power to go after non-union sites. I can tell you that people I know in the building industry, including in the fit-out sector of the construction industry, are hearing that all over Australia.

During my time in the construction industry, I remember seeing the impact of pattern bargaining across that industry and understanding the impact that had on inflationary forces. Effectively, Labor are sending us back to those bad old days of the seventies and eighties, when the unions threatened subcontractors and disrupted building sites. So, when the Labor Party tell us about driving more affordable housing, they're kidding themselves. They're kidding themselves when you think about what the impacts of this legislation are going to be on the construction industry in this country.

Labor say that this legislation is about delivering an election commitment. The Labor Party did go to the election saying they wanted to get wages moving again. They did say that. But they didn't say that they were going to introduce legislation to bring unions back into businesses across the country and to give unions the opportunity to attack small business across the country and drag them into processes that they don't necessarily want to be a part of. No wonder Labor want to ram this legislation through the parliament with a truncated Senate committee process and deals on the side with the crossbench. They really don't want the scrutiny that they should have and that this legislation deserves, given the impact it will have on the Australian economy. They want to ram it through before Christmas so that their union mates can get straight into businesses across the country and so that they can deliver on their backdoor, secret deal with the union movement at the expense of Australian business and the Australian economy. So much for a fairer, kinder, more open parliament and process.

Obviously I'll allow that the Prime Minister sent out the memo. They didn't read it, and they're not living by it. In reality, though, there is one question that sits with this legislation: why would Australian workers trust Labor with their industrial relations? Labor make out that they are the party of the worker, but increasingly we're seeing that that's not the case.

Let's not forget that the legislation that this is amending and replacing is legislation that was brought into being by the Labor Party under former Prime Minister Julia Gillard when she was minister for industrial relations, to replace the legislation that was in place before that. That was after a period of time, I might add, when wages did see strong growth: during the Howard years. Go back and have a look at the numbers. You will see strong growth in wages in relation to the economy during the Howard years. You will see strong growth in the economy and good economic management from a coalition government, alongside strong growth in wages.

Workers in this country have been working to this framework since 2009, when the Labor Party's system came into place. From the Labor Party's legislation, Fair Work Australia have been oversighting the system with Labor's hand-picked people, who have been assessing wage claims and wage increases since that legislation came into place. All Labor's legislation, all Labor's hand-picked people, have been in place since 2009, and that process has driven the outcomes that we've seen over the last decade.

It was that process, every time the coalition sought to amend the Fair Work Act, even during COVID. The cry came from the other side, 'Here we go again with Work Choices.' They were not prepared to amend the legislation. They were not prepared to consider things that had even been agreed with workers, with unions and with employers. They were not prepared to agree to those things. They knocked them back.

Let's be really frank about this. The industrial relations framework that has been providing oversight to workers' wages over the last decade is Labor's. They want to blame the coalition for everything. That's their mantra: deflect any responsibility; blame somebody else. They do not stand up and take appropriate responsibility for their own actions. But let's be fair dinkum about this. This is Labor legislation, passed in 2009 and amended a couple of times, for a new modern award system. To quote the Prime Minister of the time:

The Fair Work Act delivers on the Rudd Government's promise for fair and balanced laws that will allow workplaces to become more productive and competitive without stripping away basic pay and conditions.

The Fair Work Act has enterprise bargaining, in good faith, at its heart. Enterprise level bargaining will be the primary means of driving future workplace improvements and productivity.

It goes on. The media release from the Hon. Julia Gillard MP on 1 July 2009 says:

The new workplace relations system is designed to balance the needs of employees and employers to ensure Australia is competitive and prosperous, without taking away basic employment rights and guaranteed minimum standards.

So, when the Labor Party says the workplace system is broken: who broke it? The legislation is effectively the same as they introduced and that came into effect in 2009. So, why would any worker in this country trust Labor now?

It's not about workers. This legislation is not about workers; it's about union power. We all know it. We understand it. And the unions know it, because—helpfully for us and unhelpfully for the government—John Setka belled the cat. This allows him and his mates to go after non-union sites. At the same time, the government are stripping away the ABCC, which provided some oversight to that. They say that it was all about stickers on hats and things of that nature, but we know and we've seen the outrageous, disgraceful things the CFMMEU have been penalised for, have been fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for. You don't get fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for flags on cranes and stickers on hats. That is a complete and utter cop-out, and any person on the government side who tries to run that tripe should be ashamed of themselves.

We had a statement in the parliament this morning about the Jenkins review. Yet people on the other side stand up and try to make the claim that the ABCC is just about stickers on hats. Some of the disgraceful things, which I won't try to repeat in this place but have been debated in this place before, are the sorts of things the ABCC should be addressing. At the same time that they're letting the unions back in they're taking off the oversight and controls of some of the more-outrageous elements of the union movement. They should be ashamed.

The opposition will support fair and reasonable workplace relations. We want to see Australians earning a good living. We are concerned, as the Labor Party say they are, about the cost of living. We wanted to make some sensible changes to the Workplace Relations Act while we were in government, and Labor opposed it, with the Greens—not surprising. But here we are, a bit over a decade after the current act came into place, put in place by Labor, and Labor say we should trust them with the industrial relations system—their legislation, their hand-picked people in Fair work Australia, making the decisions about Australian workers' wages—and try to blame us for the impact on wages. It's all in their lap. Why should Australian workers trust them now?

As I said, we know this is about union power, and they're taking away other provisions of oversight of the union movement at the same time that they're doing this. At a time of high inflation we will see—because the businesses are already telling us—that the unions are tapping on the door, and we're going to see more disruption in workplaces, because the unions have more power, which has been provided to them by this legislation. And Labor will do what they've done before. They don't know how to manage money. They don't know how to manage the economy. And they will continue to contribute to the worsening situation in relation to inflation in this country. We've seen it before, unfortunately. I had to live through it during the seventies and the eighties in the building industry. And we're going to see it again.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia and to the workers and small businesses of our nation, I want to firstly thank the minister's staff and the departmental staff for their briefings. I want to thank the many companies, unions, employer entities and workers. We listened.

The Hawke-Keating years broke the previous harsh, adversarial, mutually assured destruction policy in industrial relations in this country. Then we went back with the Fair Work Act from Julia Gillard in 2009—complex, prescriptive. The creators of this act do not understand industrial relations. A senior practical Labor MP whom I regard very highly said that Gillard's Fair Work Act was a 'backward step', damaging Australia. It's failed. Many want it changed. I know that union bosses like David Noonan and Michael Ravbar, for whom I have some regard, and Alex Bukarica and the ETU's Michael Wright say that we need to change, that we need to get back to basics. Employer and industry groups say the same. Parliamentarians in this chamber say the same. How hard is it for workers to know their entitlements with this? It's impossible. How hard is it to run a small business these days? It's very difficult. This thing justifies the industrial relations club's existence. Workers now kowtow to the industrial relations club.

Let's go back to basics. Unions were formed in the 19th century to protect workplace basics; to protect pay, safety, entitlements, job security, retirement; to ensure fairness; and to strengthen workers' bargaining power. Then we got laws to protect state and federal workers. Unions were doing a vital job. Politically they were omitted from being held accountable the way other organisations and company directors were. After successful union campaigns, governments legislated worker protections in employment, safety, industry and health legislation. Unions were no longer needed for those basic protections because they were enshrined in legislation, yet they had immunity from many provisions under the law and were effectively monopolies, with no competition among unions within industries. As with all monopolies, this was the result of government legislation. As with all monopolies, they faced no accountability from competitors. As with all monopolies, some union bosses abused this privilege.

In recent years, in this cosy life with no competition and no accountability, we saw abuses in the HSU, the SDA, the AWU and the CFMMEU in which union bosses stole workers' money for personal, financial and other benefits, including brothels. In the 1990s I was good friends with Jim Lambley, the then CFMEU vice-president. He shared with me his thoughts that the union, which was once strong and powerful and genuinely committed to miners, was sloppy and not providing a service to its members. Times had changed; it needed to lift its game because traditional services were already legislated. As a result of neglect of union members, union membership in the private sector outside the Public Service is just nine per cent and falling.

Not all large unions have a monopoly or bosses that want to exploit them. I single out and compliment the TWU. They've had turmoil, just like every entity, but they've sorted themselves out. They're represented here by Senator Sheldon and Senator Sterle—excellent advocates for the trade union movement, excellent advocates for workers, excellent advocates for Australians. One of the reasons is that the TWU contains not only employees and truck drivers but small businesses. The TWU is the largest entity with the largest membership of small businesses in this country. They work together to provide a service.

I was going to discuss the sheer abuse and exploitation of people in the Hunter Valley at the hands of the CFMMEU, combined with BHP, combined with Chandler Macleod, which is part of Recruit Holdings from Japan, the largest labour hire company in the world. Instead, I will ask a few questions of anyone watching today.

Labor titles its bill the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill. Let me give you facts and ask you what you think. Firstly, the new bill omits any hint at the Fair Work Amendment (Equal Pay for Equal Work) Bill, my bill that has been pushed for months now and which aims to lift casual pay rates. Why? The Senate committee of inquiry agreed on the need for my bill. They said, 'Let's wait for Labor's version,' but it's not in the bill that we see before us. My bill is ready to go, with certain awards that found no issues with it. How long do abused miners and airline staff need to wait? Let's get the experience before widening it. Why not include my bill in this? We've researched it thoroughly. I asked last week and the minister's staff said, 'They've barely started consultation.' Then they did so with the perpetrators of the heinous acts in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland. They're not interested in better pay. They're not interested, and they've done nothing to include it.

Let's look at job security. Well, look at COVID mismanagement; the phasing out of the coal industry and jobs under the Liberals, Nationals and Labor; the erosion of our rights and freedoms under COVID mismanagement; increasing energy prices; killing manufacturing and hurting agriculture; the lack of much-needed tax reform and much-needed economic reform; increasing debt; work health and safety systems being bypassed; Australia's productive capacity being destroyed; the failure of our industrial relations systems and more; tax reform; high immigration flooding in and putting downward pressure on wages; and inflation. They're not interested in job security at all.

Then let's have a look at the summit. It was a sham. It was not a genuine, Paul Keating-style consultation. The government knew beforehand what they were going to do after the summit. The key items in this bill that they've now got in front of us in the chamber were not even raised in the summit topics. I wrote to Joel Fitzgibbon, the previous member for Hunter, on the abuses in the Hunter valley, and he refused to reply to me. It was the same with his replacement, Dan Repacholi, and the same with Minister Burke. They are not interested in job security, fairness or the law.

Now we've got a bill before us that is another 249 pages plus government amendments—150 amendments to their own bill in the lower house. That's another 34 pages. They're going to add more complexity, make it thicker, make it more difficult for people to understand. These 150 amendments confirm that the bill was hastily introduced and not thought through. If there are so many amendments needed and so many flaws can be identified in such a short time, how many will implementation in the real world expose, and who will pay for that? Workers will pay for that. Small business will pay for that. This is so flawed the government is making amendments to its own amendments!

This is a spit-and-hope bill. When the Australian Building and Construction Commission was introduced, there were months of consultation. When it was abolished, there was none. The same should apply to the whole bill. It needs debate. It needs to be deferred and considered properly. Who pays for this mess? The people: union members, small businesses, workers, communities and the nation.

Let's have a look at the bill now. There are 27 parts, 13 substantive. Some are simply tidying, and that is good. Some are worthy improvements—minor but worthy—and that is good. Some big issues are not thought through. Some big issues have been thought through yet deceptively hidden because they don't want the people to see them. Some issues were designed deliberately to confuse and to obfuscate. All is slapped behind the false labelling of enabling a pay rise and more secure jobs. This is what you get out of the south end of a north-facing bull. There is no mandate for stuff that's been hidden—no mandate at all.

On 22 November 2022, Minister for Small Business Julie Collins failed to answer two core questions: how many small businesses will be drawn into wage bargaining and how much it will cost. They added another definition to the already 140 definitions of 'small business' across government departments. The government tells the people of Australia that the whole rationale behind this bill is to get wages moving, yet there's no specific detail: how, when, who? There is nothing concrete, just broad, fluffy statements, typical of the Labor-Greens-teal coalition governing the Senate. Labor claims it will improve the bargaining position of small business and workers, so why do thousands of small businesses oppose it? Could it be due to this?

Why are union bosses given the power of veto to frustrate the bargaining process? Even if employees agree with the employer, they still can be vetoed by remote union bosses. Why are smaller employers locked into a process they do not support if they have a head count of more than 19 people, including those who choose to work only a few hours a week? Why isn't the full-time equivalent used? As a result, large businesses can negotiate conditions smaller businesses cannot compete with. That aids large businesses to kill off smaller competitors, leading to fewer jobs, plus small businesses lack the resources to deal with the red tape.

The abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission illustrates the government's aims and intent: rewarding union bosses with power. That's what's behind this bill. It means a return to the damaging days of industrial thuggery. Remember the BLF? The Dyson Heydon royal commission revealed so much thuggery in the CFMEU. There were court cases and criminal convictions. The ABCC worked. Labor abolished it. The coalition reintroduced it. Labor is now abolishing it. There were millions of dollars in fines. What will happen to them? There was violent behaviour, industrial blackmail, killing small businesses and restrictive work practices that cost taxpayers an additional 30 per cent on building costs. Who's going to enforce the law now?

This bill will in the long run harm unions. It gives more power to union bosses over members and industry and generally in the community. Monopolies discourage responsibility and competitiveness of service and they reduce accountability. This bill entrenches the monopoly and makes it stronger.

Unions may receive a short-term boost, yet, long term, it will accelerate, sadly, the slide of declining union membership. Look in Queensland. Premier Palaszczuk aims to kill the Red Union. She is protecting the Queensland nursing union, who are big donors to Labor. She is trying to kill the Red Union, which is starting freely, because she wants to kill any competition to her union bosses that donate. This is not about higher pay and job security; it's about giving union bosses power over industries, over companies and employers and over workers. Instead of returning to the pre-Hawke days, we need the reverse. We need to restore the primacy of the workplace, the employer/employee relationship, with employees free to bring in unions when they choose.

The big picture is that industrial relations needs comprehensive reform. We need to get away from the industrial relations adversarial approach that has plagued this country. It locks managements, executives, union bosses, consultants and lawyers into industrial relations games and not into improving businesses. Instead of having the brightest and best lawyers and accountants focused on how we can smash the opposition in this country, we need to focus on how we can smash the opposition in South Korea and Japan and China. They are our overseas competitors.

Industrial relations reform needs to be comprehensive, focus on the primacy of the employer/employee relationship and return to the days of Hawke-Keating, at least for a start. People need to focus on their business, not the corporation. Always around the world in workplaces people are focused on their workplace—that's what people love. We need industrial relations reform that develops responsibility for the business. We need a short bill, instead of this monstrosity. We need about 20 pages of basic entitlements, and, instead of getting off the hook through lawyers with this monstrosity, we need clear provisions so that, if these basic provisions are violated, people go to jail. Workers are getting abused in this country. Small businesses are getting abused in this country. We need simple provisions and severe penalties.

Let's consider the teals—David Pocock as a teal and the Labor-Greens-teal governing coalition. The governing coalition in this Senate is Labor-Greens-teal. Fifteen amendments he announced on Sunday. The government was going to do nine anyway! Four are corrections and another four are corrections to government oversights in the bill! The JobSeeker rate is irrelevant to the bill—horse trading! That leaves one amendment that Senator Pocock initiated. Union bosses will still be able to drag small business into multi-employer bargaining, and to get out of multi-employer bargaining those businesses will have to engage in expensive litigation. Welcome to the new Labor-Greens-teal coalition running this country, where the love of power is more important!

In conclusion, instead of the lies and pretence of this bill, we need honesty. Instead of boosting union bosses' power, we need to make the employer/employee workplace relationship the focus to get Australia's talent to the fore and to make us competitive again. Instead of adding more complexity and regulations, we need comprehensive industrial relations reform—simplicity, honesty, efficiency and real protection. This mess bypasses protections and leaves workers vulnerable and exposed. Above this building, we have one flag. We are one community, we are one nation and we work like hell to protect workers, protect small business and restore honesty in governance.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 before the Senate today proudly. As the daughter of a small family owned enterprise, I tell you that, if we had had the Fair Work Act then, my dad wouldn't actually have got the milk run done because he didn't pay very well. But what I didn't make up in dollars, I got in Big Ms at the time. It was the 1980s! But, family owned enterprises teach you a whole lot of things about life and the importance of contributing and the importance of hard work.

I also rise to speak vehemently against this bill as the Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. This bill will have profound impact on the construction industry, which underpins our infrastructure build across the country; on the transport industry, on our roads, our ports, our airports; and, indeed, on regional development. We know that the majority of country towns and regional capitals are built and sustained by small- to medium-sized enterprises. They're the enterprises that the Labor Party and union mates are after. They've already got a big hold in the big businesses. Where they lack a hold and a sway is in those small family-owned enterprises right across the country. The target of these changes are 2.6 million small businesses across this country.

We've heard senators right across my side of the chamber talk about the rush to get this done and the mistakes that the Labor Party has made on the way to getting that done—150 amendments to their own legislation. They had the drafting pen. They had all the bureaucrats. They had all the legal experts in the department to get it right but they didn't. One hundred and fifty amendments to their own bill, before it gets to the Senate, and a few odd, minor changes by Senator Pocock and here we are—very, very chaotic.

Why are they in such a rush, Senator Cadell? Why? Do you know what I think it is? I think you've got to pay the ferryman sometimes. This is more about making sure Sally McManus and the ACTU have a very, very merry Christmas, thank you very much—as if an election of an Albanese government wasn't enough for them in to 2022. It's to ensure that Sally McManus can go on an extended Christmas holiday with a big smile on her face knowing she has secured changes—through this Labor government reaching into family-owned and run enterprises right across the country—that will wreak havoc on our productivity, that won't raise wages in the way that has been talked about here today. It is not a bill that you had a mandate for. In fact, during the election campaign the Treasurer explicitly ruled out measures that are covered in this bill, and yet here we are, a mere six months later, seeking to legislate the most draconian wind back of industrial relations in this country in 40 years.

The Prime Minister waltzes around. 'I'm the new Hawke.' He has got the voice happening. He's the new Keating. He's nowhere near the reforming nature that the Hawke and Keating government put our economy on for the future. This will be a drag on our economic productivity. It's not just me saying it; it's all the small to medium enterprises, and industry, that are saying it. It is not a policy that has been endorsed by the Australian people.

When we look at what industry has been saying about the impact of this bill they've been absolutely scathing. 'It will be back to the future for our Australian ports.' Who wants to go back to where farmers and small business people are having punch-ups with unions at ports? That is actually what used to happen in this country, because of the severe and radical industrial reaction from unions. This is exactly where this bill will be taking us back to.

The government, in its arrogance, has no interest in allowing the proper time for examination of the implications of these proposed reforms. Their arrogance is compounded by the raft of amendments and the latest changes negotiated on the fly.

The bill will have a significant impact on my portfolio area. It's Master Builders Australia's submission that has said:

… the bill will see a return to industry-wide pattern deals and entrench sector-wide strike action that will be damaging to workplaces and the broader Australian economy.

You don't believe them. We've heard a lot of talk about the feminised workforces and low-paid workers. In the construction industry that's an area of the Australian economy where there have been wage rises going forward. You cannot find a chippie for love nor money. And rightfully when something's in short supply the cost of it goes up. In the construction industry and in the transport industry that flat rate of wage has not actually been occurring.

Industries, such as the construction industry, don't operate in a silo. It is part of an intricate supply chain. Think of concrete. If it doesn't get there on time you delay the entire trajectory of that project—whether it's your backyard patio, or whether it is a major construction project in a capital city that will have benefits to the broader community and productivity across the economy. They aren't carved out like the construction industry is.

In summary: the Master Builders have said that this bill removes the 'enterprise' from enterprise bargaining, removes 'agreement' from enterprise agreements and gives unions more say than workers. And that has to be a bad thing! Unions and the Labor Party say they're about workers, so why don't the working people vote for you? The National Party actually represents those in this country who are on the lowest median income levels. And do you know what? You are so non-competitive in our seats because the workers across Australia know that you do not stand up for them. You are much more interested, as we saw in the latest Victorian election, about fighting for the high-income earners in capital cities against your Green fellows than in actually sticking up for the workers in this country, those who are on low incomes and in vulnerable workplaces.

When we look at what else the Master Builders talked about, they made the point that businesses don't work in an economic silo. There has been a whole song and dance around this place about, 'We've carved out the construction industry and the CFMMEU has nothing to do with it anymore.' That is not the case. If industries like shipping, transport, warehousing and logistics are adversely impacted by multi-employer bargaining then so too will the construction industry be. If there are port strikes or transport strikes, they will impact on the construction industry. It is false to come in here and say otherwise. Independent modelling from the Master Builders indicates that this policy to abolish the ABCC, which other senators have spoken about, will cost the economy $47½ billion by 2030. That's a hell of a lot of roads, hospitals and schools which could be built.

Why are we abolishing the ABCC? It's not because they weren't doing their job and not because they weren't standing up to the sexist CFMMEU, which so many of you are here as a result of—they use your skirts to hide behind. It's the ABCC which is actually calling out the sexism and the brutality that occurs on construction sites right across this country. And do you know what? You want it abolished! That's not because it's taking the CFMMEU to court, and winning cases—which is pretty tough to do—but because this is a deal you've done to get here. Those are the facts of the business that you are in on the other side.

Even the most impartial observer can see that these reforms are heavily weighted to the benefit of the government's union mates rather than to the transport portfolio that I represent. Just briefly, in the time left to me, I want to go to the impact both on the aviation and shipping industries, which have not been carved out. As an island nation, nothing gets into this country without coming from somewhere else and arriving, mainly, at our ports. So if our ports are not efficient or productive then we all pay, right across our economy. I have been quite concerned about the fact that ports are going to be subjected to significant impacts in the workplace. They're critical to our supply chain efforts, the fragility of which were exposed to during COVID. Some examples: Svitzer, for instance, does a lot of the tugboating in this country, and they were forced to lock the gates due to the failure of both sides to reach an agreement. On day one, there would have been only 20 days left of fuel supply for the nation. That's not just for cars and trucks but for airlines. So if you're wondering, 'What do ports have to do with me, I don't own a yacht?' you don't have to. Ports are important to you because if they shut down for a couple of days then we run out of fuel. In a country like Australia, as diversely populated as we are, that has health impacts, education impacts and severe economic impacts.

The Productivity Commission is doing an inquiry at the moment into maritime efficiency. In Svitzer's submission to the inquiry they say that of the four factors contributing to the productivity and efficiency of our ports, one is the industrial relations terms that they're currently having to operate under—things like: minimum crewing rules, which are not in any way linked to operational safety requirements; high penalty rates which don't correlate to the work actually done; restrictions on type of recruitments et cetera.

I know a lot of people have been talking about the low pay. On our side of this chamber, we absolutely want Australians to be well paid for their work. That is making sure that our businesses are as supported as they can be to be as competitive as they can be to make sure that they can pay their workers as much as they can. If our government hadn't taken the action we did during COVID there would be fewer businesses employing Australians in this country than there are right now because, guess what, unless you want to live in a communist country, governments don't employ everybody and governments don't set wages. That is not how it actually works.

One of the most concerning things, when I think about the efficiency and productivity of ports—which won't be addressed and will actually be exacerbated by this particular bill—were the Milo and Magnum clauses in the agreements with our tugboat companies. When you want to know why it costs you so much to get products from overseas, it might be because of the lazy $18,000 that this company had to spend to get a helicopter to drop off a crate of Magnums—not guns, let me assure the chamber, but ice creams—because the crew refused to unload a ship because there weren't enough chocolate ice creams in the fridge on the tugboat. These are not low-paid workers. These guys and gals earn in excess of $250,000 a year. They are more highly paid than some senators in this chamber. And they're refusing to unload a ship because they don't have enough ice creams on board. Do you know what the company has to do? They have to get a helicopter for 18 grand: 'Here you go boys and girls, can you unload the ship now please?'

That's our current industrial relations system, let alone what will happen under the draconian, union-friendly measures that this government is bringing before us, which will wreak havoc on our economy and will wreak havoc on our ports and in our aviation sector. Qantas has said they're going to close down their marginal routes.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not going to affect you in Melbourne, Senator. It's not going to worry you at all in Melbourne, Brisbane or Sydney. Do you know who will pay the price for that? It'll be Longreach; it'll be Dubbo; it'll be Mildura. You couldn't give a damn about those communities, because they don't vote for you. But they're actually out there making the money, doing their job, raising their families, contributing to this nation and—I know you hate to hear it—voting for the National Party.

As shadow minister for infrastructure, transport and regional development, I think this is an appalling bill, and we will not be supporting it.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak briefly on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 and the reforms introduced by the bill, particularly to address the gender pay gap. I'm pleased to see movement on making gender equality an objective of the Fair Work Act, introducing a statutory equal remuneration principle, strengthening rights to flexible working arrangements and banning pay gag clauses. These are all fixes that the Greens have called for over many years and which we welcome.

The overall gender pay gap in Australia remains at around 14 per cent. Women, on average, still have to work an extra 60 days to earn the same as men. Men are twice as likely to be higher paid than women across almost all industries, and 85 per cent of employers still have pay gaps in men's favour, even in female dominated workplaces. For First Nations women, women from culturally diverse backgrounds, women with disability and older women the gap can be even worse. The gender pay gap is a product of systemic and cultural factors, like workplace discrimination, lack of workplace flexibility, the cost and availability of child care and the impact of taking time out for caring work. Closing the gender pay gap will take a concerted effort by employers and governments at all levels. This bill makes a promising start, building on the work of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency in tracking gender inequality, and complementing the work to be done by the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce.

I would like to make comments about pay secrecy. Pay secrecy has been an ongoing contributor to the gender pay gap. In 2015 I introduced a private member's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Gender Pay Gap ) Bill, to ban the use of pay secrecy clauses. So I am very pleased to see this concept being legislated today. For too long, employment contracts that insist on pay secrecy have been used to hid the gender pay gap. Britain and the US no longer allow such clauses. The European Union is set to make pay transparency a binding measure for member states. But pay gag clauses remain a normal practice in Australia. This bill is an overdue measure to end that practice and to create a more level playing field for women in the workplace. No-one should ever feel obligated to tell someone what they're earning, but no-one should be prevented from discussing it. Promoting healthy conversations about pay is the best way to bring inequality out into the open and then address it.

On gender equity and equal remuneration, the easiest way to close the gender pay gap is to pay women more. A key driver of the gender pay gap is the fact that jobs dominated by women, often as a result of entrenched gender stereotypes, remain undervalued. The teaching, child care, nursing, cleaning, retail and aged care sectors all have lower wages, poorer conditions, job insecurity and lower retention rates. Yet we saw through the pandemic how crucial and critical those roles are. The wages paid in those sectors need to better reflect their value. I'm very pleased that the aged care work value case recognised the gendered nature of evaluation of work and the under-valuation of work. There is no justification for pushing a wheelbarrow being valued more highly than pushing a wheelchair, yet average wages in care sectors remain lower than those in construction.

I was working at a community legal centre when the social services equal remuneration case, taken by my union, the Australian Services Union, was decided. I can tell you that the boost that was provided to female dominated sectors covered by that decision was invaluable. People were properly paid for the work they did. Organisations had some certainty that they could attract and retain staff. People felt valued, and their productivity and wellbeing improved as a result.

Women make up 61 per cent of workers being paid based on an award, so ensuring that the Fair Work Commission is tasked with considering gender equity and equal remuneration principles when making determinations will improve work conditions, productivity and wellbeing across all award sectors. I welcome these objectives and the establishment of expert panels on pay equity in the care and community sector to guide that work.

In relation to flexible working arrangements, whether they can access flexible working arrangements is a key factor for many parents in deciding whether to return to work and on what terms. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, most Australian women with as child under two who have returned to paid work use some kind of flexible working arrangement. Access to flexible working arrangements is also a key factor in how caring is shared between parents. For victims survivors of family, domestic or sexual violence flexible arrangements may be the only way to juggle work and dealing with trauma or the emotional and administrative fallout from escaping an abusive situation.

Normalising flexible working arrangements recognises the productivity benefits of ensuring that all workers can juggle family, personal and work responsibilities. Later start times, shared roles, days working from home or other arrangements can improve staff retention and staff wellbeing. Many employers recognise this and will grant requests for flexibility, but some bosses will just say no without considering whether and how they could actually make it work. We therefore welcome the requirement for employers to grant reasonable requests for family-friendly working arrangements, accommodating the need to care for elderly or disabled relatives, or recovery from family, domestic and sexual violence.

Lastly, on parental leave, the Greens have called for strong, equitable paid parental leave for many, many years. Whilst we are pleased that the government has committed to 26 weeks paid leave from 2026 and to the use-it-or-lose-it provisions, we still maintain that those improvements should be implemented much sooner, and we still want superannuation included on PPL and for leave to be remunerated at the parent's wage with a cap.

Relevantly to this bill, I congratulate my colleague Senator Barbara Pocock for her work in getting the government to agree that employers be required to consider all reasonable requests for extended unpaid parental leave. For many families, the 12 months that they're currently entitled to may not be enough—for example, if a child is unwell or requires special attention, if a parent is unwell or just needs some more time to transition back to work or if they live in a childcare desert, which is something that the government would also need to address, and they have no family support to help with child care.

Being able to request an extension of unpaid parental leave and know that employers will properly consider that request will be a significant comfort for many families. These provisions won't impact all families, but, for those who need a bit of extra time without risking their job, these provisions will be very welcome.

In conclusion, I commend the work of Greens leader Adam Bandt and our new and very capable Senator Barbara Pocock in negotiating improvements to this bill that will not only help women but will better protect workers, particularly lower paid workers. The Greens commend this bill to the chamber.

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

I rise to speak in relation to Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, which I consider to be the wrong bill being introduced at the wrong time. It's a time of very high inflation in this country. We're looking at eight per cent inflation by the end of the year. Electricity prices, as announced in the last budget, are going up by approximately 56 per cent over the course of the next two years, and gas prices are going up by approximately 40 to 44 per cent over the next 12 months.

In that high-cost, high-inflationary environment, where the economic outlook for the world, amongst our trading partners and in our own country is very dangerous, the government is choosing to introduce this bill. I'm gravely concerned about the impact this bill will have in terms of the Australian economy and in terms of people actually having jobs. That is my grave concern as I consider this bill.

I was left to reflect last night, as I listened to my good friend Senator Susan McDonald give her presentation in relation to this bill, that we heard from someone who's actually owned and operated a business. Senator McDonald owned a chain of butcher stores called Super Butcher in my home state of Queensland, and she had to turn that business around from a situation where it wasn't doing too well. It had some internal issues.

She turned that business around successfully and carried the weight of turning that business around. That weight included the weight of managing the cashflow, of paying all the expenses; the weight of knowing that the employees who are employed by that business are relying on the business owner to provide their future employment; the weight of dealing with customers; and the weight of dealing with supply chain issues, regulatory issues and all the other issues which employers in this country face.

I reflect on my own background in the mining industry. I worked for a mid-tier copper and gold mining company that successfully built two mines in one of the poorest countries in the world, Laos. We lifted thousands of people out of poverty, and we did it to the highest environmental and safety standards and with a very deep and committed social licence program, which included microfinance programs to lift the local village people out of poverty and provided opportunities for them to introduce microindustries.

At the height of the global financial crisis, it nearly all came crashing down. The price of copper went from approximately $4.30 a pound to $1.30 a pound in the course of two weeks. The share price of that company went from about $1.12 a share to 8½c. I remember having a discussion with a dear friend, who was a fellow senior executive in that company. He was going on a family holiday, and he said, 'Paul, if the receivers and managers are appointed, if the administrators come into the business, try and get that painting out of my office.' It was his own personal property and meant a great deal to him from a family perspective. That's how bad the situation was. We got through that with a lot of support from shareholders, from suppliers we had to negotiate with, but it was difficult; it was extraordinarily difficult. We were on the precipice—absolutely no question about that. That experience left a deep mark on me.

I can then remember coming out the other side, when we got hit with a wave of regulation from the previous Labor government, when Wayne Swan was Treasurer of this country. We sat around a board table—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr, as much as it pains me to interrupt your speech to the Senate, you will be in continuance. Pursuant to order, the sitting of the Senate is suspended until the ringing of the bells to enable senators to attend the Prime Minister's statement on Closing the Gap in the other place.

Sitting suspe nded from 11:50 to 13:00

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We shall now go to senators' statements.