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

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023.

The coalition largely supports the bill and its intent of protecting workers' entitlements, although we will identify a number of areas of serious concern. This bill deals with issues that both employer and employee groups have had with the operation of the Fair Work Act. It also includes the government's election commitment to introduce a right to superannuation in the National Employment Standards. The bill is broadly supported by both employer and employee organisations. However, employer groups do have some specific concerns with certain draftings of the relevant schedules.

To address these concerns, I foreshadow that the coalition will be moving a number of amendments to improve the operation of the bill. Schedules 1 and 4 propose what are termed as 'technical' amendments, and the coalition does not raise any issue with them. Schedule 1 proposes to introduce a new provision into the Fair Work Act which clarifies that migrant workers in Australia are entitled to the benefit of the Fair Work Act, regardless of their migration status. This means that migrant workers, and that includes temporary migrant workers, would be entitled to wages and entitlements under the Fair Work Act, a modern award or an enterprise agreement for work that has been performed as an employee.

Schedule 4 proposes a minor technical amendment that would confirm the common understanding of how workplace determinations and enterprise agreements interact. This proposed change is consistent with the Fair Work Commission's approach in relation to this matter. However, it is not currently stated in the Fair Work Act.

Schedule 2 deals with unpaid parental leave. This makes changes to the taking of flexible unpaid parental leave. The coalition supports parental leave, both paid and unpaid, as a means of ensuring that Australians are able to balance their work and family responsibilities. We believe that parental leave greatly assists women, in particular, to remain connected to the workforce. Businesses of all sizes work closely with their employees to plan for periods of paid and unpaid parental leave, which will often last for a significant period of time. Different businesses, of course, will have differing needs when it comes to planning for when an employee takes parental leave. We believe that employers and employees working together to plan for these periods is actually in the best interests of both the employer and the relevant employee. Flexible unpaid parental leave can be taken as a single continuous period of one day or longer, or separate periods of one day or longer each. The bill proposes to increase the number of days that can be taken as flexible unpaid parental leave from 30 days to 100 days. This equates to an increase from a six-week absence from work to 20 weeks, which can be taken as flexible, unpaid parental leave from the employee's entitlement of 12 months, or 52 weeks.

We, as the coalition, believe there is merit in employees being able to take the parental leave more flexibly. But such increased flexibility will pose practical challenges for employers. That is why we will be moving some amendments to address what these practical challenges are for both the employers and their employees, working together to ensure that it works for both of them. The coalition amendments will see the increase in days that can be accessed flexibly balanced by insertion of a reasonable requirement to provide employees with greater details at an earlier point as to when the employee intends to take the flexible leave. This is so that employees can make arrangements to cover for the absence.

Our proposal is a relatively modest expansion of the current notice provisions to assist employers to manage the implementation of what is a significantly expanded employee entitlement. A greater period of notice of a proposed absence will obviously help mitigate some of the associated practical challenges that employers have raised with us in discussions that we've had with them, but also in the submissions that they made in relation to this bill.

In schedule 3, the bill implements the government's election commitment to introduce the right to superannuation into the National Employment Standards. Currently the only way for many employees to pursue unpaid superannuation is through the Australian Taxation Office. This bill means an employee with an entitlement to superannuation contributions pursuant to a modern award or an enterprise agreement can pursue unpaid superannuation guarantee contributions through the Fair Work regime, and a failure to make adequate contributions constitutes a breach of the Fair Work Act.

Some employer groups, again in their submissions on this bill but also in discussions that we've had with them, have identified concerns with the way in which this particular proposal itself is drafted. For example, AI Group have identified a number of issues relating to, in the first instance, the unfairness to employers of being subject to multiple and potentially inconsistent enforcement efforts in different jurisdictions in relation to the same obligation, and the likelihood that the proposed approach will undermine the efficacy and utility of the constructive role that the Australian Taxation Office currently plays in providing guidance to individual employers or industry related to complex superannuation obligations.

We agree that greater clarity is needed, so our amendments will deal with four items in this schedule specifically. Firstly, they will ensure employers are not exposed to competing enforcement activity from two different regulators over the same matter. Secondly, they will protect employers that rely on an ATO binding guidance. Thirdly, they will limit the capacity of the ATO to pursue matters ventilated in the workplace relations system. Fourthly, they will limit the capacity of the Fair Work Commission to deal with disputes over the operation of superannuation legislation.

Schedule 5, in relation to employee authorised deductions, is probably the most concerning of the bill. It is the most concerning change in this bill and will see an actual impact to workers' take-home pay, and that is what we are concerned about, in particular given the current state of the economy and the cost-of-living crisis that Australians are currently feeling—those on the cliff because of the mortgage payments they have to make every month, the food inflation and the cost of energy. People are having to pay more. This change, the employee authorised deduction schedule, will actually have an impact on their take-home pay. This is of significant concern to us.

In a bill that purports to protect workers entitlements, this schedule may actually encourage a reduction in a worker's take-home pay, and that is why we need to explore this in more detail. The coalition believes that Australians should be able to keep more of the money that they earn and it is important that any deduction from their take-home pay by an employer should be closely scrutinised. Currently under section 324 of the Fair Work Act, there are various types of permitted deductions that may be made from an employee's pay by an employer where the deduction is (1) authorised in writing by the employee, (2) principally for their benefit and (3) the same amount as specified in the authorisation. What does the bill seek to do, though? This is where the issue arises. As currently drafted, this bill will allow for amounts to 'vary from time to time' without additional approval by the employee for the increase. That is the issue that we have. This could actually lead to deductions being made from salaries that greatly exceed an employee's own expectations.

I had a discussion the other night with a woman, a single mother. She has a full-time job. She has now taken on a second job at night because she is one of those Australians on the cliff. When she reaches that cliff shortly, she will have to find an additional $1,000 per month. She is a single mother working a full-time job—and it is a good full-time job—but, because of the cost-of-living crisis and the interest rate that she will soon be paying, she has now taken on a second job at night to put away money to find that $1,000 extra a month. Can you imagine if she opens her pay packet and suddenly there is a deduction that is higher than what she thought it was going to be and if that is actually a tipping point for her that month? We say: sorry, that should not be allowed.

This proposal put forward by the government does not outline a clear problem which it is seeking to address. Given the lack of impetus for this change, employer groups and the coalition are rightly concerned that this is simply an attempt to facilitate—let's call it for what it is—unions increasing their fees without obtaining explicit agreement from their members. You need your members' explicit agreement if you're going to increase their fees and then take the money out of their bank account. This is from the government's playbook, unfortunately. Requiring an employee to provide a new written authorisation when the amount of an authorised deduction from their pay changes—that provides certainty not just for the employer but also for the employee, who can say: 'I know what is coming out of my bank account. It's my bank account and it's my money. I should be the one approving any deduction.' This is necessary for employees to understand and authorise the impact of the relevant deduction on their take-home pay and for employers to ensure that they do not breach the Fair Work Act and find themselves liable for the significant and increasing penalties that can be imposed for employee underpayments.

Further, while an employee might agree in general terms to a percentage or capped amount increase to their authorised deductions over time, this may not be indicative of their consent to any particular increase in a particular time period. For example, while an employee may authorise a 10 per cent increase to their union fees over a five-year period—anticipating an increase of around two per cent per year—if the union fee suddenly increases by eight per cent in year 1 of that authorisation, the employee may not be agreeable to that; they actually may not be able to afford that increase, notwithstanding that the amount is within their pre-authorisation provided to their employer.

The coalition considers it unreasonable to place the burden of communicating increases in fees or premium amounts on employers, rather than on the service providers who benefit from those deductions, such as health insurers or trade unions. The proposed amendments will not reduce purported difficulties for employers processing deductions; rather, what we consider they will do is create new difficulties and reduce the protections for employees that section 324(3) of the Fair Work Act is intended to provide without discernible benefit for either party. Making changes to deductions is a time consuming and costly task for employers, and we would want assurance that any change imposes no further cost on business. When an electricity provider, a health insurer, a bank or a streaming service such as Netflix increases their price, it is only appropriate for consumers to be notified of that increase and then have the opportunity to reconsider whether they are actually receiving value for money. Employees should have similar protections for their take-home pay deductions. Unfortunately, on the current drafting of this schedule, it does not provide that assurance. My worry is that the government is merely making this change to ensure that the unions are able to increase their membership and that the employees, ultimately, are not notified. As I said, with the current cost-of-living crisis, that is just unacceptable. The employee should be able to authorise in writing the exact amount on a monthly basis.

In relation to schedule 6, we will propose some amendments to that to ensure that 'eligible wages' includes casual loading, to address the confusion that the schedule currently has and to ensure casuals are treated fairly under the scheme.

As I said, the coalition has a long history of protecting workers entitlements while balancing the need for businesses to work as efficiently as possible. We are largely supportive of this bill, but we have had a number of operational concerns raised with us. As I said, we'll be moving amendments to actually improve the efficiency and operation of the bill.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

r BARBARA POCOCK () (): I rise to signal the Greens' support for the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023, which makes several simple and common-sense but important changes to the Fair Work Act: clarifying the rights of migrant workers under that act, expanding access to unpaid parental leave and ensuring that casual workers in the mining sector have fair and equal access to long service leave, alongside other technical changes that provide clarity on the operation of the commission and that simplify and streamline a number of processes under the act. While these are all worthy goals, and I support them, I feel that it's important to place on the record my interest in a greater level of ambition and a change to the scale and pace of reform in this area, which needs to be larger and faster.

There are many long-overdue improvements that could be made that could secure a better deal for workers. At last year's election, Australians voted for change to workplace relations, like so many other issues, and they are waiting for some real change in their pay packets and, for so many, greater security in their jobs. After a decade of inaction, many Australians can't afford to wait any longer. While their wages are stagnating, they've watched climbing prices eat away at their quality of life, and they've shouldered hit after hit, as the increases to their rent have outstripped inflation and as big business saw the cost-of-living crisis as an opportunity to engage in rampant price gouging and profiteering that even the Reserve Bank has recognised this week. Further, I want to foreshadow that I do not find the arguments for the various amendments just put forward by Senator Cash convincing, and I don't expect that we will be supporting them.

In March of this year, the Select Committee on Work and Care published its final report, which, amongst other recommendations, included a call for major reform to Australia's workplace relations laws to address the needs of parents and carers. We're yet to see enough action on those recommendations, despite the proposals receiving the broad support of government senators on the committee—alongside, of course, the Greens. The committee set ambitious targets for reform, and they are essential for so many working carers: roster justice; the right to disconnect from technology when your working day is finished; access to a paid holiday and paid sick leave for all workers, including casuals; and government leadership on the move towards a four-day working week.

Witnesses at the committee's hearings frequently singled out working hours and working time as critical issues and major challenges that they face as parents and carers. Witness after witness spoke about how they were being failed by laws that haven't kept pace with the changing nature of work in the 21st century. Workers seeking flexibility are often locked into casual work without access to the critical, basic right to a paid holiday and paid sick leave, which every parent and every working carer knows is so important. Those who need greater certainty and predictability in their working hours often find themselves in situations where their hours of work are subject to change without notice, and that means a change not only in your hours of work but also in your pay packet.

As the shift towards working-from-home arrangements accelerated in recent years, workers have increasingly been expected to be available around the clock to field work-related phone calls and monitor their inboxes when they're off the clock. This wage theft and this constant availability, in the form of availability creep, continues unabated, as workers face mounting demands that they be available by phone, email and text out of work hours and without compensation.

Productivity gains made by our contemporary workforce have been absorbed by business profits, while wages have stalled—at a time when record profit-taking has been highlighted by Australian researchers and the OECD as a major driver of inflation. It's time to restore balance and review Australia's hours of work. While other major economies have forged ahead with reductions to working hours, Australia has lagged behind. We led the world in the 1840s. It has now been 40 years since we've seen any reduction in working hours for Australian workers, and, in those 40 years, we've seen a massive change in who's at work on any day of the week—increasingly, women; increasingly, people who are responsible for the care of someone else. We need to renovate our workplace relations regime.

Trials of a four-day working week around the world have been enormously successful. In a recent Australian study published by Swinburne University of Technology, none of the 10 businesses that participated in a four-day-week trial experienced a loss in productivity. Seven of the 10 saw improvements in their productivity. The Swinburne study is consistent with other very large trials around the globe in many countries and in Australia: better morale; improved staff retention; less use of sick leave; growth in productivity.

If the Albanese government is serious about the rights of working people, then all of these issues need to be prioritised. Workers need protected rights to request predictable hours of work if they need them, and to turn off their phones and computers outside of work hours if they're not being compensated for being available. Casual workers need access to paid leave.

There are significant changes in this bill to help protect the rights of migrant workers, and the clarification that it provides for migrants who are working beyond their visa conditions is important. It's important that people are being permitted in their visa conditions to work; that's very important to better protection from exploitation for those migrant workers, and it was a key recommendation of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce. It is vital that these workers have the same access to legal protection as other workers, regardless of their migration status.

However, more needs to be done to support migrant workers providing essential services in our community. I'm frequently contacted by people whose skilled worker visa applications have been severely delayed as they attempt to renew temporary visas or to proceed along a pathway to permanence and citizenship. These are diligent and hardworking people—many of them, in teaching and health care occupations; many of them, carers in our care workplaces—who are being pushed into insecure work, outside of their areas of study, as many employers are cautious about employing staff on bridging visas.

International students have also contacted me to share their concerns about their ability to cope with work restrictions for student visa holders which return on 1 July. Amidst the cost-of-living crisis, international students face an enormous struggle to make ends meet on limited hours against a backdrop of stagnant wages and exorbitant rent increases. It will be of little comfort to student visa holders that their rights under the Fair Work Act will be protected, when cost-of-living pressures force them to work beyond the 48-hour-a-fortnight cap.

The provisions in the bill to provide expanded access and greater flexibility to those taking unpaid parental leave are a clear improvement. It's important to stress, however, that Australian parents' access to paid parental leave remains woefully inadequate, and Australia still has such a long way to go to catch up with comparable countries in terms of paid parental leave. It will be some time—many years—before Australian working parents can access increased paid parental leave that approaches the international standard. It will be some years before they get to just 26 weeks paid leave, which is well below the 2022 OECD average, which, currently, is 51 weeks. If Australia proceeds at the rate of progress the government seems to consider satisfactory, it will be nearly 2040 before Australia finally catches up to the rest of the developed world, in terms of giving people the rest and support they need when a new child, a baby, arrives.

After a decade of stalled progress on workplace relations, major reforms are now needed to improve the work-life balance and the circumstances of a changing workforce, and we need changes that will safeguard workers' standard of living. Voters sent a very clear message last year, issuing a call for urgent action. Insecure work and sluggish wage growth continue to undermine prosperity, and they make prices rises, rent increases and ballooning mortgage repayments bite that much harder, affecting so many households and so many workers.

Australia's workers are looking to Labor for a lifeline, for the decisive action that was promised in the last election campaign. It's time for the Albanese government to deliver on a more ambitious set of reforms, a much more fundamental set of reforms, that will address the current circumstances and real experiences of Australian workers in our diverse households and workplaces.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023. This continues much-needed reform to industrial relations in this country and reaffirms the Albanese Labor government's commitment to improve pay and conditions for Australian workers in every workplace across the country.

I rose in this place last year to speak on the historic Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs Better Pay) Act 2022 and its important reform to lift wages, improve job security and close the gender pay gap. Our government IR reforms are about improving awards, improving enterprise agreements, improving bargaining and creating better workplaces for Australians. This year, 2023, is about closing the loopholes that some businesses use to undercut such arrangements. This bill commences that process.

This bill is about protecting workers' entitlements, including by enshrining the right to superannuation as one of the National Employment Standards. And how important is superannuation to Australian workers? It is so terribly important. Again, it's something that was introduced by a Labor government. The bill will also promote gender equality. The amendments to the unpaid parental leave scheme will provide families with greater flexibility so that work and care responsibilities can be more easily shared. That's so important to our national economy.

The bill will also deliver reforms to improve fairness in the workplace relations system by protecting all workers, regardless of their visa status, and ensure that casuals in the coalmining industry are on par with their permanent colleagues with respect to long service leave—fundamentally important for all Australians. It continues the work of the government to align other IR reforms that create a fairer Australia.

The bill amends the Fair Work Act 2009 and related legislation, to improve the workplace relations framework, by providing greater certainty for the work status of migrant workers, by dealing with inaction between the Fair Work Act and Migration Act 1958. That's an election commitment that we are delivering, as we are with our election commitments—unlike those opposite when they were in government.

We are making sure there is greater job security and opportunities for all Australian workers by providing stronger and more flexible access to unpaid parental leave, that aligns with the recent changes to the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, a Jobs and Skills Summit outcome. We are inserting an entitlement to superannuation in the National Employment Standards—again, an election commitment—clarifying the operation of Fair Work Commission determinations and enterprise agreements. We are expanding the circumstances in which employees can authorise employers to make valid deductions from payments due to employees, where the reductions are principally for the employee's benefit, and we are ensuring that casual employees working in the black coal mining industry are treated no less favourably than permanent employees in their accrual, reporting and payment of their long service leave entitlements under the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Scheme.

Fundamentally, this should always be happening. But what happens? You have to wait until there's a Labor government, because we know that when those on the other side were in government their policy was to keep wages low and do nothing for workers. It is crucial that the provisions in the bill relating to unpaid parental leave commence by 1 July 2023, to align with the commencement of changes made by this government to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Act 2023. Again, who has taken that next step to ensure that paid parental leave is able to be shared by both parents? A Labor government. This will ensure that parents can access weeks of unpaid parental leave equivalent to their government paid parental leave entitlements. Some parents may be unable to access government parental leave pay without access to additional unpaid parental leave. That is so important. When you have babies and young children, ensuring both parents in the workforce have that leave is good for the parents, the family and the economy.

This reform was recommended by both the Migrant Workers Taskforce and the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry into the government's secure jobs, better pay legislation. Reports responded to concerns by advocates for temporary migrant workers that it is unclear whether Australian workplace laws and conditions extend to temporary migrant workers. It has also been argued that such confusion may mean that temporary migrant workers do not seek information or assistance from official sources, such as the Fair Work Ombudsman.

All workers working in this country are entitled to and deserve protection from exploitation. It's the view of the government that the Fair Work Act should be clear that it also applies to migrant workers. Anyone working in this country who is not an Australian citizen deserves the same rights and protections. Doubt has been raised about this, and the government is acting now to fix this and address it, unlike those on the other side when they were in government. Parental leave reforms from our government are a significant step towards ensuring that there is fairness in the workforce and that we have strong economic participation by parents sharing parental leave and the same protection for migrants working in this country who are here on temporary visas.

This parliament has recently passed the largest expansion to government funded paid parental leave since the scheme was established in 2011. The changes in this bill go hand in glove with those changes made by the Minister for Social Services. These changes provide commensurate employment rights to ensure that the government's changes to paid parental leave have real meaning. So the women and parents of Australia should rejoice because these reforms will improve the lives of working families.

The bill will also protect workers superannuation entitlements by including superannuation in the National Employment Standards. Australians are quite rightly very proud of our world-class superannuation system. Thank you very much to former prime minister Paul Keating for that. Superannuation is a key part of workers being able to build a financially secure retirement, which is the right of every working Australian. Currently, the Fair Work Act does not have an explicit requirement for an employee to pay superannuation to their employees. As the minister pointed out, this is a loophole that needs to be closed. In almost every instance of wage theft, superannuation is also part of how workers have been ripped off. I've seen that happen time and time again, even in my own state. Even people I've known who owned businesses didn't pay superannuation to their workers. They used it to buy themselves a better home. It's outrageous. It has taken a Labor government to close those loopholes. Superannuation is a very important part of our economy. It's important for Australian workers to build that security as they move into retirement. This amendment is about making sure that a worker can recover both superannuation and wages in an underpayment claim under the Fair Work Act. That is critically important.

Every Australian deserves a secure job and better pay, but there is no point in having a secure job and better pay if a loophole exists within the industrial relations system that undermines workers entitlements. This bill starts the process of closing many loopholes in the system. It goes a long way towards ensuring that Australian workers have their entitlements, that they get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, that their superannuation is protected going forward, and that people with families have their entitlements to be able to spend time with their children during that very critical time. That helps those families. It certainly helps those children. It also helps the parents. But just as important as all of that is that it helps our economy. It builds a stronger, more highly skilled workforce.

But despite this bill and these changes, as proud as I am to stand here, there's still so much to do in this area. I don't have the voice to go into the gig economy and the issues around making sure that there's safety at work. There are so many issues that we still have to address in this area of workers to protect their rights and ensure that they have a safe and secure job and a very safe workplace. There's a lot more to be said about that in the coming pieces of legislation, but I commend this bill and I urge those in this chamber to support it.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023. Before I speak to the specific provisions of the bill, I wish to make a few comments in general about our industrial relations system and clear up a few misconceptions that we continually hear from those opposite in this space.

The first misconception they pedal is that the Liberal Party are anti wage increases. In actual fact, when we were in government, over our nine years of government, we actually delivered—and, Senator Scarr, I know you know this—real wage increases, wage increases above inflation.

Senator Sterle is mocking that, but that's the reality, Senator Sterle. It's the reality. What has this Labor government delivered in its first 12 months? Declining real wages—in fact, real wages plummeting at the fastest rate in decades. Why? Inflation. This government has no clue as to how to handle the inflationary pressures in the economy, and that is demonstrated quite clearly by the fact that the Reserve Bank had been raising interest rates, it paused, Labor delivered its second budget, and the Reserve Bank took a look and raised interest rates again—a very clear causality path. The Labor government did nothing. In fact, they spent big and they put upward pressure on inflation, causing the Reserve Bank to have to act. They're leaving all the heavy lifting to the Reserve Bank in the economy, and the impact of that, on peoples' mortgage interest rates and flowing through the economy in so many ways through high inflation, is directly the responsibility of this government. They cannot turn their backs and walk away and say 'Oh, inflation is not our problem.' Inflation is their problem. They're in charge of the budget. They are the ones who have significant levers of influence in this economy to deal with those inflationary pressures. So that is misconception No. 1. Real wages went up under the coalition government. Real wages are plummeting under the Labor government.

On flexibility, those opposite want you to believe that Australian workers and Australian families, including Australian mums and dads, don't want flexibility in employment arrangements, when in actual fact they have voted with their feet over 30 years, indicating that they do want flexibility in employment arrangements. 'Flexibility' is not a dirty word. It's a good word. It's good for workers, it's good for the economy and it provides people with the sorts of jobs they want at times in their lives when they want them. Flexibility is not a bad thing. In fact, inflexibility is an economy killer. If you want to be truthful about the history of this nation and the loss of the big manufacturing industries, such as the car industry, it was labour market inflexibility and the inability to scale up technologically that killed those heavy manufacturing industries in this country. It wasn't the direct policy position of any particular government, but it was inflexibility in our labour markets in the 1980s and 1990s that killed heavy industry in this country. Inflexibility is an economy killer. Flexibility provides the economy with the flexibility it needs. Flexibility is a positive in this economy, and workers have shown over the last 30 years that they care about flexibility. They actually want flexibility in their employment arrangements. This idea that somehow the economy has suddenly become filled with gig workers or casuals is a nonsense. If you look at the data, you will see that the broad balance in the economy between permanent, casual and part time has roughly remained the same over the last 30 years, since the 1990s. What was the spark that rebalanced the economy to the current position in terms of full time, part time and casual? It was the fact that the inflexibility in the labour market in the 1970s and 1980s and into the early 1990s was an absolute economy killer. Inflexibility is an economy killer.

The third misconception I want to clear up before I get to the bill proper is this idea of wage theft and that, in some way, businesses, particularly small businesses, go out of their way to rip off their staff. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a problem in our system, and that is that the sheer complexity of the system causes people to make mistakes. Let me just give you two examples to show you that those mistakes are not just being made by small businesses against a small number of employees that they potentially employ. Maurice Blackburn, the so-called labour lawyers, with literally hundreds of IR specialist lawyers on their team, underpaid workers. They got the rules wrong and had to re-fund the lowest paid workers they employ. That's because the system is so complex even the labour lawyers can't get it right. How do you expect a small business—mum and dad running a cafe, a news agency or a fish-and-chip shop—to get it right when the labour lawyers can't get it right? The system is too complex. This is not wage theft; this is people making mistakes because the system is so complex. There is some criminality, of course, and those people should be punished. But the fact is that, when you see a law firm like Maurice Blackburn full of people who are specialists in this area of IR law and in prosecuting these kinds of supposed wage theft doing it themselves, you've got to say the system is wrong. The system is too complex.

Who else is involved in so-called wage theft? The ABC. The ABC got it wrong. The ABC, with its $1.1 billion of funding from the Commonwealth government, could not get its wage bills correct. They underpaid their staff. Why? Because they were out to deliberately steal money off their staff? If so, you guys should be looking at cutting their budget, because that is a pretty disgraceful act. I don't think so. I think the system is so complex they made a mistake. They rectified it, and that is as it should be.

Senator Henderson, you may have a slightly different opinion to me on that. But I believe that, in the vast majority of cases, mistakes are being made because the system is too complex. The system requires, particularly small and medium-sized business owners, to have a level of experience and skill in these areas that is very difficult to get. It is very difficult to acquire it internally and, if you have to pay for it, it is very expensive. If you are a small-business owner and you have to go to external consultants to get IR advice, guess where that money is coming from? That is coming directly out of your take-home pay as the business owner.

Barriers that make it harder for businesses to employ and that make it harder for employees to choose flexibility in their working arrangements are government policy that is keeping inflation high and doing nothing to bring it down. All these things, combined together, are hurting Australian workers and hurting Australian families. They're bringing extra unnecessary pressure on Australian families at a time when there are economic headwinds ahead. As we said when we were in government, there were economic headwinds clearly on the horizon.

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

Thank you, Senator Brockman, you will be in continuance.