David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

I'd like to go to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 and the questions asked by Senator Cash, and to rebut some of the assertions made by the minister, particularly around the fact that there were going to be no additional costs passed on.

We have seen in former legislation put forward by this government that the analysis that is done is often done without people who really understand the sector. I'm trying to think of the name of the bill, but it was one where some of the advice was provided by somebody who described himself as a 'shaman', amongst other things. People who actually know what they're talking about in this matter, being small-business people; representatives of the Council of Small Business Organisations, such as Matthew Addison; and people from the Business Council of Australia, such as Jennifer Westacott, their CEO, all highlight the fact that this will incur additional costs for the business sector, including small business.

Small business is a sector that is already running on tight margins. They employ the majority of Australians in this country. The building sector, for example, highlighted that, in their words, 'the introduction of this radical omnibus industrial relations bill that takes a sledgehammer to the tradies rights across the country'. There are people who we rely on to provide services—whether to small business, to residential homes et cetera—who want to run their own business because they're aspirational and they don't want to be a salaried employee. They want to run their own business and build it to the point where they can employ others and they can train young apprentices. This legislation, in the words of the building industry, is going to take a sledgehammer to their ability to survive.

The experts in this field—the people who actually employ people and run businesses—have also highlighted that these costs are not things that should be imposed at a time when both consumers and businesses are facing some of the highest costs in terms of the cost of living and costs to business that we have seen in recent years, particularly around energy prices, which businesses are concerned with. People have highlighted that much of this bill is ideological in nature, and the following comment has been made:

The only loophole this bad legislation is looking to close is that of plummeting union membership.

We've seen other ideological positions by this government which are actually pushing up prices. I go to the issue of power, in particular. AEMO put out a statement just recently highlighting that my home state of South Australia can expect blackouts and further price rises. Far from the $275 reduction in power prices that the Australian people were promised by the Albanese government at the last election, we have seen rise upon rise. And AEMO are telling us that we will see further rises. What's at the heart of that? The heart of that is the ideological position of this government to commit to wind and solar as the only ways that they want to see emissions reduced. They claim that there will be energy security and they claim that there will be—

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

Senator Ayres?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know Senator Fawcett is running out of things to say about industrial relations, but he does need to confine his comments to the questions that were asked by coalition senators over the course of question time.

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

Senator Fawcett, just please be mindful to remain relevant. But, having said that, it's about the answers, and some of the answers were very extensive.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy President, you have astutely noted that the answers were very broad and ranged far and wide. Particularly, they rebutted the fact that costs were a pressure coming out of this legislation. I'm merely pointing out this government's ill-thought-through ideological opposition, not only to this bill but to other bills, such as on energy, is actually making things worse.

I want to go to a point in an interview recorded last week and reported in the Australian, where the energy minister from Ontario in Canada had a question put to him about Minister Bowen's assertions that wind and solar are the cheapest. He said, 'Our government'—that is, the Canadian government—'moved on wind and solar in a big way, and it's created some serious problems for our systems operator.' That sounds like the statement from AEMO. He then said that they have gone in favour of nuclear power, because it's a more viable path to renewables, it's not emitting, and you're talking about a very small area of land. On price, he said they are producing power through their nuclear power stations for about 10c a kilowatt, whereas Australian households currently pay between 20c and 40c per kilowatt. So, we are seeing this industrial relations legislation, like industry policy, unnecessarily driving up prices, purely because of ideology.

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

It is a great honour to stand up here and talk about Labor's latest IR tranche. But Mr Deputy President, I'm going to direct my remarks to you, because there might be a little bit of a kerfuffle on the other side here. This may come as a shock to a lot of senators, but I don't take any interest in a lot of the senators' backgrounds, unfortunately—I should. I judge them by their performance in this chamber. But I want to let the world in on a small secret that is not well known in here: I actually was a small-business person. My wife and I had our own little trucking empire, if can I put it that way. So, I know as well as anyone out there the costs, the pressures, the dramas and the stress that come with running your own business. I know that.

But I do—through you, Mr Deputy President—take a bit of personal umbrage at Senator Henderson's attack about small business and what we're doing to small business with the new IR tranche. For those opposite, there happens to be a road transport section. I would encourage those opposite, before they start throwing wild assertions that we don't care about small business, to do the following. Up in room 2S3 at the moment there are quite a few small-business people, and I'd encourage Senator Henderson and other senators on that side to go up there and meet them. Five of them are owner-drivers. They would love to put the position of all the work they have done to get this bill to where it is. There are also probably about half a dozen gig workers—through you, Mr Deputy President, to Senator Henderson—and you might want to go up there and hear of their trials and their tribulations, before you start casting aspersions and challenging us that we don't look after owner-drivers.

My life's work has been standing up for owner-drivers in the road transport industry. I come from that magnificent industry. I had my own vehicles, as I said. I know what it's all about. I welcome the opportunity to debate anyone in any state of Australia—and I'm throwing this out to anyone on that side—with a trucking audience, the small-business trucking audience, and bring it on. Have a fight with me. Defend why you will not vote to support these new laws that go to the heart of protecting small businesses in the road transport industry—owner-drivers.

And who else is against this? It is not the trucking industry—the whole road transport industry in Australia, all the associations, the owner-drivers, the states, the Australian Trucking Association, the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation, the National Road Freighters Association, and the Transport Workers Union. They are all united to defend, support and get this legislation through the lower house and then into the Senate. And if you want to defend and stick shoulder to shoulder with those industry associations that aren't from trucking—like the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia, those poor devils who are doing it so hard at the Minerals Council of Australia, and the National Farmers Federation—well, get in there. You stick with them. You run their argument. Their argument, very clearly, is this: they do not want to see any opportunity where they have to be forced to pay safe, sustainable and viable rates of pay to our trucking industry and our owner-drivers. I dare you—I'll travel anywhere in Australia, bring all your ACCI mates with you, have the fight. Let's fill the room with truckie owner-drivers. Let's fill the room with road transport employers. Because they're on our side, too. Employers—small, medium, huge—are all saying the same thing. Uber are saying the same thing. But if you want to latch yourself to those four or five greedy employer organisations who dare not see anyone else share in our Commonwealth in Australia, more disgrace to you.

I said this on a number of occasions. I've said it in trucking magazines. I've said it all over Australia: come and debate me. I will turn up. You can bring the army of your mates from the other organisations who want to screw us down. After 46 years in the road transport industry and about the road transport industry, as a third-generation road-train operator around Australia, I've had a gutful of it, and so have all these other road transport operators. They're upstairs. If you don't believe me, while you sit there with your heads real low, take 30 steps out this door over here, turn right and then take another 10 steps. Push the '2' button on the elevator—up you go—and walk another 50 metres down to 2S3. Why don't you ask the people that are doing it? Because you're more worried about the Liberal donors like the ACCI and the BCA and the AIG all these horrible people who want to screw our trucking rates.

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

Thank you, Senator Sterle, you've made your point.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If anyone had any doubt whatsoever about the true nature of the Labor government, I think this unexpected, unannounced and secret 700-plus-page bill is absolute evidence. In fact, why bother having Labor members in this chamber? Why don't you just put your trade union reps in these seats? It would be more honest than you are currently. This was not included in the government's 2022 election policies. Neither was it foreshadowed in any of the public consultation papers released in April of this year. No matter what they say, they did not go to the election and tell the Australian people that this was their true agenda.

On this side of the chamber, we absolutely knew what you were all about. A year-and-a-half in, you've had to sneak this in under the cover of darkness. You've got Senator Sterle here saying, 'Oh, it's just about a few truck drivers.' I was going to say something rude, but I won't. Like hell it is just about a few people in a couple of industries. This is about every workplace in this country. Employees will undoubtedly be worse off, but it is small businesses who are already suffering. There are five million small businesses in this country, 43 per cent of whom are now not profitable, given the stresses and strains your government have put on them with cost-of-living and the cost-of-doing-business pressures for small businesses. No-one in this country should are residual doubts.

Reading the response from the Minerals Council—the minerals industry is an incredibly important industry not only to my home state of Western Australia but also to the economic viability of our nation. Let's see what the Minerals Council has said about this. Tanya Constable said:

The Albanese Government's latest industrial relations legislation changes are some of the most extreme, interventionist workplace changes that have ever been proposed in Australia.

The changes will inflict immense harm to the economy, the weight of which will fall on the shoulders of the most vulnerable Australians who will pay more for groceries, housing, and energy.

Guess what? Your own minister, when announcing this yesterday, confirmed that the cost of living will go up even further for every Australian who at the moment can least afford it.

Let's see what the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia has had to say about this extreme legislation. The council's chair, Matthew Addison, said this:

The issues of confusion and complexity remain, combined with an increased requirement of every business, small or large, to dedicate—

even more—

resources, time and money towards trying to understand—

700 or 800 pages of complex legislation in four separate schedules. He continued:

At a time when small businesses are managing increased costs of supply, of rent, of power, of wages …

The last thing any small business in this country needs is these additional changes. We do not, in this country, need any of these.

I'd like to say to the people of Western Australia that there are 10 good reasons why this is such a bad bill. It is impossibly complex. It has far too much uncertainty. It adds additional costs to businesses, including our five million small businesses. It makes Australians pay more in a cost-of-living crisis, which the minister confirmed yesterday. Shame on you for supporting that at the moment! It does absolutely nothing to increase productivity. When the minister was asked today in question time, he couldn't point to a single provision that actually increased productivity. It does nothing to enhance competition. It risks jobs—probably hundreds of thousands of jobs, particularly in small business. The only ones to benefit are Labor's union paymasters. As I said, the jig is up.

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

Thank you, Senator Reynolds. Senator Stewart.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese Labor government is supporting Australian workers by closing loopholes that undercut pay and conditions. This is core Labor business: being in the corner of workers, unlike those opposite. We were elected on a pledge to get wages moving again after a decade when those opposite had a deliberate design feature of keeping wages low. Last year's secure jobs, better pay legislation was about raising the floor, to improve working conditions and get wages moving again. This reached into every workplace in the country.

The IR legislation introduced into the House is about closing loopholes that undercut pay and conditions for workers. Most workers will be unaffected by what happens this year, but, for those who are affected, this will be life changing. I'm not sure why those opposite don't want to close these loopholes. Why wouldn't you want to put wages in the pockets of workers? Why would you not want to stop employers from stealing from their employees? It is a crime for workers to take money out of the till. It should be a crime for employers to take money out of their employees' pay packets.

While the scare campaign has started on the other side already, when the bill has only just been introduced into the House, I want to step through just a couple of facts about what this legislation is about. The first is about the labour hire loophole. There are some times when labour hire has legitimate uses in providing surge and specialist workforces. That's absolutely the case, and that should continue. What we're concerned about is the labour hire loophole which companies deliberately use in order to undercut agreements they've already made with their workers. This is where they've agreed to fair rates of pay for their workers, which might be up here, in an enterprise agreement, and then they undercut that agreement by bringing in labour hire workforces that are paid less. That is an unacceptable loophole we have in this country, and we are closing it with this legislation.

We're standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees. As part of the government's next set of workplace reforms, we will close the loophole that leaves people stuck classified as casuals when they actually work permanent regular hours. That means they work just like permanent employees but don't get any of the benefits of job security. We will legislate a fair, objective definition to determine when an employee can be classified as a casual. This will help casual workers who have regular work arrangements, giving them greater access to leave entitlements and more financial security if desired. No-one will be forced to convert from casual to permanent if they don't want to. This will absolutely be a choice of the worker.

We're protecting gig workers. We will protect gig workers in the economy by ensuring minimum standards of pay and safety. We know there is a direct link between low rates of pay and safety, but we can't deal with these safety issues until we have properly sorted-out minimum rates and standards in place for the gig economy. I feel like that's just a bit of a no-brainer. We won't be turning gig workers into employees. We know that many gig workers value the flexibility that comes with that type of work. But just because someone is working in the gig economy shouldn't mean that they end up being paid less than they would if they were an employee. Australia is a country where you shouldn't have to rely on tips to make ends meet. I'm sure that's something that we should actually all able to get behind.

Then there is wage theft. We currently have a situation where, if an employee steals money from the till, it's a criminal offence, as it should be, but, if an employer steals money from the worker, it is not. That's a straight-out loophole. This year, the Albanese Labor government will legislate to criminalise wage theft, closing that loophole. The previous coalition government had nine years to act, and they failed to do so.

On this side of the chamber, we will always make sure that we stand up for working people. We want to make sure that we get wages moving again and improve the productivity of our economy. The IR legislation that was introduced into the House will do just that. Make no mistake—Labor will always be on the side of workers.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a Holden supporter, it hurts me to say this, but Henry Ford once said, 'You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do.' Your reputation is built on what you've done. There are lots of words that come up here about what we're going to do for workers. I agree with those on the other side.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How did your protection of casual workers go?

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note, while we're talking, that Kellogg's has Snap, Crackle and Pop from the Rice Bubbles. Over here, we've got 'shout, whinge and heckle' on the other side, so we've got our own version of that.

What we have going forward is a party that talks about the highlights. Who cannot stand up here and say that an employer that intentionally steals money should go and pay? That is right, but it doesn't take 700 pages of legislation to do that. What happens is that they get one or two good ideas, put them on maybe page 3 or 8, and then have 682 pages of their Labor mates' wish list. That's what we get here in this government. It is virtue signalling, or 'virtue washing'—what they're really doing over what they say they're doing. We cop it everywhere.

We asked this question on IR. We've come here, and it's being spoken about now. But what they're going to do is get their union buddies to come in and examine all the payrolls. What do I do if I'm working in a place, have a medical situation and use sick leave, and I don't want it disclosed? How do I keep that private? There's nothing here. They can walk in, demand to see the records and see my private records. Even though I'm not a member, they can see my personal information. There has to be a carve-out. It is overreach again.

When we talk about theft of wages being a potentially good thing—I come from the Hunter Valley. There is a mob up there called Glencore. I don't support coalmining in the Hunter to put money in Swiss bank accounts. I support giving money to the workers and the people that mine the coal. If it were just that, there would be merit in it, but again they go too far. We get back to what we really see time and time again with this government. They pick one or two things that will benefit and put 200 things that will hurt. They cry, 'We're getting wages moving again.' They have. This government holds the record for the greatest real wage loss, in December of last year. They get wages moving. They're getting them backwards. That's the record they hold. They don't want to tell the whole story.

We get back to why. It's about mates. It always comes down to mates. We do things that benefit the union industry super funds. We do things that benefit our union mates getting sign up. They want everyone to unionise so that they can have coverage over every business. They're already going to own every business with this super fund, so that will be a conflict that comes up sooner or later, when they're making laws that hurt their other friends.

The other question today was on Qatar, on flights and on the restriction of competition in this industry. I understand why they aren't worried about the lack of competition or flight costs, because you don't need more flights when you've got No. 34 Squadron on speed dial. 'I'll have a SPA jet to here and another SPA jet to there.' You don't worry about the price of flights when the taxpayer picks up the bill and a loadmaster picks up your golf clubs. This is what's going on, here. Don't worry about what's going on in the world; you've never had it better. You are earning more money than you ever have before, but, unfortunately, things cost way more than that. We are going to fix all these things so that you won't have your wages stolen in those small instances. That's a great thing, but everyone will have access to your private information. A union body like this is not like a work ombudsman. It is overreach.

I quote Henry Ford again: 'You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do.' Your reputation is built on what you do. This government has failed at that on just about everything from energy to IR to competition policy to the Voice. That's the other question that came up today. It is dividing the nation. Leadership in all of these areas is about bringing people together, but what we get with every piece of legislation is division, and it isn't good enough. So what do we do? We go around the world, and we work out what sorts of things we have to do for our mates. If I paint something on a sign for a pet project, is it worth cutting another airline out of Australia? It appears so. If I get $2 million for a campaign, is it worth allowing the destruction of environmental lands and farming lands? I think so. It's time to govern in the best interests of all of Australia, not those of our mates.

Question agreed to.