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

The Albanese Labor government is tackling cost-of-living pressures and fighting to deliver a fairer system for hardworking Australians and good businesses. This is in stark contrast to those opposite, who, over a decade in government, did nothing while workers' wages went backwards. Attacking the hardworking folks in this country, the mums and dads trying to make ends meet, is simply in their DNA.

Our government's 'closing the loopholes' bill closes the loopholes that some employers have used to drive down wages and strip away conditions. Our Education and Employment Legislation Committee has been travelling across the country to hear from key stakeholders, businesses, employee groups, unions and, importantly, workers themselves. From Melbourne to Perth and Sydney to Launceston, the message we're hearing is loud and clear: the current system isn't working. It doesn't protect workers' pay and conditions. It doesn't protect good businesses who are being undercut by bad businesses. Unions and workers have told us people who are risking their lives making deliveries or undertaking unsafe work can't make ends meet. We've heard about workers being ripped off by bad employers. We've heard about unfair labour practices where Qantas could have four flight crew operating the same flight and doing the same job but being paid vastly different rates of pay. There are supervisors on those same flights who are earning less than the people they're supervising because they're employed by a labour hire company.

In typical fashion, we've got big business fighting tooth and nail against those urgently required reforms to close the loopholes. I'm sure we've all seen the senseless and misleading ads on the TV and the radio. This goes to this very clear point: big business, particularly the Minerals Council, will say and do anything without fact or favour to stop workers and good businesses getting a fair go. They simply want to protect their own interests—not the community, not the workforce, not the national interest, but their interests. In the case of the minerals industry, they want to protect the bonuses of their top-floor executives while workers struggle to put food on the table. And, like usual, they've got their mates in the Liberals and the Nationals fighting for their interests against the workers of this country, against the community, against the national interest. Closing the loopholes deals with the national interest and ticks the national interest test.

Those opposite have always been for the top end of town; I learned that at a young age. In my many years on this earth, for all the years that that proposition has been around—it has been around for a damn long time. In fact, their contempt for working people has got even worse over time. One of the key elements of the bill is closing the Qantas labour hire loophole championed by Alan Joyce, which has now infected other big industries like mining. Big companies like BHP are using the labour hire loophole to outsource much of their mining workforce to labour hire companies and subsidiaries. These outsourced workers earn significantly less than their directly employed colleagues and often don't receive basic rights like annual leave and secure employment.

We heard from the Minerals Council CEO, Tania Constable. Ms Constable turned up to the committee and told a hearing in Sydney: 'The median wages for our mining employees paid by labour hire are higher. Labour hire firms pay approximately $300 more, or 13 per cent higher, than the median weekly earnings of direct mining employees.' If that's the case, why is the Minerals Council running around saying that reforms will cost the mining sector billions, a line parroted by those opposite? Ms Constable can't have it both ways. Either workers are better off already or this legislation won't impact their workforce.

In fact, workers will be worse off under the labour hire employee arrangements that she and her members enter into. They are worse off. A study commissioned by the ACTU earlier this year found that an average labour hire employee is paid $4,700 a year less than their directly employed colleagues. The study also found that more than 80 per cent of workers on a labour hire contract work full-time jobs but don't have full-time employment. Their employment is insecure and unreliable. The committee has already heard from businesses and business groups who claim that their labour hire employees are paid more, yet they're fighting against a bill that, if you took them at their word, wouldn't impact their business at all; it wouldn't cost them a cent. Whether it's 'same job, same pay' or whether it's 'closing the loopholes', those instruments give better and fairer conditions.

The committee has also heard from unions and workers about the burden of having insecure labour hire contract work and the inability to take out a home loan or plan for the future. A worker told a hearing in Perth that he and many of his colleagues have lost employment over the Christmas break only to be rehired by the same company, on another contract, to do the same job after Christmas. This is what those opposite are supporting. When there's work to be done and there are decent wages to be paid, they're not on the side of workers. Hardworking Australians are doing their best to provide for their families without a fair income and without a hope for the future. It is shameful.

Another key element of this bill is regulating the gig economy and ensuring workers have minimum rights and decent working conditions. The committee has heard from delivery workers who are working 14-hour days just to make ends meet and earning as little as $6 an hour, with no workers comp and no leave entitlements. We've heard time and time again that that's the contract they entered into. Is that the system we want for our children in the future of this country? Many good employers at the inquiry said no. Many good employers from a wide variety of industries, including gig companies and people providing labour similar to labour hire through various electronic means, have said they don't want that system. They want a better system for all Australians. They want a fairer system. Let entrepreneurial skill win the day and the battle. Don't let conditions, wages, rights, security and a future for our kids be the losers.

The uberisation of the care sector has seen companies like Mable push workers to their limits and pay below the minimum wage. When you factor in platform fees, annual leave, sick leave, workers compensation and travel costs, including fuel, this leaves workers far worse off when they're on contract work and working below the minimum wage. In response to workers' concerns, Mable company director Kate Carnell said, 'If Mable workers aren't earning enough, maybe small business isn't for them.' Can you believe it? She's saying that small business isn't for them if they can't earn enough. If I extend that logic to those on $6 an hour then it raises some serious questions. It's a shameful dismissal of genuine concerns from the Mable workforce, who are saying they are overworked, often in unsafe conditions, and shamefully underpaid. But for those opposite all of that is acceptable. They don't have concerns about the unsafe and unfair practices of companies like DoorDash and Mable.

Some people like casual work or gig work or labour hire, and that's fine; this bill doesn't interfere with that. But people deserve rights. If we're going to give people rights, we need to give them the right to take them before a commission—and many good employers support that. Of course, those opposite don't care about working Australians. They care only about the puppetmasters at the Minerals Council of Australia and the Business Council. They care about big business, big profits and big return for those executives. The Liberals and the Nationals, as we know, are always for low pay, but we'll continue to be on the side of supporting workers, creating a better system and protecting good big businesses who shouldn't be undercut by bad employers.