Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Before I delve into this bill, I would like to make it clear that I support good industrial relations policy—policy that will see a productive, engaged, diverse and flexible workforce with employees and employers having the ability to agree and negotiate a fair dinkum work environment and remuneration. No bill is perfect, and this is an example of that. The bill takes a radical approach in reforming the Australian workforce which the government did not really take to the election or indicate that it would do so. This radical industrial relations reform has sent shockwaves through the economy and many businesses that are holding up our country.

Many of us in this House are not industrial relations experts who can read through the hundreds of pages of the bill. Therefore, for me this bill has been challenging to work through. Many stakeholders, from small-business owners to industry bodies, have reached out to share their perspectives and interpretations of the bill, with a mixture of amendments proposed to make beneficial changes, but some parts of the bill have remained murky on its intended purposes. I do hold concerns as to whether the amendments put forward will positively change industrial relations or whether the complexities of the reform will stagnate the workforce, its viability and its productivity in a period where workforce shortages are a critical issue.

This bill will affect a large number of my Fowler constituents, both employers and employees. You see, Fowler is and always will be a working-class electorate, with data reporting that 43.6 per cent of people are active in the labour workforce. Many individuals own their own businesses, whilst many others are working for their local businesses. Within the ever-evolving economy, digital platforms are now also becoming a significant source of employment for my constituents. The bill promises to close loopholes which affect the most vulnerable people within the workforce. By dictionary definition, 'loopholes' are ambiguous practices which can be used to circumvent rules or obligations. Fowler is one of the most disadvantaged electorates in Australia, with many individuals at various stages of vulnerability. People are struggling to pay their bills, put food on the table for their families, have a roof over their heads and have a stable job. So I stand here today in the shoes of those in my community who would be most impacted by this bill.

It's important that we close loopholes, but there must be a balance in how the government proposes to do so. My focus remains on the impacts on the livelihoods of Australians and, in particular, small businesses from the pressure of the cost of living if the workplace reforms drive up the price of consumer goods and services and affect the viability of businesses to keep up with changes. These points came up repeatedly when reviewing the provisions relating to employee life reforms, targeting the gig economy, wage theft and casual employment.

I travelled to Melbourne recently for the Vietnamese Museum Australia's women and unity celebration event and was told by the taxi driver that Uber has now increased their fees, which would mean that he would have to pass on this increase to consumers by about $30. For Uber Eats delivery, he said, it would be about $60. Again, this will have to be passed on to consumers, the end users. He asked me how the Australian can do this to working Australians at a time of a cost-of-living crisis by killing small business's ability to operate.

The gig economy is a relatively new phenomenon, with more and more digital platform entrepreneurs rising into the scene with apps that contract and provide services. Digital platforms create an on-demand workforce at the tips of people's fingers on mobile phones and many other devices. These platforms offer the opportunity for people to choose the hours they work, where they work and when they work. People simply value the convenience of digital platforms, and contractors value the mutual flexibility. Therefore, individuals who sign up to provide their services on these digital platforms and choose to do so with the knowledge of the flexibility the platforms provide ad perceived as independent contractors, not employees. However, the government has coined the term 'employee-like' and embedded this in the bill, and the Fair Work Commission will be given powers to make minimum standard orders affecting the conditions of platform workers, as they would be employee-like. While this sounds like a good idea, the danger starts with the broad definition of 'digital platform work', which captures virtually every single digital platform that offers some form of contracting service. Proposed section 15N reads:

(1) Digital platform work means:

(a) work performed by an independent contractor, where:

(i) the work is performed under a services contract through or by means of a digital labour platform … and

(ii) payment is made for that work …

You could interpret this definition of 'digital platform' to effectively capture Uber, Uber Eats, DoorDash, Deliveroo, Menulog, Milkrun, Mable, Airtasker and many others.

This proposed provision will provide the Fair Work Commission with new jurisdiction to regulate digital platform work, which has been relatively untouched to date. We are talking about orders made by the Fair Work Commission which can dictate penalty rates. As I've provided in an example, Uber drivers and Uber Eats deliveries have already increased their fees to those that they contract with, but, as the taxi driver in Melbourne explained, it will have to be passed on to the end users: you and me.

For digital platform work that is designed purely for facilitating gig work, this policy may be perceived as an attack on the commercial arrangements of business owners and the self-employed. The essence of gig work is that people can be their own bosses and can dictate their own schedule without the intervention of others, especially government. Contractors post their services on platforms like Airtasker and Oneflare, free for all to connect with and engage if they so wish. This is their prerogative. We're treading dangerously towards the boundaries of one digital age that is functional and one that is dysfunctional by putting our hands into the gig economy. There may be some deterrent to entrepreneurs dabbling in the digital space in the future from the administrative burdens and legislative obligations that they will need to fulfil. Consumers would likewise be deterred from utilising digital platforms, as there will be a domino effect on price increases, which I've indicated is already happening. This may also trickle down to small businesses relying on digital platforms to sell their products or services. As an example, this is already taking effect in this space in the case of Uber.

I'm not convinced that these issues are adequately considered through these provisions, as the ministers have advised that small businesses are not affected but there's a real chance that small businesses are not spared. However, I recognise the regulation of specific areas of digital platform work, such as in the care sector, may prove beneficial. I had the pleasure of meeting Jordan and Laura Riley, the cofounders of Hireup, Australia's largest NDIS registered online platform, and their wonderful team. Hireup prides itself on being an employer with a digital platform space. It provides benefits to support workers who sign up and to host organisations that provide the work. Support workers would join as casual workers who would get paid in accordance with Hireup's level of hourly rates and would be covered by workers compensation insurance. According to Hireup, if a support worker were to get injured, they would only receive approximately $1,000 dollars under insurance on their disability support worker hire platform, as opposed to $2,600 under workers compensation insurance.

Hireup's digital platform structure is unique when compared to others in the market, as they are committed to making sure that support workers are not being taken for a ride and are paid commensurate to the level of work provided. This in turn ensures that there are high standards in the care sector. This is something that strongly resonates with me, as many constituents within Fowler are working within the care sector and deserve a safe and elevating working environment. Hireup also pointed out, and I acknowledge, that the care sector does receive a huge amount of government funding through an NDIS support model. It is therefore reasonable that there is regulation in this area of digital platform work, where a large percentage of funds comes from taxpayers. If the government seeks to proceed with regulating digital platform work, I'm of the view that it should be confined to the care sector and that the definition should be similarly revised.

Furthermore, I understand that the government is proposing to amend the definition of 'casual employee' to include the consideration of the real substance, the practical reality and the true nature of the relationship in determining if there is an absence of firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work. The current section 15A of the Fair Work Act provides for a contract driven definition, and states:

(1) A person is a casual employee of an employer if:

(a) an offer of employment made by the employer to the person is made on the basis that the employer makes no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work for the person; and

(b) the person accepts the offer on that basis; …

In essence, the totality of the relationship between the worker and the employer would need to be examined.

Whilst I can appreciate that the government is trying to reduce the risk of workers being exploited and not afforded their rights as casual workers, there are some concerns with this particular amendment. I ask the government to consider the following: the Fair Work Act is already complex enough, so how does the government expect a layperson to understand the lines in the bill about 'real substance', 'practical reality' and 'true nature of the employment relationship'? What do these actually mean? How do you define 'real substance'? What is 'practical reality'? What is meant by 'true nature of the employment relationship'? These terms are so abstract and I would argue they're difficult ideas for business owners and workers to decipher the intent of the legislation about them.

I have a constituent from a Edensor Park, a small-business owner, who voiced his concern about this section of the bill. He noted: 'We're not wealthy. We do not have degrees in law or accounting. We're not HR experts. We're just Aussie battlers.' Therefore, if the government intends this to be included then I urge ministers to spend time explaining and divining what they're talking about—specifically, when they refer to 'real substance', 'practical reality' and the 'true nature of the employment relationship'. That would help people and business owners, like my constituent, to understand their obligations.

Has the government considered the uncertainty that small businesses may encounter when engaging independent contractors? The definition will require examination beyond the contract. The same constituent I just mentioned has raised further that this proposed new definition would reverse the certainty that the High Court, in Jamsek, provided to Australians by adding layers of complexity and liability, and the risk that many may well not understand it. This ruling in Jamsek centres on examining the contract terms to determine the employee-employment relationship.

As I raised earlier, there is some good in this bill. Those need to be acknowledged: the provisions for industrial manslaughter, family violence, discrimination, amendments to the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Act 2013 and wage theft. The provision on wage theft, in particular, sends a strong message to employers who are not doing the right thing that they will face severe consequences if they continue to take advantage of hardworking employees. It will now be a criminal offence for employers to intentionally underpay employees. This will be prosecutable by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or the Australian Federal Police. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or three times the amount of underpayment over $1 million.

There are safeguards available: if employers self-disclose conduct which may amount to wage theft they will not be referred for criminal prosecution. Instead, a voluntary small-business wage compliance code will be developed by the government and the employers group. The business must give evidence of compliance with the code to ensure that they will not be referred for criminal prosecution. In the event that a small business is referred to the FWO due to suspected intentional wage theft, the FWO may enter into a cooperative agreement. These amendments are necessary to ensure that employers understand that they must treat their employees with the utmost human respect for their labour.

This bill itself is a paradox, and difficult to discern meaning in. Accordingly, I call on the government to carve out the provisions mentioned above and to place them in a separate bill. I move:

That all words after "whilst not" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"declining to give the bill a second reading:

(1) acknowledges there are over 14 200 small businesses trading in Fowler—which comprises 99 per cent of the local economy;

(2) recognises one in three small businesses in Australia are run by migrants and refugees

(3) acknowledges small businesses often do not have the resources for legal and HR professionals to dissect complex reforms

(4) recognises small business owners from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds may require additional education and outreach on changes to regulation and compliance;

(5) notes the bill's regulation impact statement does not adequately address red tape and compliance costs for small businesses; and

(6) calls on the Government to:

(a) conduct an in-depth analysis of the regulatory and financial impacts on small business owners before passing the bill through the House;

(b )ensure small business owners from CALD backgrounds have equal access to information, materials and support; and

(c) allow further small business consultation by respecting the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry's reporting date of 1 February 2024".

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment as moved by the member for Fowler and reserve my right to speak.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Short-sighted employers would like to have highly-paid customers and low-paid workers. Wise employers recognise that their employees and their customers are ultimately the same pool of people and that paying workers well sustains strong demand within the economy.

Labor is strongly committed to ending the flatlining of wages that we saw under those nine long coalition years, a period in which productivity growth was appalling, in which wage growth was sluggish and in which household income growth languished. Under the period of the coalition government, Australians found a government for whom keeping wages low was a 'deliberate design feature' of their 'economic architecture'. These were the words of the former finance minister.

When we came to office, we set about changing that. Over our first year in office, our government saw more jobs created in the Australian economy than were created in any first year of a new government. In fact, more were created in our first year than were created in the first term of any former government. We have unemployment sitting below four per cent—full employment by anyone's definition. Since the monthly unemployment series began in 1978, there have been only 19 months in which unemployment has been below four per cent. Sixteen of those 19 months have been under this government. Of the half-a-million jobs created since we came to office, some 85 per cent have been full time. The gender pay gap has fallen to its lowest level ever. The number of days lost to industrial action has fallen sharply.

We understand that there are many employers in Australia who are keen to ensure that we don't have a race to the bottom in standards. Australia's comparative advantage in the world will not be that we have the lowest-paid workers in the world. If companies want to find the place where labour is the very cheapest, they're going to find other countries than Australia. What Australia's economy will do well is to ensure that we have workers who are well-trained and are able to use new technologies, such as generative artificial intelligence, in an environment in which firms are competing based on the best product and service that they're offering, not based on a race to the bottom.

The 'closing loopholes' bill is about fairness to employees, but it's about fairness to employers too. I've spoken to many employers who are sick of finding themselves competing with another firm that doesn't do the right thing—that doesn't pay fair wages. They feel that then they're in a circumstance where they have to look for those loopholes instead, rather than treating their workers well and getting on to grow their market share by looking after their customers. So we're not going to have a race to the bottom under this government. We're not going to have real wages languishing, as occurred under the former government. Instead, we're going to close the loopholes.

I want to go to a number of the ways in which this bill seeks to achieve that—firstly, in relation to wage theft. Right now, if a worker steals from the till, that's a crime—as it should be—but if an employer steals deliberately from a worker, then that's not a crime. That's not fair. That asymmetry doesn't pass the pub test. So, as part of this bill, we're going to ensure that an employer convicted of intentional wage theft will face up to 10 years imprisonment and courts will be able to impose fines of up to three times the amount of the wage underpayment in both civil and criminal contexts.

Now, this change will not affect employers who take reasonable steps to pay the correct amounts. It won't affect employers who make honest mistakes. It will allow the Fair Work Ombudsman to enter cooperation agreements with employers who come forward—a change that was requested by COSBOA.

The enforcement of wage underpayments is a critical issue. This bill will allow the Fair Work Commission to allow a representative to enter a workplace if it is satisfied there is reasonable suspicion of wage underpayment. The bill also contains new protections and rights for workplace delegates which ensure that people are able to speak up about wage theft.

Another loophole this bill closes involves casual employment. Many of us in this place would have worked as casuals. Many Australians would have worked as casuals. But, if you're finding yourself working as a casual year on year, then it is only fair that you have the opportunity to make a reasonable request to be treated as a full-time employee. Flexibility can't only involve the flexibility of employers to decide when workers work. We know now some of the new scheduling software allows employers to make decisions in retail based on the weather and predictions of customer demand, pushing to the last minute the allocation of shifts. That can be good for the bottom line, but it's bad for the household bottom line. It's bad for workers who need to juggle childcare duties and further studies. This sort of one-way flexibility turns into inflexibility on the employee side. The bill also prohibits sham casual arrangements, which will stop employers deliberately and unreasonably misrepresenting to an employee that their employment is casual when it is not.

The bill also closes the labour hire loophole. There's certainly a role for labour hire. Labour hire emerged out of so-called 'temp firms' after World War II, filling unexpected vacancies when employees were sick. But labour hire, in some industries, has emerged as a way of taking whole sections of employees off the books and driving down wages. Normal labour hire involves labour hire workers being paid higher rates, and those cases are completely unaffected by this bill. But, where a business agrees on rates of pay in an enterprise agreement and then asks labour hire workers to work for less, then that's the labour hire loophole that Minister Burke has been referring to. This bill will allow the Fair Work Commission to make an order requiring labour hire workers to be paid at least the minimum rate in a host business's enterprise agreement. It won't apply to hosts who are small businesses. It won't apply to hosts who are independent contractors. It won't apply to training arrangements.

Another important loophole that this bill closes is to do with gig workers. This has been an issue that I've long been concerned with. In 2015, from opposition, Labor set out a set of six sharing-economy principles. One of those principles was that new services must support good wages and working conditions. We made clear that, when offering services that involve human labour, sharing-economy companies should ensure that they achieve work outcomes at least equivalent to the prevailing industry standard. That was some eight years ago. Since then, we've seen a growth in the scale of what we used to call the sharing economy and now call the gig economy.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics brought out estimates yesterday which, for the first time, outlined its best estimate of the size of the digital platform workforce in Australia. They estimated that, over the previous four weeks prior to the survey, the share of people who reported undertaking digital platform work was about one per cent of the employed population, with an employed population of some 14 million people in Australia. That means we're talking about around 140,000 people who are digital platform workers at any given time. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that those digital platform workers are about two-thirds male, with the average age being 38 for men and 36 for women. The most popular digital platform tasks were food delivery at 35 per cent and personal transport at 27 per cent. We know that these can be pretty dangerous occupations. We've had an ongoing spate of deaths of food delivery workers, and this bill ensures that those people are not left without any standards whatsoever. It allows the Fair Work Commission to make minimum standards orders for workers on digital platforms who don't meet the definition of 'employee' but nonetheless have low bargaining power or low authority over their work or comparatively low pay. That might involve people doing work via digital platforms in the NDIS, working in aged care, delivering food to people's homes or transporting us around.

This is not about making these people employees; it is about allowing the Fair Work Commission to tailor orders for those people. For the example the minister has given in relation to ride share, the Fair Work Commission might go for a five-minute or permanent rate rather than an hourly rate. That recognises you can't logically pay somebody for all the time they're on the app—that'd wreck the form of employment—but these gig workers shouldn't be left outside the protection of our industrial laws. Gig workers will have new rights to seek reinstatement if they've been unfairly deactivated from a platform. There have been accounts of ride-sharing platforms that have sought to deactivate those gig workers that have sought to organise. That, now, will be a practice for which those gig workers can seek redress through the Fair Work Commission.

This is a bill which recognises the long history of campaigning to close loopholes among those families who have lost loved ones. In the ACT I think of Kay Catanzariti and Barney Catanzariti, whose 21-year-old son, Ben, was killed on a construction site on the Kingston foreshore when a concrete boom collapsed on him and other workers. I've had the privilege of meeting family members of workers who have gone to work and never come home. Industrial safety is one of the issues on which my party was formed. Labor emerged as the political representation of workers in the parliament. We understand that it is vital that work is safe for everyone. We understand the value and the importance of ensuring that wages grow with productivity. This is fundamental to us as Labor people.

This bill deals with a range of other loopholes too; I haven't gone to all of them today. Road safety will be improved. It expands the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to eliminate silica related diseases in Australia. It simplifies workers compensation for first responders with post-traumatic stress disorder. It'll improve bargaining by giving the Fair Work Commission the power to make enterprise agreement model terms, allowing franchisees to bargain together in the single enterprise bargaining stream. It'll strengthen protection against discrimination for employees subject to family and domestic violence.

Those opposite have scare campaigns, but they won't come out and say what they really believe. They won't come out and honestly say they're opposing this bill because they think that wage theft should continue to be legal. They won't defend the loopholes that this bill seeks to close. If they're not willing to have an honest debate with the Australian people, defending loopholes, then they should back this bill. They should back what this bill will deliver to the Australian people—an Australia which is more egalitarian and more respecting of workers, and whose industrial laws are being updated to deal with the challenge of new technology.

I commend the bill to the House, and I commend the minister for his constructive work with businesses, with unions, with the community sector and with Australians in bringing this important bill to the House and in closing the many loopholes that are open right now and whose presence is hurting too many workers today.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Longman is an electorate where university degrees are obtained by less than 10 per cent of the population. Most employers, including myself, have a work history where they have started work at the bottom and worked their way up the ladder, finally taking the plunge into small-business ownership. This pathway gives these individuals a unique lived experience of what I would call an all-round perspective, as we have been both an employee and an employer.

I'm one of the few members in this House that left school in grade 10 at 15 years old and started work full-time on a minimum wage. I continued to work full-time on a minimum wage in two of the lowest paid sectors, in labouring and retail, until I was 19. In that time I also met and moved in with a single mum, who at the time had an 18-month-old daughter when I was just 18 years old myself, effectively becoming a single income family on a minimum wage overnight. Over the next five years I received various promotions, eventually becoming a retail manager at age 23 and finally owning my first retail business at age 33.

I explain this to my community so that my constituents understand that, if they are on a minimum wage, I get the struggle because I have lived it. I know what it's like to have Vegemite toast for dinner and to shop at op shops for clothes. It's tough.

Like many on low wages, I was told by co-workers that the Labour Party was the party for people like me on low wages and they had my back. Fortunately, I had good, sensible mentors around me who gave me a different understanding of this way of thinking. I want to state, as an employer for over 20 years and having many contacts with small-business owners, that it's the desire of every employer that their staff members earn as much as possible without sending their business broke. Your staff are your greatest asset and, as such, small-business owners do all they can to retain employees as staff recruitment for small business is an arduous and expensive task.

The problem of course is that Labor are very short on people who have experience in running a small business but lots of members with union experience, so they have a very one-sided view on how the employer/employee relationship should operate. Unfortunately, their ammo is simply to create headlines that appeal to workers and on the surface appear to benefit them but in reality actually hurt them.

I learned very quickly in small business that once you have signed your lease the rent cost is fixed. You cannot control your insurance, WorkCover, electricity, telecommunications and all other costs because they are what they are, with one exception—wages. Wages are the one cost you have control over. I'm not talking about the pay rates that workers receive. The Fair Work Commission determines the minimum wage, and you must pay above that. You have to do it by rostering and how many hours you employ people. So, when Labor try and keep up this myth that they are for the worker, they will implement policies just like the one we are debating today, but we should look at what this will mean in reality. They are proposing that if a casual has been employed on a consistent roster for six months they can be made permanent part-time.

On the surface that sounds good. However, let's look at it from an employer's and an employee's point of view. I've spoken to various employers and employees about how they feel about this, and they don't want it. They don't want it because they like the flexibility of casuals in industries like the one I've been in—retail. You can have a casual that works the same hours for nine months of the year and then, come Christmastime or when a full-time employee goes on leave, they will pick up some extra work during these periods. If things suddenly get tough, like when COVID first hit, employers have the ability to reduce those hours. As tough a decision as that is, it's better than going broke and everyone losing their jobs.

What some employers are telling me is that they will be forced to adapt and reduce hours for casuals or change casuals' rostered days some weeks so the hours vary and they won't be able to go to this permanent part-time classification anyway. This will be another task small-business owners don't need to be lumbered with, and it actually hurts the very person it's designed to help—the worker. For example, Mary, a worker who's been happily working three shifts on a Monday, Tuesday and Saturday, seven hours a day, all of a sudden now will be working Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday every three weeks with five-hour shifts so this ridiculous legislation can't be enacted. Unfortunately, Mary and her employer had agreed on their previous agreement. She has to pick up her kids from school on Wednesday and Thursday, which she will no longer be able to do on this new roster, so both Mary and her employer miss out. The crazy thing is that it looks like Labor might be getting an understanding of this and may amend their own bill to change this, but one can only hope.

Another issue is that, whether we like it or not, we compete in the global market. I grew up in a country where we had a lot of sovereign manufacturing. Ford and Holden cars were made here. When I was in the electrical appliance industry, most things were made here. Everything from Malley's Whirlpool washers, Kelvinator fridges and Victa mowers to Sunbeam frypans were proudly made in Australia. Over 20 years I watched with sadness and dismay as these industries slowly disappeared. There are images of 300 workers now without a job outside the Westinghouse factory in Orange in New South Wales. Some had worked there for over 20 years.

Why did these businesses shut? Put simply, it was a commercial decision as Australia became a country too expensive and too hard to manufacture in due to arduous bills just like this one. These very workers that various Labor governments and their union masters said they were fighting so hard for now have no jobs. The reality is that these companies have shareholders to answer to. They're a business, not a charity, who want a return on their investment and need to be profitable to survive. It's just like when we go to make a purchase ourselves: we look at the price, how easy the seller is to deal with and how simple it will be. If it's too hard or too expensive then we simply take our business elsewhere. This is no different when businesses look at which country to establish themselves in. Sadly, Australia is not in the mix for many of these companies, as we're simply too expensive and there's too much expensive compliance. So, again, rules and regulations meant to help workers actually hurt them.

I also want to touch on gig economy workers and independent contractors. Again, I understand the headline being about standing up for gig workers—but let's look at what will actually happen in reality, because that's what matters. When I talk to gig workers, like the people who deliver for companies like Uber eats and DoorDash, the workers tell me they love the flexibility of getting notification of a job and having the ability to accept that job or refuse it. The decision is theirs. They're concerned that by making minimum three-hour shifts a mandatory thing they won't be able to take that 20-minute job as it won't make the three-hour minimum. So instead of receiving some pay they get no pay. It's another example of a headline that intimates that it's for the workers but, again, it will actually hurt workers. The minister has also admitted that this legislation will drive up prices for employers, which will in turn drive up prices for consumers at a time when the cost of living is out of control. So the employer, the employee and the customer are all worse off. We would expect there would be at least one winner, wouldn't we?

My electorate of Longman is one of the fastest growing in the country. As such, many people earn their living in the construction industry and, accordingly, there are many private contractors. These contractors love the flexibility that being self-employed gives them. Again, Labor despises this as they're small-business owners and, therefore, have no union membership. So they're trying to introduce legislation to reinstate them as employers. They're trying to take away the fairness that's currently in place where the husband or the wife works out in the field as a tradie and the other one does the books. They split their income and, therefore, reduce their tax bill, which is only right. Compare that to the scenario under this legislation—one party is out of work and the other one is earning a higher wage and paying more tax individually. This means that the gross household income goes down, they pay more tax and, therefore, the real, or net, wage after tax—which is all people care about, by the way—is drastically reduced. The flexibility of being a small-business owner—you can choose to take time off for a long weekend or go to your child's sports carnival because you're self-employed—is also gone, as they'll now be an employee subject to the demands and rules of their employer. I thought Labor wanted more flexible working conditions. As usual, their actions don't line up with their words.

Why does this Labor government behave in this manner? They despise the flexibility small businesses have as they are currently very hard to unionise. We know their main underlying ideology is to unionise all workforces. So every decision is based on this outcome in some way, regardless of what the headline says. Why would they want this? Because unions are the major funders of their election campaigns—in fact, $100 million over the past 10 years. That is $100 million of workers' money. It's not the unions' money; it's the workers' money. Labor's policies never have and never will have anything to do with workers. By making it harder and harder for small businesses, contractors and labour hire companies, they are trying to close these businesses so more and more people will be driven to employment with large corporates, which are much easier to unionise.

Australians want more flexibility and freedom to make choices when it comes to their employment. My experience both as an employee and as an employer has shown me that, when governments stay out of it and let employees and employers get on with it, business flourishes. Conversely, the more government interference there is the more everyone loses. Of course, workers should not be exploited, and they have avenues to take their grievances, should they arise, which is only right. But let me contend that a business that exploits its workers and doesn't value them will not be a business that will be around for long.

Labor need to stop creating laws that are designed for less than one per cent of employers who do the wrong thing and penalise the 99 per cent that are doing the right thing. Creating more stifling legislation, red tape and laws is simply not the answer. It will only make things worse, which is the intention—to drive people to employment in heavily unionised corporate companies. Sadly, this will stymie those in our community who have entrepreneurial flair and want to take the plunge of owning their own small business. This is just another ideology of socialism and communism. They are a party that by their actions just destroy aspiration, kill dreams, take away our freedoms and choice and hurt not only small-business owners and contractors but the very workers that they mislead into thinking that they care about. It's reprehensible.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my local community, cost of living is biting. There is no doubt about that. The Albanese government was elected on a commitment to get wages moving. A huge part of that is closing the loopholes that are undermining the pay and conditions of people in my community and communities across our country.

There are four key elements to the legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, before us today: cracking down on the labour hire loopholes that are used to undercut pay and conditions; criminalising wage theft; properly defining casual work to make sure that people are not exploited; and making sure that gig workers aren't being ripped off. We're not proposing radical changes; rather, we are making sure that the law works for all Australians.

We want to make sure that there is certainty for business, that there is clarity for the Fair Work Commission and, most importantly, that there is certainty for workers. We want to make sure people are paid properly and that they can make sure that they are protected in the workplace. But we need to make some tweaks. We are standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees, making sure that people stuck as casuals, working permanent, regular hours, get a fair go, because working like a permanent employee with no job security and no entitlements is not a fair go.

Closing labour hire loopholes will simply require an employer to pay rates it has already negotiated and agreed to. This will help more than 850,000 casual workers with more job security. We know, particularly in this climate, that rent is not casual, bills aren't casual and groceries aren't casual. So people who are slaving over their monthly budgets at the dinner table shouldn't be treated as casual when they are not. We need to ensure that people have certainty so that they can plan ahead and so that they can plan for their families and their future.

No-one will be forced to become permanent employees if they'd prefer to keep their casual loading and arrangements, but we want to give people that option, simplifying that pathway to permanency. We're concerned about labour hire loopholes, which some companies use to deliberately undercut agreements that they have made with their workers. Specifically, they've agreed on fair rates of pay with their workers and signed on the dotted line of an enterprise agreement but, rather than honouring that commitment they undercut it by bringing in a labour hire workforce that is being paid less, disadvantaging both permanent and labour hire workers.

Key to this proposal is that employees and unions can apply to the Fair Work Commission for an order that labour hire employees be paid at least the wages in a host's enterprise agreement. Exemptions will apply in the cases of small business, and a three-month exemption period will also apply. This will make sure that surge workforces and genuine temporary replacements are not negatively impacted.

We're extending the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include 'employee-like' forms of work to better protect people in new forms of work such as gig work from being exploited and from being put in danger. Again, we're not going to be forcing anyone to become a permanent employee when they don't want that. I know that many people in our community like the flexibility of gig work, like being a DiDi driver or delivering with Uber Eats. But we also want to make sure that people are not put in danger and are not taking unnecessary risks just to get by. There have been some horrific stories of just that.

The Transport Workers Union shared with me Burak's story. Burak was living in Sydney, working as a food delivery driver. He received a food delivery job request at 12.51. At that same moment, he went under a truck. His phone received a reminder about the job at 12.53 as he lay dying. The company he worked for said his family wasn't entitled to any compensation, because he wasn't working at the moment he was killed.

I went to school with Ash, who worked in food delivery as it was taking off in Australia. Ash talks of the massive pressure to deliver as quickly as possible, knowing that every step of the way, from the time he accepted a job, the race into a restaurant, weaving through traffic, he was being monitored. He says he was monitored by an algorithm that put the pressure on to work quicker. He was not managed by people. He received a serious injury when he was racing the clock. Ash says: 'We need to implement these proposed reforms. It'll make a massive difference to gig workers compromising on safety just to get paid.' We won't become a nation where you have to rely on tips to make ends meet. That is un-Australian.

But also, if a worker steals from the till, it's a criminal offence—quite rightly—but in many parts of Australia, including in Western Australia, if an employer intentionally steals from a worker, it's not a crime. Business owners who knowingly withhold wages from employees should face harsh penalties. Unfortunately, wage underpayment is a real issue across the country in large and small companies. Victoria and Queensland criminalised wage theft on a state level after getting sick of waiting for the former coalition government to do it. We need a national wage theft system to end the rip-offs, to make sure wage theft can be properly investigated and to make it officially a crime across the country.

This bill is also about introducing minimum standards for the road transport industry. It sounds cliche, but, without truckies, Australia stops, so we need to make sure the road transport industry is safe, sustainable and viable. I heard one story recently: of JC, a truck driver killed because of the pressure he was under. He got held up on a shift and called in to say that he'd reached his legal limit of hours on the road and he was too tired to keep driving—doing the right thing. He was told that, if he didn't keep going, the company would lose a contract. Twenty-four hours after he started his shift, JC's truck rolled hit a tree and burst into flames. He was killed instantly. In this place, I think we can all agree that these are not stories we should be hearing in Australia in 2023. Safety at work is a right, and penalties for breaching work health and safety duties should be proportionate. That's why we're introducing a new offence of industrial manslaughter in the Work Health and Safety Act and significantly increasing penalties for the existing category 1 offence.

In Western Australia, in particular, we're a state that digs things up and ships them out, but this can't come at the cost of the people who make our economy strong. One death is one too many. The Australian Workers Union, in Western Australia, has been campaigning to improve safety on mining and resources projects. This legislation will go a long way to making sure that this is taken seriously. The Australian Workers Union has also been running a national campaign, for the last couple of years, to properly address silica-related diseases. They have been relentless, and I thank them for their advocacy in this place and the advocacy for those who, devastatingly, are living with silica-related diseases, and their families.

This legislation will also drive the national coordination of actions to address silica-related diseases by extending the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to silica. We need coordinated action in this space to address the alarming rise in the number of workers developing silicosis and other silica-related diseases caused by the inhalation of silica dust.

As a former workplace delegate myself, I am pleased that this legislation before us will implement a Jobs and Skills Summit outcome to improve employee access to representation for safety and compliance issues at work. Delegates have such an important role in assisting their colleagues to understand their rights and entitlements and navigate the workplace. This measure will help safeguard the important work undertaken by delegates by providing specific protections and positive rights for them to perform their roles at work.

Violence doesn't discriminate, and neither should the law. For many years now I've worked alongside Starick Services in my community as they advocate for, support and provide shelter to women and children fleeing domestic violence. Family and domestic violence can affect all aspects of a person's life, including their wellbeing and productivity at work. Part of the legislation before us now brings forward changes to improve protections against discrimination for those encountering family and domestic violence. This legislation will make sure workers are not penalised in any way if they disclose they have been subject to family and domestic violence.

The final element of this bill that I'd like to draw to the attention of the House is an important change to back our first responders. The legislation will implement a presumption that, if a first responder covered by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act sustains post-traumatic stress disorder, they won't be required to prove their employment significantly contributed to that PTSD for the purposes of their worker's compensation claim. This will include firefighters, Australian Federal Police, ambulance officers and other emergency services. These changes will provide a faster, streamlined claims process that seeks to reduce stress and trauma for first responders when making workers compensation claims.

All of the changes in this legislation will make Australian workplaces safer and fairer by closing the loopholes that exist in the law as it currently stands. It is an absolute travesty that those opposite continue to maintain their opposition to closing loopholes that are so plain on their face.

I commend this bill to the House, and I commend the minister for his tireless work, working with such a broad range of stakeholders, to bring this law forward to close loopholes. It will deliver a better future for all Australians.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Can I start by being very clear that, quite simply, this legislation is another Albanese Labor government con job. It's a bill for union donors—nothing more than the member for Watson taking care of union donor mates. This isn't about closing loopholes, but it is a policy full of potholes. It's the Albanese Labor government's attempt to fool the Australian people by proposing to change the name of its signature industrial relations policy but not the policy itself. They stand in this place boasting about this fair work policy, but in reality there is nothing fair about it in its wording, intent or delivery. You may well call it the 'closing loopholes bill'—that's what they're calling it—but really it's about closing loopholes to union membership.

Just yesterday we saw the real motivation of the Labor Party when they failed to support Australian workers and voted against the Senate's recommendations for this bill. In a deliberate opposition and blocking of the passage of this bill, the Albanese Labor government voted not only against coalition senators but against senators from independent and minor parties in the Senate by refusing to agree to splitting the bill. If the government supported the bills, as we on this side of the House proposed, specific measures for first responders, employees of small businesses, victims of family and domestic violence and those affected by asbestos would have passed and been in place. But instead they continue, in yet another shocking example of this government's lack of transparency, to ignore feedback within the industry and businesses it'll affect. At a time when businesses are crying out for staff and a fair go, they're not listening.

The reality is that this government governs for unions. I believe the Labor Party are corrupt in the sense that they govern specifically for unions. Can you imagine if I came into this place or the coalition came in—

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's very inappropriate.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it's not. I was talking about the party, not an individual. Imagine if I came into this place and got all my donors and said, 'Righto, let's write laws according to what the donors want.' What do you think people in my electorate would think, or the attendants in this place would think, or whatever? They'd think: 'That doesn't sound right. You can't write laws for your donors.' That's what the Labor Party does every day of the week—and not just here in the federal parliament but in the state parliaments as well, whether it's abolishing the ABCC or whether it's changes to super funds that their union mates, like Wayne Swan, run. The AUKUS deal is not even off limits when it comes to governing for unions.

Here we have a minister, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—has he ever in his life employed one person and actually paid their wages? I'm talking about not all his ministerial staff or the people in his office—the taxpayer pays their wages—but just one person. When I look at his history, basically his history is that he finished uni and was then a political staffer and a union organiser. He was a company director for 12 months before he resigned to run for a state seat and then joined the union. That's the minister in charge. He's never employed anyone. He has no experience. Instead, he writes legislation for his union donors. That's what it's about.

The member for Longman, who spoke before me tonight, is spot on; he actually said the same thing. The member for Longman knows what it's like to employ people. He understands. He'd make a far better workplace relations minister than the Labor Party's minister for workplace relations. Minister Burke gets up in his second reading speech and talks about a better workplace for the gig worker, who currently has no minimum standards. To the member behind me here: have you—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough—had a gig worker come into your office and actually raise these issues with you?

Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not one.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

 I've been in this place for 10 years. Do you know how many people have come into my office who are casual workers, gig workers or subcontractors and said: 'Oh, we need to make all these changes'? Zero, none. I'm pretty active in my electorate. If you come to my electorate and talk to people—I do regular mobile offices. I get out there. I talk to people. No-one's raised these issues with me. All of a sudden these people come into this place and speak with authority when it comes to gig workers, subcontractors and casuals—from a bloke who's a minister who's never even employed anyone out of his own pocket. Give me a break! At least this bloke over here has been a doctor. Maybe he's employed someone; I don't know. But the minister hasn't. So it's about a better workplace for a gig worker who currently has no minimum standards.

When you look at the legislation, there are 200 pages of additional legislation that they want to put in. I'm someone who has employed people. I was a company director not for 12 months like this minister but for 10 years. I actually had a staff of 20 people—full-time workers, casuals and subcontractors. I actually understood what it was about. I can tell you that nothing in this bill is going to do anything to help a lot of these people apart from what I named before, which they voted down and wouldn't split on yesterday. The Independents pleaded with them to separate the bill and vote—'Let's get this through and get a committee to look at the rest of it.' But, no. Because they are governing for their union donors, they don't want a bar of it. It's disappointing.

The coalition is serious when it comes to standing up for Australians employed in the job market. The government's Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 seeks to strip independent contractors of their ability to build their businesses. In question time today, the minister said, 'These gig workers are actually classed as small-business owners.' There are actually advantages to being a small business and working as a subcontractor. There are deductions. There are advantages. But, no. Everyone has to be the same. According to the Labor Party, we can't have casuals because they are not signed up to unions. We can't have subcontractors because they are not part of the union movement—this is the way they govern the country.

The stuff they're bringing in to this place they brought in 30 years ago. They're rehashing it. They're bringing it back again. We're going to get rid of some of this stuff when we come in because it's not in the interests of all Australians. It's not. We're going to get rid of it. Do you know what? When most of us are dead and gone, in 50 or 100 years, the Labor Party will still be trying to save Medicare. They'll be saying, 'We invented this 200 years ago,' or whatever it is. They will still be coming in here saying, 'We've got to support unions.' That's what they do. They just rehash old policies. It does not matter what times we're in. It doesn't matter what our constituents actually say to those of us in this place. What matters to them is the union donors who pay and elect every single one of these members. All their funds come from union donors.

Government members interjecting—

Don't wave your hands, members over there. Where did you get your funding from? From the unions. That's why you are legislating for them now. You actually come into this place and you legislate for your donors. If that isn't corruption, what is? I know if I did it for my donors, it'd be all over the place.

What has the Australian Industry Group's Innes Willox said? He said the government hasn't gone far enough in ensuring that this law 'isn't able to be used by unions to challenge and interfere with a raft of other commercial arrangements'. That's what AiG said. They went on about wage theft.

Members opposite bring up people that have died at work. Do you know what? Every single death at work is an absolute tragedy. Are you telling me that this legislation is going to stop people dying at work? Can you guarantee that? Of course, they can't. But they bring this bill in and spend hours debating it and making out that they are the saviours of the Australian people when it comes to workplace relations. Well, they're not. A lot of them have had a very narrow employment history in this place.

We see under this government that productivity has fallen through the floor for three consecutive quarters. For the first time since 2005 we have experienced the deepest three-quarter fall on record. As a family business, you can never get those hours back. I understood that when I was employing 20 people. I sold my house, bought into my old man's business and grew the business from three staff to 20. I was involved in the pest control business, which is a bit like a trade. I had operators out there every day of the week. But if I had one job booked in for the day, I could never get those hours back. That's lost productivity. When you have lost productivity like we are seeing under the Albanese Labor government, guess what? It pushes up the cost of living. If those members opposite were serious and they had not been debating the Voice, which got voted down in every state in Australia, for the last 18 months and were actually listening to people, they'd understand that cost of living is going through the roof. It is through the roof. The reality is that productivity has fallen through the floor. When productivity falls through the floor, small businesses have to increase their prices. When you increase your prices it affects people. They have less money in their wallet, they have no money in their pocket, and they're living week to week.

Debate interrupted.