Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

Labor opposed this bill because there are significant problems with the bill as it is placed before the Senate. A number of amendments will be moved by Labor to try and make this bill a more acceptable bill, a fairer bill and a more reasonable bill. We will be seeking in our amendments to extend the application of the prohibition of unreasonable demands for money by employers to prospective employees. That's an issue that we are very concerned about. We want to put the AAT and the ombudsman oversight into the compulsory questioning powers. We've got lots of experience with the work of the Fair Work Building Commission and the ABCC and the misuse of compulsory questioning powers and the bias that has been applied by the Fair Work Building Commission and the ABCC over the years. There is lots of evidence about problems in that area, and the need for oversight is essential.

We want to extend franchisor liability to labour hire and supply chains and reverse the onus of proof. All of the principled issues that you've heard that are supposedly applying only to franchisees and franchisors apply to many companies using labour hire companies to steal wages from workers. We don't believe that we should limit this to franchisors and not deal with the wider issue across industry that does the same thing which leaves workers with their wages stolen. Whether it's done by franchisors or by a farmer using labour hire companies to rip off workers in the farm industry, it doesn't matter. Whether it's Caltex or that well-known one, Baiada; whether it's Myers, whose labour hire companies were ripping workers off; whether it's the fruit producers who allow labour hire companies to have some organised crime figures in there ripping migrant workers off, we think that it should be dealt with and we think this is far too narrow.

Our view is supported by submissions from the Australian Industry Group and from the Australian franchisors themselves who ask why they should be picked out and narrowed out in this bill. We agree with those employers that it should be wider. If stealing a worker's wages is a problem in the franchise industry, it's similarly a problem in areas like Caltex, Baiada, Myer and fruit producers. It should be dealt with more widely. Reversing the onus of proof is essential, and I'll go to some of those issues when I go to the amendments in detail.

We want to reverse the onus of proof and claims for unpaid wages where the employer has not kept or produced wage slips. One of the great victories that the minister was boasting about in the last term of parliament was that she was going to make sure that employers kept wage slips. Employers are not keeping wage slips. Some employers are still ripping workers off, mercilessly. We've got a range of amendments that we want to deal with in the second reading. By leave—I move items (21), (24), (27) and (35) on sheet 8144 together:

(21) Schedule 1, item 17, page 12 (lines 19 and 20), omit paragraph (i), substitute:

  (i) subsection 325(1) (which deals with unreasonable requirements on employees to spend or pay amounts);

  (ia) subsection 325(1A) (which deals with unreasonable requirements on prospective employees to spend or pay amounts);

(24) Schedule 1, item 22, page 15 (after line 8), after subsection 325(1), insert:

  (1A) An employer (the prospective employer) must not directly or indirectly require another person (the prospective employee) to spend, or pay to the prospective employer or any other person, an amount of the prospective employee's money if:

  (a) the requirement is in connection with employment or potential employment of the prospective employee by the prospective employer; and

  (b) the requirement is unreasonable in the circumstances; and

(c) the payment is directly or indirectly for the benefit of the prospective employer or a party related to the prospective employer.

Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1).

(27) Schedule 1, item 26, page 16 (lines 24 to 25), omit paragraph (i), substitute:

  (i) subsection 325(1) (which deals with unreasonable requirements on employees to spend or pay amounts);

  (ia) subsection 325(1A) (which deals with unreasonable requirements on prospective employees to spend or pay amounts);

(35) Schedule 1, item 57, page 30 (line 15), omit "Subsection 325(1) of the amended Act applies", substitute "Subsections 325(1) and (1A) of the amended Act apply".

These amendments are dealing with the issue of extending the application of the prohibition of unreasonable demands for money by an employer to prospective employees. The bill introduces a new civil remedy offence of unreasonably requiring an employee to spend or pay an amount of their money in relation to the performance of work. The Senate committee inquiry revealed stakeholder concerns that this new offence will not cover unreasonable demands made by employers to prospective employees as a condition of employment. Submissions to the inquiry identified the behaviour allegedly engaged in by a Domino's franchise where sponsorship for a working visa and a job was offered on the condition of payment of $150,000, as an example.

While it would appear that that particular pre-employment requirement for an upfront payment linked to the provision of a visa may be prohibited by other legislation, other unreasonable pre-employment requirements are not. These amendments extend the application of the new offence to prospective employees. So, Minister, could you take me to why these amendments are not reasonable amendments and why you would have unreasonable demands still being available to employers? We think the amendments that we put forward strengthen the bill. I'd like to hear your views as to why that wouldn't be a legitimate and reasonable approach.

The CHAIR: Before I call the minister, Senator Cameron, I'm just checking: so we are looking at opposition amendments which are in the fifth box down. But I draw to your attention: it says 21 and then 24 to 27?

Yes. I'm sorry. To clarify—there's 21, and 24 to 27. I'm sorry, that was my—

The CHAIR: Yes, so that's the fifth box down.

Yes, and 35 together.