Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I concur with the member for Lyons, who raised some very valid and accurate factual points to support the amendments to this bill. As secretary of Labor's Australian jobs task force, I have the honour and the privilege to hear some very heartfelt stories of workers who have been victims of exploitation and noncompliance in the workforce. These are the stories that really make you think: what is going wrong in this country? What can a government do to ensure that we do have compliance in our labour market? These are stories that pull at your heartstrings when you hear about the impact it has on these individuals' lives, on their mental wellbeing. It is absolutely astounding that we can sit here in this place—and particularly those on the other side, who are not even prepared to go out and speak to these people face to face and hear those stories. We are putting in place a bill that clearly does not go far enough. So I welcome this opportunity to speak about this legislation because protecting vulnerable workers should be an important role for this parliament.

Labor is supporting the legislation. While it does contain some measures to protect vulnerable workers, like increased penalties and strengthening the evidence-gathering powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman, as I said before, it just does not go far enough. When you hear these stories, you have to ask: why does this not go far enough? And I question the legitimacy of this government when it puts in place a bill when they are not prepared to go out and speak to these workers and listen to the stories that they tell. I know that imitation is the best form of flattery, but in some cases—in the parts of the bill that we do agree with, when you are pretending to be Labor when you are not—it just does not cut it. The coalition pretends to care about workers but I can say they do not, particularly not vulnerable workers. The coalition is not out there listening to these stories.

At the 2016 election, Labor developed a comprehensive suite of policies to protect vulnerable workers: combating sham contracting; licensing labour hire companies; shutting down the practice of companies phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities; reforming the Fair Work Act to strengthen protection for workers; criminalising employer conduct that involves the use of coercion or threats during the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act in relation to temporary overseas workers; and making it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of responsible companies. These are the things we need to be addressing.

You have to ask the question: if the coalition are truly serious about protecting vulnerable workers, why are these measures not included in this legislation? Companies' phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities is just one issue that needs addressing. A phoenix company is one that rises from the ashes of a failed company. It then begins trading as an identical business from the same location with a similar trading name to the other company's. The assets of the former company are transferred to the new company, and no consideration is paid for those assets. The old company then enters liquidation and leaves a number of creditors unpaid.

This practice is wrong, and it is wrong for two reasons. There is the financial loss suffered by the creditors of the former company when they go unpaid, and in nearly all cases the workers also miss out on their entitlements. It is also unfair for the competitors of the phoenix company. If a company is not paying its tax debts or trade creditors then its cost base is lowered, usually to the extent that a competitor cannot match its pricing.

In my electorate, one such company went into voluntary administration. As a result, it avoided creditor payments including employees' entitlements. One creditor was a competitor. I do not know how the so-called party of business would support these types of practices when other local businesses are being disadvantaged. This company transferred the employees to the new company—but with a catch. Under the old company, all employees, permanent, casual and seasonal, were covered under a single agreement. Under the new arrangement, the so-called new company negotiated a new agreement but split the workers off into two different tiers, permanent and casual. Despite their doing the same job at the same place, there are now two different employment arrangements, and of course the most vulnerable workers, the seasonal and casual ones, are worse off than they were under the former arrangements.

The exploitation of vulnerable workers is a nationwide issue. It reminds me of the example recently of seasonal workers in Queensland who made the headlines when a director of that company was treating those workers so poorly that the system actually worked in that instance. But there are many examples where the system does not work. In the Queensland example, seasonal workers were found to be living in inappropriate accommodation. These were workers from the South Seas. They were here—and some of them had borrowed money to come to Australia—to work. It was found that a majority of those workers had not been paid a single cent for the six months prior—not one cent. Some of the other workers, a small minority, were paid between $50 and $300 in cash for that six months work. That is appalling. That is happening under this government's watch, and unfortunately it is not the only case where that is happening. They were living in pretty ordinary accommodation where they were all cramped in together. They were paying fees. Those who were getting paid a small amount were charged a small amount to pay for some of that. Those who did end up going home went home in debt.

Unfortunately, in my electorate I hear stories of the Ni-Vans doing some of the seasonal work where in some cases they are getting charged exorbitant charges for transportation. When you have a bus of 20 Ni-Vans where they are getting charged around $100 a week to travel 10 kilometres to the farm, you have to wonder what is going on there. Why are these people, at the end of the week, left with nothing—absolutely nothing? They are paying exorbitant fees for their accommodation, for their transportation, for food and for other things while they are doing that work, which is really important work, and they are treated this way, where they are left with nothing in their pockets at the end of the week.

As part of the jobs taskforce, I was in Queensland recently and heard the story of a cleaner. She stuck her neck out through the union, who supported her to do this, when she realised that she was not getting paid the right rate, particularly for those after-hours shifts. She was being terribly underpaid. She stuck her neck out and said, 'This is not right.' So what happened? Her shifts were reduced. But the union investigated further and found that it did not just apply to her; it applied to thousands of other workers at this multinational company. They were not paid the correct rate of pay. So one person who thought, 'This is not right for me,' has actually made the situation for thousands of other workers better, and that was due to the support of the union.

I think we really need to start thinking about why the government, in particular, is bashing unions when unions seem to be the only body in this country with the resources and the interest to fight for workers and actually do the compliance. This is the problem. Other than unions, no-one is really resourced well enough to ensure that employers are complying with their obligations. We have workers who feel insecure in their work because they are, in most cases, casual workers. They are completely exploited and paid under the award rate, yet they do not know it. If they stick their necks out, they get treated like this lady and get reduced shifts and a financial loss. In this case, one person was brave enough to stand up and say, 'That is not okay,' and the unions were there to support her. I say to the other side: stop bashing unions and actually understand what they do and the role that they play in the Australian labour market. They are out there ensuring that employers are being compliant—because I tell you what: no-one else is doing it sufficiently. I have raised many examples, but you have to ask the question: how many other shocking examples of exploitation of vulnerable workers are out there?

There is another huge, gaping hole in this legislation that does not protect a group of vulnerable workers who are under attack by this government: workers that rely on penalty rates. These workers are some of the lowest paid in our community, yet this government is happy to support the cutting of their take-home pay. In Tasmania, around 40,000 Tasmanians stand to lose up to $77 a week. Those on the other side may not think that that is a lot of money, but the workers that I speak to know the value of that $77 and it is huge. It can make the difference in being able to fund school lunches for the week or put petrol in the car. It makes a massive difference to their lives.

The old census data revealed that there are over 7,500 workers in the retail, food and accommodation industries in my electorate. I have no doubt that this figure will increase when the latest census data is released showing the increasing trend of using casual and part-time workers. Tasmania already has some of the lowest paid workers in Australia. The McKell Institute has found that a partial abolition of penalty rates will result in the loss of disposable income in the Tasmanian economy of between $15 million and almost $30 million per annum. The impact of that on the economy in my regional electorate is huge. The small businesses out there really need to understand what this means for them. It means less money going through their tills at the end of the day and they need to really understand that this is an economy where you need to support your workers. You need to get that money flowing through because these workers will spend every cent that they have in the local economy supporting small businesses. How will the loss of this income from cities and regional communities be good for local businesses and economies?

It just gets worse, however. This government's support for cutting penalty rates will disproportionately affect women. Women dominate the sectors that will have wages cut: hospitality, retail, fast food and pharmacy. I ask the question: if the Prime Minister is so keen on supporting women and talks about women in a way that suggests he actually values women as participants in the workforce, why is he not saying that we should not support this wage cut? On average, women already earn 17 per cent less than men. How does it make sense to further cut the wages of low-paid women? But this government seems very happy to make low-paid women struggle even more just to get by.

Another story in my role as secretary of Australia's jobs task force was from speaking to a nurse. You might think they are not being affected by the penalty rates cuts but when they are going there and working long shifts 24 hours a day, every day of the week, they are thinking in the back of their minds, 'Are we next?' I spoke to a nurse as part of our hearings around penalty rates. She recalled a situation recently over Easter where she spent the evening on the oncology ward in a local hospital in Melbourne. She got home on the Sunday morning feeling pretty tired, mentally drained and then thought, 'How can I enjoy the festivities with my family after working a really long shift in that environment, looking after those people?' She started to think about the value of her work and the payment of penalty rates really, for her, was the only recognition of the value of the work she did—being away from her family over Easter, coming home in an emotional and drained state and not being able to enjoy those celebrations. She thought, 'Penalty rates are the only recognition that I have.'

We love nurses and value the work they do but when this nurse is feeling that penalty rates are being attacked by those on the other side, she starts to question the value of what is doing. Her daughter wants to become a nurse. She is advising her not to do it because she is concerned that in the future her work will not be valued. She broke down in tears. We were all in tears at the table when we heard this story. You have to start to question: what is the value of penalty rates? It is far more than money. She never once mentioned the dollars that she got through those penalty rates. She talked about the recognition of the value of the work she does—being there overnight with patients who were receiving palliative care.

I say to those on the other side: really start going out in your electorate and talk to these workers. Talk to workers that are being exploited. Start listening to those workers who are receiving penalty rates. Do yourself a favour. You might actually increase your votes at the next election. You might even save your seats at the next election. I am saying to you: if you are going to make this country great again, go out and start listening to these people. It is the least you can do.

See this speech in context