Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Yesterday we saw a very cynical ploy from a cynical government. They removed a key element of their own legislation prior to this debate commencing. Having spent days, weeks and months saying there was 'nothing to see here' when it came to getting rid of the better off overall test—nothing to see; they wouldn't make changes at all—they came in here and said, 'Well, actually, we were trying to cut wages through getting rid of the better off overall test.' But it's not the only element of this bill that's about cutting wages and conditions, it's not the only element of this bill that's about fairness, it's not the only element of this bill that's about contradicting the process this government established of having employer organisations and unions sit down in good faith. And then, all of a sudden, the legislation that appeared didn't reflect those good-faith discussions.

The fact is that the only reason they backed off on the issue of the better off overall test was pressure from the Labor Party and the trade union movement. That is the only reason they backed off. It was not because they changed their mind on not wanting workers to be better off overall. Today in question time I gave the Prime Minister multiple opportunities to guarantee that no worker would be worse off. His industrial relations minister for the moment didn't worry about the facts; he was happy to give any guarantee, to say anything. But the Prime Minister was more cautious because, in his DNA, he knows that what the Liberal Party has always been about is changing the ratio of money in our economy that goes to wages and to profits—changing the balance from workers to capital. That's what they do. That's what the Liberal Party are all about. That's their core value.

This bill can't be disguised by the spin that the chief marketing officer who sits in the Lodge is the expert at. We know that there's a range of permanent changes in this bill that will have a negative impact on workers. It still allows for wage cuts and makes it easier for employers to casualise jobs that would have otherwise been permanent. It makes it almost impossible for casual workers to be made permanent if the circumstances would justify that, because you can't arbitrate on those decisions. The Fair Work Commission doesn't haven't the power; an individual worker has to lawyer up and go to the Federal Court in order to change those circumstances. It makes bargaining for better pay and conditions far more difficult. It takes rights off blue-collar workers on big projects. It weakens wage theft punishments in jurisdictions where wage theft was already deemed a criminal act—something that they don't talk about. Put it all together and what is clear is that this bill fails the most crucial test: whether it leaves workers better off or worse off. The fact is that this bill makes work less secure.

I made some initial statements last week in a speech in Queensland about the principles that Labor brings to these issues: more secure work, higher pay and fairer conditions—three key principles that we have. I outlined eight different initiatives that would go towards that end, none of which have been picked up by the government. Instead what we saw was a desperate government that went out there and made up a policy, then made up a costing for it, and then produced a critique of it before the speech was given! It's not bad to have a costing before a speech is given and before a policy is released, but they managed to do that. Who said productivity growth was dead in this country under this government, hey? That's productivity for you!

The truth is that it didn't represent Labor's view. I've always had a view, as has the labour movement, that there are common interests between employers and employees. Good employers have an interest in their employees being properly remunerated for their work and an interest in good relationships between the employer and management and the workforce, because that's how you get more out of them. That's how you boost productivity: by sitting down and having a proper enterprise bargaining system. And workers have an interest in the business that they work for being profitable and being successful. That's what the enterprise bargaining model essentially is about. That's what the best of Labor, when it comes to industrial relations, is about. I sometimes have drawn not-unanimous support from my own labour movement for expressing those commonsense views, but they're ones that I've held consistently. They're ones that I say consistently. I don't say one thing here and then do what this mob do, which is to go to the employers and say: 'Don't you worry about that. We're setting up this process of negotiation with the unions, but in the end, when it comes to the legislation, when it comes, you know which side we're on.'

For the workers of Australia, at the next election, I will have a very clear message: we are on your side. We're also on the side of good employers. We're on the side of productivity growth. We're on the side of wages growth. We're on the side of economic growth. We're on the side of job creation. Those opposite don't have a plan. They didn't have a plan before the pandemic, and they don't have one now. What they have is an ideological obsession with driving down wages and conditions.

The changes that are provided for in this legislation, when you examine the detail, are another example of a Prime Minister who is all smirk and mirrors when it comes to the detail. The arrogance we see from him—getting questions about whether he will guarantee that workers will not be worse off, and he just talks about Labor and provides the usual rhetoric. When you look at the detail of this legislation, the weaknesses are there.

Take enterprise bargaining. Under this legislation, employers don't have to tell workers they have started bargaining for a month. It's pretty hard to work out how you bargain without telling people. It's a bit like what the current Prime Minister said to the bloke he replaced. He didn't tell him there was bargaining going on during that week and that someone was going to lose their job. Remember that? He just got all his mates, who are now sitting in the cabinet like the Minister for Government Services and others, to vote against Malcolm Turnbull. He didn't tell him there was bargaining going on during that month, so perhaps he's adopted that principle for enterprise bargaining. Under the legislation, employers will not have to give employees a comprehensive explanation of the agreement they will be voting on. Employers will no longer have to explain an agreement to employees who are young or unrepresented by unions or those from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Unions will not be allowed to assist the Fair Work Commission in assessing non-union agreements. Think about that. The Fair Work Commission will be under extreme, severe time pressure to tick and flick these agreements. This morning the ACTU president, Michele O'Neil, called out the government on the bill's greenfield agreements provision, delivering this warning to the tradies of Australia: 'You will have fewer rights than any other worker in Australia.' We know the issues that are there with casual conversion are quite extraordinary and that casual workers will have to lawyer up.

The bottom line of the provisions in this bill is that it shows a government that wants to cut workers' pay, did cut penalty rates, wants to cut conditions, wants to cut super, is cutting JobKeeper and is cutting JobSeeker. There are cuts to JobKeeper, cuts to JobSeeker, cuts to super and cuts to wages. Do you sense a theme from this government when it comes to its approach to wages and conditions? Just as those opposite did under John Howard's Work Choices, so rightly rejected by the Australian people, they want to squeeze workers, because for them that's easier than promoting fairness. At the same time, there's nothing in this bill about the creeping expansion of insecure work.

I spoke about the launch that we did in Queensland, with eight principles, and I invite the minister opposite, or the assistant minister, to say what's wrong with any of this. The first principle is explicitly inserting job security as an object into the Fair Work Act. One would have thought: if you support job security, why wouldn't you think that the Fair Work Commission should give consideration to that? The next principle is rights for gig economy workers through the Fair Work Commission. Those opposite talk about costs. How about costing this: five lives lost in three months at the end of last year for people riding under conditions with no minimum wage rates, with no sick leave, with no proper conditions, trying to get from A to B to deliver food or other products? They're under these circumstances because there are no minimum wage rates being paid. Employers say: 'Well, you need to go from A to B, which is 20 kilometres. It might take you 40 minutes if you're really quick, but I'll tell you what: we'll pay you for 30.' It's piecework. They say, 'If you won't do it, I've got someone else who will do it in 25 minutes.' Does that sound familiar? It is like Work Choices: individual contracts, treating people without respect and without dignity. That's what we have with the growth in gig work, with no response from this government.

As to consulting, all we've said is that we're going to consult and talk to industry, unions and state and territory governments about entitlements for workers in insecure industries. We know that portable entitlements exist for some workers in a range of jurisdictions, including here in the ACT, in Queensland and in Victoria for sick leave. We know that one of the issues during the pandemic was that people were working in multiple jobs because they had to and they didn't have any sick leave. They were continuing to go to work, and infection was spreading. We know that this is an issue. What's wrong with properly defining 'casual work' in law? It's not a radical proposition. What's wrong with a crackdown on cowboy labour hire firms to guarantee the same pay for the same job? Two people working next to each other, doing the same job with the same conditions and the same roster, should be paid the same. What's wrong with a cap on back-to-back short-term contracts for the same role, for people who are put on contracts and told, 'Here's another three months,' ad infinitum? They're not being treated with respect. What's wrong with using the public sector to show what should happen with more secure public-sector jobs by ending inappropriate temporary contracts? As for some of the contracts going to their mates in the private sector, the work could have been done for far less if they'd actually employed public servants to do their job, using that principle for government contracts to companies and organisations offering services. All of those are sensible provisions. None of them are radical. They're about treating people with respect, giving people dignity and helping our economy by increasing the circulation of money through the economy to create jobs. We'll offer working people a better deal, because we are on their side.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context