Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank the opposition shadow minister for gathering a crowd for me to make my contribution to this debate! I'd also like to respond to a couple of comments that were made in our young friend's speech just a moment ago. First of all, we actually do have the right to strike in this country, and we had the right to strike under the previous government. The right to strike was enshrined in the Fair Work Act. Yes, workers need to give notice during a bargaining period that they are going to strike. The Pfizer workers were on strike a few weeks ago, because they're in a bargain where their multinational employer isn't giving them a fair deal. Before entering this place I worked for a low-paid workers union, and the cleaners there got together, organised, collectively bargained and took strike action to get their employer to bargain with them. You may have heard of this company: Spotless cleaning. These workers, these low-paid cleaners at Melbourne airport, took them on and won the right to bargain through taking strike action. So, we do actually have the right to strike in this country, which is organised through the Fair Work Act. And we're one of the only countries in the developed world that has that right.

I want to address two key areas in this bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. There is so much good in this bill, and I'm so excited to be on this side of the House talking about the changes to our Fair Work Act that need to happen, because we're mature on this side. We acknowledge, within Labor, that the Fair Work Act hasn't done enough to help working people and that our bargaining system is broken. We've openly said that. So as a mature, responsible party—the oldest worker party in the world and the oldest political party in Australia—we are standing here to say that we need to reform the work that we started in our previous government. We need to make changes to give all workers access to bargaining. We're not having a tanty and punishing people for history.

What it sounds like to me, after our previous young friend's contribution, is that the Greens are going to vote against this bill. I think it will shock a lot of people out there that the Greens are going to vote against all the good that is in this bill, and which is actually going to address a number of the problems that we have in the Fair Work Act—for example, abolishing zombie agreements. I can't believe we're standing here in 2022 and John Howard is still having an impact on Australian workers. He has not been the prime minister since 2007, yet Australian workers are still employed on his AWAs today. Today, we still have workers being paid under those conditions. And why? Because when the Fair Work Act was introduced, there was a bridging period, and all these big companies, like Subway, rushed out there to register dodgy AWAs and these agreements. Now, here we are, many years later, and workers and unions have tried to get these individual agreements terminated, but it is too hard and too complex. Today we still have tens of thousands of workers on these zombie agreements. Why are they so bad? They undercut the award—not by a little bit but by a massive amount. They lock these workers into wages and conditions from back in 2007. They have the ability to cut penalty rates. They have the ability to cut allowances.

We all remember why AWAs were bad, but what people don't realise is that we still have workers stuck on these agreements. That is why it is so critical that we pass this legislation. Enough is enough! These workers should not have to wait until next year or the year after to be paid the minimum. These tens of thousands of Australian workers need to know that in their future they will finally be moved to the award or—if we're able to get through multi-employer bargaining—have the ability to bargain for better wages and conditions. We're not talking about small businesses, because a lot of them didn't know back in 2007 that you could register a dodgy agreement and move a whole bunch of workers on to it. They were paying people by the award. We're talking about big companies that used that opportunity back then to lock workers into below-award conditions.

I want to touch base on why multi-employer bargaining is needed and the way in which it has been set out. I want to remove the rhetoric and the scare from the opposition and some of the very big employer groups, and think about who determines that multi-employer bargaining can happen. It's not because a group of workers decides. Yes, they are critical, but they have to go to the commission and prove they have barriers to collectively bargain. There is still a test that is in place. The commission still needs to hear evidence to prove that they have barriers to bargaining. Who has barriers to bargaining right now? I can tell you, as somebody who used to work with low-paid workers, that cleaners and security guards are two of the groups. In security, the guards got together and collectively bargained with their employer, MSS. MSS would constantly say, 'We can't give you an above-award pay increase, even though you work at defence sites, even though you work at hospitals, even though you work in some very high-stress events, because another employer could come along and undercut our contract.' In contracting industries, the barrier to collective bargaining is that you might get undercut by another company. But we persevered and those guards did get an agreement with their employer. Wilson and G4S did the same. But then what happened? The contract went up for tender and they went for the cheaper contract. They were undercut. This is what happens in contracting industries if you can't collectively bargain together across employers. The other problem that we had is that whilst the employers said, 'We want to pay what Wilson is paying,' or, 'We want to pay what MSS is paying,' they actually couldn't. It's currently against the rules for two employers to have the same agreement—you have to have a slight difference. The barriers within Fair Work stop those guards and employers from being able to come together.

It's the same in cleaning. Some might remember the CleanStart campaign, which was about getting cleaners in the CBDs a decent wage. They were a lot of low-paid workers who were trapped. They came into the city, worked hard and just wanted a fair pay deal. After a lot of campaigning, those cleaners did get a collective agreement. But when it came up for negotiation, the employers didn't want to continue to bargain because they were losing contracts to people who paid less than they did. The cards were stacked against them.

Multi-employer bargaining isn't just about making sure that our lowest-paid workers get a fair deal; it's about making sure that their employers who work with them on an agreement don't get undercut and lose contracts or lose market share because of it. I heard one of the previous speakers mention that we didn't need it for our aged-care workers, that we had a royal commission which recommended it. Do we really need a royal commission into every low-paid industry to say that those workers need a wage increase? Do we need to have a royal commission into the broken bargaining system to say that those workers need a pay increase? No. We need to be grown-up and acknowledge in this place that we need sensible, smart and minor amendments to the Fair Work Act to allow those who have structural barriers to bargaining to be able to bargain. I welcome the increase for our aged-care workers, but it shouldn't have taken a royal commission. Those aged-care workers did try to get a multi-employer bargain up; it has been an ask of the sector for a long time. But the current Fair Work rules made it too complicated. It's one of the few areas where there were test cases and where we tried to get it working.

I acknowledge our early childhood educators, who for too long have also been locked out of a decent wage increase. This is where multiple employers are doing a similar job, where the federal government is the funder. Again, it is too complex and too hard—they didn't meet the public interest test that was set by the commission. And that's what it comes back to: the commission has to decide that it's in that interest, but that there are significant structural barriers to workers reaching a bargain and then allow multi-employer bargaining to occur. This is sensible reform. This will actually help people who haven't had the opportunity to bargain collectively to be able to bargain.

There's so much good in this bill; it addresses a lot of what's broken in our system. I strongly encourage everybody to reach out to those workers and to find out how it will actually help them. The secure jobs, better pay bill is smart and it is needed. Australia workers shouldn't have to wait to be able to get their rights and fairness in the workplace.

See this speech in context