Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendments moved in the Senate to the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, and I do so because they strengthen what was a weak bill—though it still is a bill that's far too weak. Labor did support the amended version in the Senate and we successfully sought to make changes to the bill because we were concerned that there was not sufficient protection and there wasn't sufficient capacity for employers to be prosecuted when they've intentionally systemically underpaid their workforce.

For that reason we moved two amendments. Firstly, we moved an amendment which would reverse the onus of proof in claims for unpaid wages where the employer has not produced wage slips or employment records. Of course, it's a legal requirement to maintain employment records and wage slips, and we do not want a situation where the defence against exploitation was that there was no evidence to suggest that there was an underpayment. There is an obligation for an employer to do the right thing here, and the amendment successfully moved and supported by the majority of crossbenchers will do just that.

Secondly, we also successfully tightened the coercive questioning powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman, confining them to investigations of underpayment and exploitation of vulnerable workers and only with proper oversight; that is, the oversight of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal—so safeguards in place but narrowing the use of this power to investigate exploitation of workers, not to allow that power to be used to interrogate workers on other matters. That's a very important safeguard that we successfully amended in the Senate last night, and I think this bill is better for it.

I also have to note that the government did seek to water down its own bill. No doubt the lobbying capacities of the Franchising Council of Australia and their chair, the former member for Dunkley, a former small business minister, Mr Bruce Billson, had an effect because the government sought to water down the legislation to reduce the culpability of franchisors. The government sought to accept the amendment moved by Senators Leyonhjelm and Bernardi, which would have reduced the capability of the Fair Work Ombudsman—indeed, the courts—to prosecute franchisors. It would have reduced the bill in such a way as to deprive workers of their livelihood, if it had been taken or had not been provided to them lawfully. So we're very happy that the crossbenchers, in the main—the Greens Party, Senator Xenophon, Senator Hinch, Senator Lambie—supported Labor's position in relation to our amendments that I just mentioned and, indeed, supported our position in relation to not amending the bill to limit the culpability of franchisors in those circumstances. The bill is better for these amendments.

I want to pay tribute, in particular, to Senator Doug Cameron, who represents me in the Senate. He did a remarkable job last fortnight's sitting when this matter was being debated in the Senate and here. Also, he did a remarkable effort on behalf of federal Labor yesterday and all through last night in engaging with the crossbench, and I do thank him. I also thank the crossbenchers that listened to reason, engaged with the opposition and understood that if we were going to have a piece of legislation that was about protecting workers in this country then surely we had to give the Fair Work Ombudsman sufficient powers and, indeed, make sure that the construction of the bill would lead to prosecution of employers who are intentionally and systemically underpaying their workforce. We think there's more chance of that happening now as a result of these amendments.

We're also happy that we have limited the coercive powers for the purpose they were always intended—that is, to be used by the Fair Work Ombudsman, with safeguards, to, if necessary, interrogate employers who do the wrong thing and deliberately underpay their workforce.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.