Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill is an incredibly important bill and an urgent bill. It is about getting wages moving again and modernising Australia's workplace relation system. Australians have been waiting too long for a much deserved pay rise. They've been waiting 10 years, and they shouldn't wait any longer. That's why it's important that we get this bill through. What this bill does is improve job security and gender equity. It improves workplace conditions and protections, and it boosts bargaining and restores fairness and integrity to fair work institutions. It increases job security, which is so important.

This bill is for workers who have been the heroes of the pandemic, the people who are underpaid, who fronted up day after day to keep people safe—the cleaners; the people in retail who fronted up day after day in that really stressful time of uncertainty; the people who are working multiple jobs just to feed their families, as we see increasingly insecure work and low-paid work in this country. It's for the people who fronted up day after day to care for the oldest Australians, aged-care workers. I'm really pleased to see that the Fair Work Commission has granted them the interim pay rise that they so much deserve after the advocacy of those workers, of unions and of the now Labor government. What our system needs is more than these case-by-case improvements. It need across-the-board reform to restore the balance and protect people who don't have the bargaining power in the workplace that they should have. This the for the people who fronted up in the pandemic to care for and educate the youngest Australians, our early childhood education and care workers. This is for people who are struggling at the moment with cost-of-living pressures, in my electorate and in every electorate that is represented in this place. It is important that we get this done to get the balance right in our workplaces and move into the future with a system that helps workers.

When an economy is managed properly, wages grow. That is not what we saw under the former government. We saw a decade of stagnant wages, and it is time that it ends. Working Australians have waited long enough. It's no surprise that those in the opposition don't support this. We've been listening to their speeches, and it's the same old stuff about unions—scaremongering about unions, about the impact this will have—and it's really the greatest hits from those opposite. It really is not surprising because the coalition in government had low wages openly and proudly as part of their economic strategy. You will never hear that from people on our side because we want an economy that works for Australians. When an economy is working well, people have wages that are growing, people have stability in their jobs, and that is what we need.

This is a bill that will improve gender equity in our economy. We in Australia are shamefully ranked 43rd for gender equity, and that has fallen in recent years. This is not good enough. We are well behind many similar countries. We have a gender pay gap of 14.1 per cent that persists. A huge part of this is the highly feminised industries, the female dominated industries, that are not given the respect they deserve, because value is not placed on the work that they are doing—caring work, which is skilled work, which is emotionally and physically draining work and which is incredibly dedicated work. It is work about which there should be no doubt as to its value because it is caring for our loved ones and educating our loved ones. It is incredibly important. These are the very people—and the cleaners, the retail workers and the others I've mentioned—whose wages have been stagnant for too long and who are being abused by the system, essentially, because they do not have a system that works for them that gives them any kind of fair standing in the workplace. This is about restoring that balance.

The gender pay gap persists in all industries but especially in these highly feminised industries, as I've mentioned. To reduce gender pay inequity, this bill will introduce a number of measures. A key one is banning pay-secrecy clauses so that companies can't prohibit staff talking about pay if they want to. It sounds ridiculous that that exists in 2022, but it does. It means that it can keep women in particular in the dark about the disparity between their pay and that of colleagues. This bill will address that, and it's very important. This will improve transparency and reduce the risk of gender pay discrimination, and it will empower women to ask their employers for pay rises. It will make gender equity a central objective of the Fair Work Act, including the modern award system, putting the issue at the heart of pay decisions made by the Fair Work Commission.

The government is also committed to enshrining job security as an object of the Fair Work Act to make clear the importance of job security in the workplace relations system. As I've said, at the moment in our economy, we see people increasingly having to work multiple jobs just to feed their families, to pay their rent and to fill their car with petrol. It is really difficult. This is not the Australia we want. We want an Australia where people have well-paid, secure, stable jobs. We saw just what no job security was like in the pandemic. When that pandemic hit, people didn't know if they were going to keep their jobs, and many people did lose their jobs. We did see some good things put in place by the former government to help people through that, but the people that they left out were casuals, and that was disgraceful. These were the people who had no job security.

We saw the impact of no job security when that pandemic hit and we see it in changing economic times, with the economic uncertainty that we're facing at the moment with the global situation. Job security is what people need to get on with their lives and support their families, and this bill will help to deliver that.

The bill will also implement one of the outcomes from the Jobs and Skills Summit: to provide stronger access to flexible working arrangements.

In line with recommendation 28 of the Respect@Work report, the bill will also introduce into the Fair Work Act a new prohibition on sexual harassment, including a new dispute resolution mechanism at the Fair Work Commission. This will provide all Australian workers with access to quick, informal dispute resolution before the specialist workplace relations tribunal.

As an outcome of the Jobs and Skills Summit earlier this year, the government agreed to strengthen protections against discrimination in the workplace. The bill does it by adding breastfeeding, gender identity and intersex status to the list of prohibited characteristics in the Fair Work Act, and this will align the Fair Work Act with other Commonwealth antidiscrimination laws—another really important part of this bill.

This bill contains measures to enhance the compliance and enforcement framework of the Fair Work Act. To deter underpayment and ensure that workers are paid correctly, the bill implements a recommendation of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce by prohibiting employers from advertising jobs with rates of pay which breach the Fair Work Act and relevant instruments.

The bill will also make amendments to the small claims process in the Fair Work Act to better support the recovery of unpaid entitlements.

Australia's enterprise bargaining system has been in decline for the last 10 years. Around half as many new agreements were made in 2020-21 as were made in 2013-14.

This bill is overdue, and I am so proud that on forming government we are making one of our first priorities putting in place a system, modernising a system, that will get wages moving again for Australians—Australians who are hurting at the moment. Every member of this place knows, if they are listening to their electorate, that people need a wage rise. They have waited too long.

Another really important part of this bill is abolishing the ABCC, because we believe that people in the construction industry should be subject to the same rules as everyone else and not be persecuted for being part of their unions. This is something I talked about in in my first speech, and I'm really pleased that this bill will deliver that. (Time expired)

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some observations on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This has been very rushed. We have had 10 days to consider very important legislation that will have significant consequences. As I said yesterday, objecting to the motion to curtail debate by the government, I have grave concerns about the process the government has undergone in relation to this legislation. What's disappointing is that this aspect overshadows what is good about this bill, and there is much good work in the bill—for example, the provisions dealing with setting the objects in the bill and awards for gender-equal remuneration, which I strongly support, as well as increasing pay transparency to allow for greater visibility of pay scales across business operations, preventing sexual harassment in the workplace and reforming the better off overall test.

These provisions reflect many of the concerns raised at the Jobs and Skills Summit. They make good progress in correcting inequities in the system which I believe are currently holding back the country's overall wellbeing and prosperity. And I fully support the commitment to get real wages moving. There is no denying that we have seen a rapid increase in the cost of living, and wages need to respond so that Australians aren't left behind. I absolutely welcome the recent 15 per cent award pay rise for aged-care workers and welcome efforts to get bargaining between employers and employees moving again. However, perhaps flushed with enthusiasm and eager to keep up the momentum, the government has gone on to propose some less-well-considered changes—in particular, in the area of multi-employer enterprise agreements, which I consider will have consequences that, although perhaps unintended, will nonetheless be negative.

I'm concerned that the speed with which these further amendments have been drafted will lead to unintended consequences, and I would ask the government to consider splitting this bill in two, in line with the second reading amendment moved by the member. Splitting the bill would allow for substantive progress to be made on the areas where we know there is solid agreement and would allow for greater thought and consultation to be given to the more contentious and less-well-formed sections of the bill. The better off overall test changes are good. Multiple examples throughout the history of industrial relations law in this country show that where the settings posed have unintended consequences it does cause damage. Indeed, this bill and the amendments to the better off overall test are an example of the well-intended provision that has had a negative impact on the uptake of enterprise bargaining agreements. The interpretation of the BOOT as better off in every respect has led to the trashing of many good and productive enterprise agreements. I commend the work in this bill to reform that provision and reset the test to its the original intention. This is good work, and there's agreement between both employer groups and the unions that this change needs to happen.

However, it absolutely illustrates the perils of rushing through legislative change. The fact that the government is already flagging its own multiple amendments to its own legislation simply shows to me that there hasn't been a proper consultation and due consideration of such important legislation. There hasn't been the rigour that needs to go into developing this type of legislation. Saying 'that's not our intention' is not a protection, and we will see so many of those unintended consequences, and then all the good work that is hoped to be achieved by this legislation will be undone.

On the information currently available, I don't believe that the amendments the government is proposing go far enough, and I will address these. We've had the bill for 10 days. It's complex legislation and it's taken a great deal of time for me and my team to get various representative groups to get their heads around the issues contained within it. There has not been sufficient time for consultation with our communities, to reach out to business groups, to understand and to make sure they are aware of the implications for them in this legislation—even from the employee's or employer's point of view. There has not been that opportunity.

The arguments by the government and the minister are, with respect, entirely disingenuous. This argument that this is how we're going to get wages moving—like somehow in the immediate next few weeks the Australian public in these sectors are going to have the benefit of wage rises—is so disingenuous. The reality of multi-employer bargaining is that this is going to take years. If these disputes were intractable before with single employers—throw in multiple employers and different-sized businesses and you are going to have intractable disputes for years. Rather than an opportunity to genuinely get wages going in these sectors, you are going to see a stalemate. You are going to see everything grind to a halt. I think that is incredibly poor planning and vision from the government.

My primary concern is for the impact this legislation will have on small business, and this will impact many women. As much as it is always claimed, in many speeches by the government, to be about raising wages in feminised professions, many women have small businesses. Under this bill, small business is defined as having fewer than 15 employees. This threshold is much too low, in my opinion. In Warringah there are at least 370 businesses who would be able to engage in, or be compelled to engage in, multi-employer bargaining under the current definition of a small business as having fewer than 15 employees. The added complexity of being compelled to engage in the multi-employer bargaining process will drive fear into many business owners who are struggling to keep their heads above water and still reeling from the impact of COVID-19. The impact on the mental health of these people is a serious concern.

There are 18 residential aged-care homes and 73 childcare providers across my electorate of Warringah which this legislation could affect, and they're a mixture of large conglomerates, small private and not-for-profit providers. I absolutely support the need for wage rises across these sectors, but I fear that the unintended consequences of this bill could lead to a very anticompetitive environment where bigger players in the sector engaging in multi-employer bargaining with small providers will make it absolutely impossible for small providers to continue. And what will that be as an outcome? The government is saying they are here to try to get wages moving for women, but if we end up with the result of small childcare centres closing down because they cannot compete, and then we have a loss of childcare places, the first people impacted by that are working women.

Small businesses do not have the resources to deal with this complex legislation, and while the government and the unions are consistently activating the line that this won't impact small business and union penetration is too low and therefore there's no incentive to start a multi-employer bargaining process, the very fact that the government is not willing move on the definition of small business being 15 employees means I don't believe that rhetoric. There are not sufficient protections in place for small businesses, and they should be carved out to provide the legislative assurance that their current structures will be protected. It's particularly concerning when it comes to multi-employer bargaining provisions and the ability for employee representatives to join businesses who weren't even involved at the negotiating table of the initial enterprise agreement but who will then be dragged into that at the conclusion of the agreement. That absolutely should be amended.

Common interest should be more clearly defined. At present, it's defined loosely as sharing a geographical location or being regulated by a common regulatory regime. The test should retain the need to consider the extent to which the relevant employers operate collaboratively rather than competitively. I also propose that the Fair Work Commission should be obliged to consider the economic circumstances and relative size and scope of the employer's enterprises in determining whether there is a common interest. The common-interest test should also avoid lumping large enterprises together with small businesses. They will be unable to absorb the cost of enterprise agreements with larger corporations—small enterprises simply won't be able to agree and will be forced out of the market. The public interest test should be supported. So I urge the minister to reflect and to consider the very good amendments that have been put to him. They have been proposed to address some of these concerns. Ultimately, it must be a shorter review period to at least be able to assess the unintended consequences that will result from this legislation.

The approach the government has chosen to take on this is really concerning, because all the good work of some parts of this legislation are so undermined by these really concerning aspects. My biggest fear is that we're going to have this grinding to a halt, where in any kind of single-enterprise agreements the bargaining will actually grind to a halt as businesses, small, medium and large, come to terms with the complexity of this legislation which is being rushed through. I believe that it's such poor judgement by the government.

(Quorum formed)

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to contribute to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This is an area that I'm extremely passionate about, and the types of issues that are being addressed in this bill are what led me to put my hand up to be elected to this parliament.

The Labor Party is a party for the workers, the everyday Australians; we care about workers because workers make this country what it is. The people of Hunter are hard working; they deserve a government that delivers for them and looks after their rights at work. They deserve a government that will fight to increase their wages so they can afford the simple things in life. That's what our government is doing, and that's what this bill is introducing.

In September the Prime Minister and Treasurer got everyone in a room—employers, employees, business groups and unions—and had a discussion at the Jobs and Skills Summit. The summit was a success and established a sensible solution to issues that workers and businesses are facing and offered us a way forward. Today, we want to implement these changes. In my electorate of Hunter, I held my own round tables with local businesses and community representatives and I heard from many workers throughout the Hunter. I heard the same stories: wages aren't moving and it's hard to get workers in the jobs that need them; the rapid casualisation of our workforce and the issues associated with the quality of care in the service provision sectors.

This bill will do exactly as it says in the title: make jobs more secure and better paid. And it will make the system fairer. By introducing these changes, what our government is doing is promoting job security, helping to close the gender pay gap, modernising the workplace bargaining system and, importantly, getting wages moving again.

Can you hear that, Mr Speaker? I can hear those opposite getting out their dictionaries and flicking through the pages, trying figuring out what a wage rise actually means. A proper wage rise under the former government in the last decade has been rarer than a Tasmanian tiger. Or maybe I'm mistake; maybe those opposite do know what a wage rise is, because they've worked hard to prevent one from occurring. They deliberately kept wages low and they encouraged insecure work. They held workers back and made our country fall behind. Australia's workplace relations system is not working for employees and it's certainly not working for employers. Our country is build on the idea of a fair go, and, currently, workers aren't getting a fair go at all.

Our country is renowned for its productivity. We've always been punching above our weight, as some say. But, at the moment, employers aren't seeing a rise in productivity at all. We want to fix this. In Australia, unfortunately, your experience in the workplace seems to have a lot to do with what gender you are. It's the hardworking women of this country who are often most disadvantaged, and this is not acceptable at all. I want my two girls to walk into any future workplace and know that they are receiving the same pay and the same rights as any man working in that same industry. But right now this is simply not the reality. The gender pay gap is at 14.1 per cent, sexual harassment in the workplace is rampant, and work just isn't flexible enough. The bill will change this by putting gender equity at the heart of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making, boosting the commission's gender pay gap expertise, banning pay secrecy clauses, expanding access to flexible working arrangements and prohibiting sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act.

Job security in this country has been an issue plaguing the Australian workforce for far too long. Australian workers trying to provide for their families have been going to work day in, day out, not knowing how much longer they will hold their jobs, knowing that, if they wake up the next day feeling unwell, they won't have the sick leave to cover them, and knowing that there is not much they can do about it. Australians deserve better, and we're delivering better. We are placing new limits on rolling fixed-term contracts so workers can't effectively be put on an endless probation period. This gives certainty to Australian workers, and it's just common sense that, when a worker is certain about the future, they're more likely to be able to give their all in the workplace, which is great for the employers.

We're also protecting workers. We're increasing workers' ability to recover unpaid entitlements under the Fair Work small claims systems, because workers should be paid properly and, when they're not, they deserve to receive all the money that they are owed, no matter what the amount is. Bargaining is a powerful tool for employees, and it is also important that they are able to use this tool to fight for better wages and conditions in the workplace. It's important for business too, as it helps increase productivity in the workplace. I previously managed a workplace with over 70 employees and I know the importance of good wages and good conditions. I saw firsthand how it helps business and productivity when employees are happy and comfortable in their work environment. But at the moment having the right to bargain for your pay and conditions seems to be rare, with only 14.7 per cent of Australians covered by an in term agreement. The bargaining system is outdated. After a decade of mismanagement by the previous government, who did not care and will never care about real workers, it needs to be modernised, and that is exactly what we're doing.

With this bill, we're expanding access to enterprise bargaining and multi-employer bargaining. We aren't creating new systems of bargaining. We're varying the existing systems to make them more workable and to get wages moving again. We're also making changes to the better off overall test, or as I like to call it 'the BOOT'. We're making sure that it's simple, flexible and fair. Bargaining is a positive thing for employees and employers, so it makes sense to make it a lot easier to start the bargaining process. This will lead to better outcomes for all involved and it will be another factor which helps in getting wages moving for those who are low paid.

Labor established the Fair Work Commission in 2009 and it has been an important part for workers, helping to give them a voice in standing up for their rights. But we know that sometimes disputes can be complex and run over a long period of time. To help in resolving these difficult, long-running disputes this bill will give the Fair Work Commissioner new powers. Our aim is simple: we want a strong economy that delivers for Australia and leaves nobody behind, we want more secure jobs with fair pay and better conditions and we want more workers to be in these jobs. At the very core of our motivations, we want to see more Australians living a better life and more businesses thriving into the future. Business groups and unions agree that these changes are important. I hope those opposite will be sensible and cooperative and support this bill.

Australians know that our industrial relations system is broken and Australians know that it was those opposite who broke it. That's why we were elected in May and that's why we're getting on with the job of making life better for all Australians. We're fighting to increase wages and conditions and we're not leaving anyone behind. For those opposite, for those who oppose changes that benefit workers and employees alike, I have news for you: there's more to come. We won't stop until we've delivered on all of our commitments to fix the mess that we were left with. We won't stop until every worker in this country has the wages and conditions that they deserve.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the proposed industrial relations reform, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, which will see sweeping workforce reforms. Right now the government would have us believe that this bill is supposed to open up discussions between employers and employees to achieve wage increases, as well as improve working conditions and improve our competitiveness in this global and technology driven world. The truth is this bill is not just about pay rises for the average Australian worker, it's a lot more complex and detailed than we have been led to believe. The bill itself has more layers than an onion, and as you try to peel it back you can't help but cry at that layers of complexity on top of more regulatory requirements for employers, especially those smaller businesses who can't afford lawyers and don't have the time or resources to be dragged in and out of negotiations.

Why is this government rushing into this—on such important legislation that will have unintended consequences—with Christmas around the corner? I don't believe anyone would negotiate a wage increase this year. As other independent members in this House have already raised, the government should allow time for complex issues such as this bill. If the changes are all about wage increases, do you think these changes will lead to wage increases in small businesses or will the increases lead to unintended consequences like job losses, where staff are put off, or higher costs which feed inflation? If the unintended consequences lead to inflation and job losses then that would be a collective responsibility of the parliament. How many in this House have worked outside of politics or had any industrial relations experience or worked in a small business?

The bill is sugar-coated with the aims of closing the gender equity pay gap and creating higher wages for low-paid workers, while burying more insidious parts of the bill. As the Council of Small Business of Australia has said, this bill could take small businesses away from managing, growing and innovating in their business and ultimately employing more staff. The council said they can support higher wages for low-paid sectors, but it doesn't need to be at the expense of our diverse small business community. As an independent member, I'm being forced to support this significant reform to industrial legislation with only minimal time to delve into this 260-page bill that would require consultation, with both big and small businesses as both these sectors have different needs and requirements to operate, not to mention those businesses that have language barriers and therefore would have limited understanding of how this piece of legislation would impact how they work, employ and operate now and into the future.

As a new government that seeks to govern fairly for all and to do things differently, not only are they rushing through this bill but they're also pitting big businesses and unions against each other, while neglecting to take into consideration how this bill would impact small businesses who are caught in the crossfire. Let me remind the people in this House: small business is the backbone of the Australian economy. They are the biggest employers in the country. In my Fowler electorate there are over 18,000 trading small businesses, with the majority owned and managed by migrants and refugees. In fact, one in three small businesses in Australia are run by migrants and refugees. According to the Refugee Council of Australia, refugees are the most entrepreneurial of small-business owners. They are twice as likely to become entrepreneurs, and two-thirds of new businesses created in Australia in the past decade have been founded by women. There has been a 46 percent jump in the number of women business owners over the past 20 years. Seeing such diverse representation in the small-business sector is important. But it will mean nothing if business owners are too intimidated to pursue their dreams due to the lengthy and complex negotiations as a result of these reforms.

My first and foremost concern is the lack of consultation with our communities. We haven't had a chance to consult with our constituents as well. It is not the first time that this government has failed to consult with my community. It's not the first time the diverse and multicultural communities of Fowler have been overlooked. How can we support anything that hasn't gone through the appropriate checks and balances to ensure the mum-and-pop corner shops, the banh mi bakeries, the family noodle shops won't be affected? In fact, after speaking to representatives from Cabramatta Chamber of Commerce and Liverpool chamber of commerce, both informed our office that they haven't received any substantial information on the bill. I, like many crossbench colleagues, have raised the fact that a bill this complex requires more consultation, and this has fallen on deaf ears. I support Senator Pocock's request to pass through the more agreeable parts of the bill by the end of the year and to allow for further consultation and amendments on the more contentious parts of the bill. This is a sensible approach to any bill of such importance and stature. But, as I understand it, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is reluctant to do so, and for that I question why. It's clear that this bill has been rushed through to avoid proper scrutiny, and it makes me concerned that the government are forcing us into voting on something that could have unintended consequences for both workers and employers.

The bill also expands a single-interest stream for allowing the Fair Work Commission to authorise workers with common interests to bargain together. This 'common interests' definition is broad and could range from geographical locations to funding models to anything in between. Without a substantive definition, there is so much scope to go wrong. This would open up a world of issues for small business, who could eventually be dragged into bargaining situations where they don't have the money to hire lawyers to enter these negotiations. I acknowledge that the workplace relations minister conceded that smaller businesses shouldn't be dragged to the negotiating table by a business with a much larger number of employees that had voted in favour of multi-employer bargaining. However, a small business is considered to be a business with a 15-employee headcount under the Fair Work Act. A business with 16 workers, including casuals, is your average for a restaurant or a busy cafe in my electorate. How can a family run business enter multi-employer bargaining situations when they lack the time, resources and funds to do so, as well as the language barrier?

They are no match for the union movement.

What we're seeing through this bill is the lumping together of big and small businesses, but they're not interchangeable. Amanda Rose, head of Small Business Women Australia and Western Sydney Women, told my office that she's one of the few people in her network who knew about the potential repercussions of these industrial relations reforms. Due to this bill, she believes that small businesses are now being demonised as greedy employers who refuse to pay their workers correctly. They've been told that if they can't pay their staff above-award rates then they deserve to be shut down. In the words of Amanda, 'Everyone acts like money grows on trees for small business'.

This is an entirely unfair characterisation for the majority of refugee and migrant small businesses I know, who play by the book, pay their taxes and work hard to achieve the Australian dream. Now, because of this bill, they're being unfairly grouped together with big businesses who can afford to pay for lawyers and who have the money and resources to enter bargaining agreements. Furthermore, many small-business owners in my area are from non-English speaking backgrounds: how does the government plan to educate them and assist them in the transitional period? I want to know what plans are in place to support small-business owners.

Having said that, I agree with the need for increased wages for the average Australian worker. I want to be clear that I do not oppose a wage increase; I just want to see a process that's open, transparent and consultative. It's important that as we strive to solve one problem we don't create greater problems for our community. I agree that the proposed supported bargaining stream could be beneficial to certain sectors of the workforce, including health care, aged-care workers and teachers, who all deserve to be paid fairly for the hard work that they do—although I must question why the government refuses to allow this and other aspects of the bill to pass through the House first, allowing us time to consider the multi-employer bargaining stream, instead of holding the House and Senate hostage.

The government have shown that they can offer wage increases to low-paid workers without the need for this bill. A recommendation by the royal commission into aged care suggested an increase in award wages to reflect the aged-care workers' true value. Based on this recommendation, temporary wage increases for the aged-care sector have been agreed to by the Fair Work Commission just last week, with the sector set to see a 15 per cent increase. I appreciate the efforts of the government to ensure our aged-care sector workers are paid appropriately for their endeavours, but if this were to apply similarly across low-paid sectors in the short term while we spent more time consulting on the more concerning aspects of the bill then surely we would be able to see wage boosts to those who need it by Christmas.

If the government are set on passing such a contentious, complex and, potentially, worrisome bill before Christmas, that's their prerogative. However, I support any measures to see a review process after 12 months to allow time for businesses to transition into this new system and so we can at least see the bill in practice before permanent implementation. Again, if we want to ensure that the policy is effective for the work then the government must be open to constructive review.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022.

Australians need a pay rise. The member for Fowler might be interested to know that the people of Fowler need a pay rise. I have a sheet here which has every one of our electorates and their median weekly individual incomes. At the bottom of this sheet is Fowler, where the median income per week is $521. The people of Fowler need a pay rise. The people of Fowler need this House to pass this legislation so that the people of Fowler can get a pay rise. Half-way up that sheet sits my electorate, the electorate of Lalor. The individual median weekly income there is $801.

For those playing at home, I was a very bad maths student. Medians and averages always confuse me, so I checked this before I came into the chamber. The median for my electorate is $800 a week. Say that I have 100,000 electors: that means that 50,000 earn more than that and 50,000 earn less than that. If we take Fowler's figure of $521 median, half of that electorate earns less than that! Can you imagine paying the rent on less than $500 a week?

This country needs a pay rise. This is an election commitment from this government. We went to an election. We sat on those benches for nine long years while we watched wages flatline and while we watched profits rise. We sat on those benches and watched it. We watched year upon year upon year when nothing was done to get wages moving in this country. We've done a lot of work to prepare for government to come into this place, to have this day when we can do something to get wages moving in this country.

This is a thoughtful piece of legislation. It's a balanced piece of legislation. It has measures that will ensure that wages get moving. Yes, there's already been action taken by this government. Yes, let's remember that there are members in this House and people around the country who thought that a dollar-an-hour pay increase for our lowest-paid workers was going to shut down the economy. It didn't shut down the economy. The Henny Pennys—and there are lots of them in this room—got it wrong. The Henny Pennys in this chamber want to come in every day and talk about jobs and skills shortages. We know that our childcare policy, potentially, will create 37,000 effective full-time workers. What do we need to make that happen? We need not to have staff shortages in early education. How can we fix that? We can allow the small businesses in my electorate to do multibargaining to ensure that they can get some pay rises happening in the care industry to ensure that we can, therefore, get another 37,000 potential effective full-time workers across the economy. It makes sense to me; it sounds very thoughtful. I'd like to congratulate our government for being able to play three-dimensional chess in this way and produce an outcome.

The Henny Pennys need to understand how to attract and retain workers. I come out of education. There is a teacher shortage in my electorate that is absolutely diabolical. Principals and administrators in schools are showing up every day dreading the timetabling issue they're going to face. Do you think getting 151 members of parliament to speak in two chambers and avoid a quorum is difficult work? You try being the daily organiser in one of my local schools at the moment when you're likely to have six people ring that morning to say they can't make it on top of the six who weren't there yesterday. Teaching is not about putting an upright, breathing body in front of 25 children. It's complex work, and it relies mostly on relationships built over time. So our schools are struggling because of the skills and staffing shortage across sectors—across feminised sectors. Attracting and retaining staff in the care and the education sector is probably our biggest challenge.

What attracts people to a job? Let me see. Why was I attracted to teaching? I was attracted to teaching because I thought I could make a difference. When I made the decision to do teaching, did I say, 'I have a vocation,' and rush in there. No. I checked to see what hours I would work and what remuneration I would get and then I made a decision about whether teaching was going to set me and my children up as well as allow me to make a difference. To attract and retain staff, we need wages moving in this country. The Henny Pennys who want to see all the problems in the world need to come to grips with the fact that they need to be part of the solution. The good news is that today is the day when you can be part of the solution. You can come into this House and, if you care about fairness, you'll vote for this legislation. If you care about the families in your electorates, you'll vote for this legislation. If you care about gender equity, you'll vote for this legislation. If you care about the egalitarian ideas that this country was founded on, you'll vote for this legislation. If you care about the cost of living, here is part of your solution. Get this country a pay rise. Get these industries a pay rise, and the cost-of-living issues will be reduced without impacting inflation rates.

This is not a difficult day for us. This is a great day for this new government, because this legislation, as I said, is carefully thought out. It works with other policies that we've put through this parliament already. It's part of a solution that will see pressure come off families. It works with other pieces of legislation to reduce the pressure of cost of living. It is absolutely imperative that this parliament passes this piece of legislation. And I would suggest that any member who's going to speak on this bill today should check the median income in their electorate, because, let's face it, we're standing here and we're privileged. My income doesn't appear on that sheet as a median in an electorate in this country, and neither does the income of anyone in this chamber. Focus on the people in your electorates who are perhaps earning $521 a week and dealing with cost of living. Chances are that those on $521 a week are insecure workers. Chances are that if you're earning $521 a week you're working in a feminised industry. And chances are that those on $521 a week have kids.

This is part of a solution for this country, and I urge all in this chamber to focus on the needs of the people and the families they represent in this place. And if they think that the people in their electorate don't need this, they should focus for a moment on the people in my electorate, where insecure work is endemic. Don't look at the national figures. These things are patchy around the country. In my community I've got young people who've been in the workforce for six or seven years and are yet to have a full-time permanent job, who can't get into housing and can't get a loan, and they're not likely to. Until they can break into a secure job, that's not going to happen for them. And while you're focusing on communities like mine, think about the fact that most people who live in the seat of Lalor—70 per cent—travel outside of the electorate for work.

So, although in your electorates you may have a small business that is telling you they can't afford a pay increase for their workers, those workers probably live in my electorate. They're also doing a three-hour return commute, and paying for the petrol, to get to their job in your electorate, because my people work in aged-care centres in electorates outside of mine. They work in aged care in electorates outside of mine. They work across Melbourne. They travel for inordinate amounts of time. They leave their homes at six in the morning, after they've dropped their children at a local childcare centre, and they pick them up at six that evening. Give them a break. Give them a pay rise. You never know, they might even get away for a holiday.

(Quorum formed)

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are absolutely elements of this bill that the Greens support. In particular, anything that increases wages is fantastic. The scrapping of the pay secrecy clauses is a good thing and something the Greens have been fighting for, for a long time. But I find it deeply ironic to listen to so many members of the Labor Party talk about the need to change the Fair Work Act and spend so much time attacking the Liberals for suppressing wages over the last 10 years, when so much of the legal architecture of the Fair Work Act was written by the Labor Party.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can check your own history. The foundations of enterprise bargaining, the foundations of restricting the right to strike, the foundations of collapsing trade union membership in this country, lie in the accord. Again, rather than yelling at me about all of this, check your own history. The foundations of the accord, in the 1990s and 1980s, were pretty simple. Wages were increasing faster than the rate of inflation, and one of the solutions was to subordinate industrial strength to the interests of the Labor Party and the national interest, which was more in the interests of big corporations than it was in the interests of workers.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Solomon.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker; they're very upset. And so they should be, because the history of that is disgraceful. Introducing enterprise bargaining isolated and crushed unions' abilities to fight for higher wages and better conditions. In fact, any union that fought against the principles of the accord, which included getting unions to agree to not push for wage increases above the rate of inflation in exchange for a social wage, many elements of which never came, including higher taxes on big corporations and expanding the welfare state—huge gaps were left in the Australian welfare state as a result. And here's what we saw: a collapse in trade union membership from over 50 per cent in the 1980s and 1990s to 14 per cent now.

If you look at the days lost to industrial action, it is a small—tiny—fraction compared to what it was in the 1980s and 1990s. You talk about moving towards multisector bargaining. You talk about—

Government members interjecting—

It was you guys that got rid of it, with enterprise bargaining. What's disgraceful about this is it hollowed out the capacity for the trade union movement to fight for better wages and conditions—and not just better wages. It was the metalworkers union in the 1980s that was attempting to use industry-wide bargaining to reduce the working week to 35 hours a week. They lost that capacity when the accord came through, and so much of the legal architecture of the Fair Work Act restricted unions' abilities to fight for anything. As a result, the strategy seemed to be that we weren't no longer going to get increases in wages and conditions as a result of industrial strength but that it was going to come via the Labor Party. What an absolute betrayal that was of the trade union movement.

One of the key elements of trade unions' abilities to organise in the workplace is having a basic right to strike. This bill does not bring a right to strike before parliament. The only way trade unions can strike now is by very prescribed and specific parts of the enterprise bargaining agreement. This means that outside of those negotiations on the enterprise bargaining agreement, when it expires, they have to apply first to the Fair Work Commission. If they get a ballot up and it's successful, they potentially get forced to conciliation.

The rules around striking on multisector bargaining now require giving 120 hours notice to the employer, which effectively removes a lot of the power of strike action as you're telling them basically five days in advance. Not only that, it adds a whole bunch of extra hurdles. What's worse is that even if they were able to get a large industrial strength, even if they were able to build up their union membership and capacity for workers, collectively, to fight for each other, an employer can hold that and refuse to an agreement—and effectively give the Fair Work Commission the right to intervene. That means that, the way this bill is written, an employer can say, 'No, we're absolutely not going to agree to an agreement, no matter what the union asks for, and we're just going to hold out,' until, basically, as the rules state, the Fair Work Commission can step in and force them into arbitration. That effectively takes where workers' rights and conditions should be won, which is via industrial strength and their capacity to fight and work together for better wages and conditions, and drags it more and more into the realm of lawyers.

The problem with that is that you're not going to give workers a collective reason to join a trade union. What we've seen over the last 20 to 30 years in the collapse of trade union density—from over 50 per cent in the 1980s to 14 per cent now, and seven per cent in the private sector—is workers' loss of even the experience of wielding collective strength. Certainly, the message to a lot of trade union members out there is that, if you think it's going to be the Labor Party that hands you, say, a reduction in the working week or big wage increases above even the rate of inflation, you've absolutely got another think coming. What we've seen from the Labor Party time and time again in the history of Fair Work legislation, even after the Rudd government's election, is a betrayal of the demands of the trade union movement that at the very least deserve the right to strike.

Government members interjecting—

Under your rules, if a group of workers want to go out and strike outside of enterprise bargaining agreements, they will—

Government members interjecting—

And you point to the coalition! Great, you're in agreement. You're in absolute agreement about restricting workers' ability to fight for collective benefits. The number of workers I've talked to when out doorknocking who went through the accord period and felt absolutely betrayed by the Labor Party because they crushed trade unions' capacity to fight for themselves and they said, 'Don't worry, the Labor Party's going to do it all'—instead, what we saw from that period of reform was a collapse in trade union membership, a collapse in days lost to industrial action, a massive increase in the share of national income going to profits and a collapse in the share of national income going to wages. It was a massive transfer of power away from ordinary working people towards big business and corporations and, I suppose, effectively towards the Labor Party, who seem more interested in representing the interests of big corporations than they do in giving workers their basic right to strike and fight for better wages and conditions.

I do find it sort of amusing that we've got this confused debate in parliament right now where the coalition gets up and talks about the danger of the renewal of trade unions' strength. Any increase in trade union membership and the capacity for ordinary workers to fight for better wages and conditions is an excellent thing. But check the stats. Right now in every state, bar New South Wales, the number of days lost to industrial action has decreased. In fact, if you look at the charts, it's basically a small fraction of what it used to be—a tiny fraction. Trade membership is at 14 per cent. What are you afraid of? Seriously! Meanwhile, on the government side, you talk about giving wage increases. If you want wages to increase and conditions to get better, give workers their right to strike. Don't put giant fines in the way of workers going out and striking when they need to to fight for better wages and conditions.

The history of the accord and the history of the betrayal of hundreds of thousands if not millions of trade union members—for what? It was for a national interest that seemed to be more about increasing corporate profits and improving the electoral success of the Labor Party than it was about improving workers' wages and conditions.

Government members interjecting—

You say, 'Is this about the Labor Party?' It is, because you're in government. You're in government. You could pass a bill right now that gave back to workers their right to strike. But you're not—much like with the gas industry, much like with big corporations and much like having a budget that forces ordinary working people to pay for an inflation crisis caused by big corporations such as gas corporations. The previous speaker talked about education. Well, why not fully fund public education and get it up to 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard by taxing big corporations such as gas corporations? But you don't, because ultimately, as happens so often in this place, we have both sides, the coalition and the government, acting broadly in the interests of big corporations and not in the interests of ordinary working people. If you did, you would give back to workers their right to strike. You would give them the capacity to organise solidarity strikes. Under this bill it is still illegal for workers to go out in solidarity with another group of workers.

On top of all of that, despite not giving workers so many of the rights that they deserve, there is no increase in taxes on big corporations, no bringing dental into Medicare, none of the investment we need in public housing, and no full funding of public education or public health. Time and again, people out in the country are doing it tough and, rather than giving them the conditions, the money and the resources they need to live a good life, you continue to carry water for a corporate class in Australia that already has it so good, when so many people in your electorate are doing it tough.

Honourable members interjecting—

You keep yelling at me about this, but the message is very clear. And if you think that what happened in Griffith can't happen in electorates across the country, then you can absolutely think again.

(Quorum formed)

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022.

Any industrial relations legislation must encompass increases both in productivity and real wages. This bill does not do this. Before they were in government, those opposite developed a mantra that 'everything is going up except for your wages'. Now that they are in government, their own budget forecasts show that real wages will not increase in the near future. The minister who introduced this bill said that it will give a better go to the workers. However, there is no evidence that these reforms will actually deliver higher wages. In fact, based on all of the comments from employers so far, the evidence is to the contrary.

The only things that this legislation will increase are strikes and job losses. The two major flaws in this proposed legislation are multi-employer bargaining and the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. These two propositions, particularly when combined, will mark a return to with Whitlamesque-style industrial relations. No wonder the CFMMEU's Victorian secretary, John Setka, said he was impressed by the minister's move to scrap the ABCC and the building code. Mr Setka specifically said, 'We will now have the power to go after non-union sites'. That was John Setka on 28 October 2022.

Business groups across Australia—small, medium and large—are united in their opposition to the changes, in particular to the multi-employer bargaining. Of particular concern is the fact that the bill, if passed, will allow unions into small businesses which have never before had to deal with them. Small businesses are being unfairly targeted here. For small businesses the changes proposed in this bill will be complicated and expensive. Small businesses don't have HR departments and lawyers on standby to help them wade through these complex changes. In this economic climate, one would hope that the government would be doing all it can to make life easier for small businesses, particularly those that are building our houses, constructing our apartments and building our infrastructure. Given the Albanese government's stated commitment to increasing housing opportunities for all Australians, one would expect that the government would be doing all it can to ease the burdens, particularly on the building and construction industry.

Within my electorate of Hughes this bill is important for two reasons. Firstly, more than 20 per cent of my electorate are employed in the building and construction industry, many as the owners of small businesses. Secondly, the current median house price in Hughes sits at around $1.5 million, with more than 25,000 households with mortgages. Cost of housing is very important to my constituents. It was not very long ago that Australians purchased their first home and the cost was around 3.3 times the average Australian income. It now sits at just over 10 times. The building and construction industry provides a clear correlation to the cost of Australian housing.

Let's look at the history of the commission. It was established in part, by the coalition government, to help alleviate the soaring costs of housing by seeking compliance with workplace relations law within the building and construction industry. In this place, we speak often about integrity, transparency and good governance. It is therefore incredulous that in one of its first acts of power the Albanese Labor government has once again embraced its union family and is busily dismantling the construction watchdog.

The construction industry is Australia's fifth-largest industry in terms of gross domestic product. It contributes around eight per cent of GDP and employs over 1.1 million Australians. The largest employer industry in the Hughes electorate is the construction industry. These are mostly small business owners, sole traders, mum and dad construction businesses. The building commission has worked hard to protect these small businesses from bullying, intimidation and coercion by unions.

We also speak about women in the workplace. Around 150,000 women work on construction sites in Australia. The government itself is aware of the well-publicised reports of bullying and sexual harassment against women on construction sites. Language and behaviour that we're trying to curb in this workplace is now going to be given carte blanche if the building commission is abolished.

If we look at the history of the commission it has had many successes in the courts. As a result of its investigations the CFMMEU are currently respondents in countless matters that are currently before the courts. It has been awarded almost $2 million in penalties against it in the last financial year. The commission has achieved a successful outcome in 80 of 88 cases resolved against the CFMMEU. This is a success rate of 91 per cent. This figure alone suggests that the ABCC must be retained. It is no wonder that John Setka has embraced this bill. When the former Rudd government commissioned the late Hon. Justice Murray Wilcox KC to report on the building and construction industry, His Honour recommended that a specialist construction inquiry body be retained. When even a Labor government report acknowledges the need for a building and construction regulator, it is clear that the new Albanese government is ignoring advice, intending to repeat the errors of the Rudd government with industrial relations and place its friendship with unions above safety, integrity, and productivity on building sites. An industrial relations framework must be designed to lift both productivity and wages. Instead, this legislation will do neither.

And it's not just us on this side of the House that do not like the bill, and in that regard I note the comments made earlier today by the member for Griffith. Looking at what business groups have said recently, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar said that compulsory multi-employer bargaining is a seismic shift to Australia's workplace relations system. Jennifer Westacott of the Business Council of Australia has said:

We want wages to go up but that won't be achieved by creating more complexity, more strikes and higher unemployment.

The overwhelming number of issues in Labor's bill relate to bargaining, particularly the provisions relating to multi-employer bargaining. Compulsory multi-employer bargaining reverses decades of consensus within the workplace relations system. This bill allows the Fair Work Commission to authorise workers with common interests to bargain together. Unions will now be able to apply to compel employers to bargain together if the move has the support of the majority of employees, backed by the right to strike.

I've had feedback from small businesses in my electorate raising concerns about the proposed allowance of multi-employer bargaining. Small-business owners, who will almost always work in the business themselves, will now have to spend a significant amount of time away from their work, negotiating a joint bargaining position with other employers. These are small businesses who don't have large HR departments and don't have large teams of lawyers on hand to assist them. After some form of agreement, the small-business owners would then need to negotiate with salaried union representatives who don't have a small business on the line and who have significantly more time to dedicate to this process. It is incumbent upon all of us to protect small business, the engine room of our economy. I urge this government to think very carefully about increasing the difficulties for small business that will occur if this bill is made law.

To conclude, I note that there are two fundamental flaws with this legislation.

An honourable member: Only two?

'Fundamental'. The first is the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which has provided industrial relations protections to the building and construction industry and to workers for many years. It must be maintained. Secondly, compulsory employer bargaining should be looked at and removed. I urge the government to rethink this bill, especially around the abolition of those two. Thank you.

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our government wants to see an economy that works for all Australians. People in our communities deserve to have good jobs with the security, pay fairness and proper protections that are part of good jobs. To achieve this, we need laws that are fit for purpose and that meet the needs of Australians today, and that is what the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 is designed to do. This bill will fix the bargaining system, and it will help to get wages moving again. This was a key plank that our government fought for in the election campaign, and it is a key plank that we'll deliver on now.

For people in my community, in professions like health care, aged care, disability support and early childcare support, this bill is designed to get them the pay rise they deserve. In aged care in my community, across Jagajaga we have something like 30 providers of aged care services, residential care, home care, and other forms of care. I talk to the people who work in these industries, and they know it's important work that they do, but they also know it's not easy work. When they speak to aged-care workers they tell me they love what they do. They love getting to know the people they support, their partners, the families who come in with that person. They love being an important part of their circle.

The care takes many forms. It's not just helping an older person get up and about. It's about the friendships you make, that mean for an older person they feel a bit less alone and more connected to the wider world. So it's complex work. It's important work. But for too long it's been under-recognised. We have not recognised the importance of the people who work in this vital sector to make sure that they are there for older people and for all of us in our community. They have had to wait far too long for a pay rise. In fact, it took a royal commission. It took a government that was prepared to back them in, to get their pay rise, for aged-care workers to get it. If you need an example of how wages haven't been moving in this country, if you need an example of how those on the opposite side left low-paid workers behind, aged-care workers are an excellent example.

Another industry I will talk about in relation to this bill is early childhood education. There are 135 childcare providers in Jagajaga, a lot of centres with a lot of educators supporting a lot of local kids and families. The workers and educators at these centres also do really important essential work. Again, for too long, we have undervalued this work. We have pretended that it is not complex, that it is not important to be the person responsible for helping to bring up the smallest people in our community, that it is not important work to be guiding the next generation. This is vital work, yet we have not recognised these important workers with the wages and conditions they should have.

The reason we haven't done this is simply that the system is not set up to deliver these workers a pay rise. These people, who are mainly women working in a heavily feminised industry, have not been getting the pay rises they deserve. We saw the situation last year, as we've seen highlighted by the minister, where early childhood educators were not able to get a pay rise because they couldn't find an appropriate male comparator group. There is no male comparator group! Where are the men working in early education? I'd love to see some. They're not there at the moment, mainly because wages are too low. So we're in an impossible bind here, that contributed to these early educators missing out on a pay rise.

This bill aims to reverse that. It will reverse the decades of really unfair outcomes for women workers in our community. Women who are holding up the caring economy will be supported by this bill to get the pay rises they deserve. The changes in this bill take away that need to find a male comparator group. They make it clear that sex discrimination is not necessary to establish that a certain type of work is undervalued. These changes will enable better access to bargaining for sectors like early childhood education and aged care. It will help workers to negotiate better pay and conditions, and that is something that everyone in this House should regard as a win.

We have spent a pandemic telling the women working in these areas that they are essential workers. We have spent a pandemic holding them up and saying, 'You've kept us going.' The very least the people in this House could do is make sure that these people get a pay rise. These industries have been undervalued. It is unfair and it is something that we have to fix. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to realise that for too long we've failed in this space.

We have had 10 years of drift and denial, an almost wilful ignorance, of the reality that workers in our country are facing. Now we seem to see that those opposite continue to want to deny that people in these sectors, women in these sectors, are underpaid. Under those opposite, we saw that wages were kept low in what seemed to be a deliberate design feature. In fact, at one point, I believe it was called out as a deliberate design feature of the system. Rather than bringing people together, rather than trying to make sure that we're getting workers, employees and industry representatives on the same page, what we've seen from those opposite is a desire to increase conflict.

We've seen a rise in insecure work. We've seen that, in more households, people don't know what their income will look like for the week because their job is insecure, and they're doing all of this at a time when we know that the cost of living is increasing. The cost of living is increasing but wages are not increasing. Unemployment is low but wages are still not increasing. Yet, it seems that, for years and years, we've been told that, if you want to get wages moving again, you just need to wait until unemployment is low. Well, unemployment is low and that hasn't happened, so that magic pudding isn't really a magic pudding. It's not going to happen. This government has recognised that. We've recognised that you can't just rely on unemployment being low for wages to magically start rising. We've recognised that it is the work of government to make sure that people who are in insecure work in low-paid industries who have missed out on the benefits of pay rises are finally noticed and have their needs addressed.

We've noticed the cost-of-living pressures that people across our communities are facing. They are very real. I know it is not easy for a lot of people in my community at the moment. We know that a decade of wage stagnation has absolutely contributed to those cost-of-living pressures. In a situation where inflation is running at more than seven per cent, and wages are at about 2½ per cent, it is absolutely incumbent on the government and on everyone in this place to act. We have to find ways to get wages moving again, and that is a huge part of what we are aiming to achieve with this bill. The Australian people were clear at the election. They've had enough of the previous approach to wages. They have seen that their wages haven't gone up as they should have over the past decade. They do want a change. They want this place to be on their side and to be backing in the wage increases they deserve, so I urge everyone in this place to take that very seriously as we debate this bill and as we go forward.

I want to see better conditions for people in my community and in communities across Australia who deserve better, whether they're a worker in a sector that will benefit from this bill, whether they have a family member in this sector who helps to pay the bills in their household, or whether they're someone who benefits from the work people do in that sector. I know people in Jagajaga value people in industries like early childhood education, aged care and health care. The parents who take their kids down to child care know the connections that those educators are making with their children. They know that's important work. They know the impact that has on their child every single day. They want to see those workers get the pay rise which they deserve and which they've been denied for far too long. Our early childhood educators create the environment that helps our kids grow and develop and start on their education journey. We cannot value it highly enough. Aged care, as I said, is another area where in the past we have not recognised the key work that the workers in those industries have done. It took our government to deliver a pay rise for them. After so long, these workers deserve better pay and conditions.

We need this bill as a strong foundation to continue to build a more equitable and fair system across our country for all of our communities. This is good for workers. It's good for the economy. It will be good for Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They say that Christmas is the time for giving. Clearly this time in this parliament is a time for the ALP to give back to their union paymasters. We know that the ALP are constantly receiving financial assistance from the unions, and now the unions are saying, 'Righto, it's time to give us something back.' And the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 will fundamentally change the way industrial relations is dealt with in this country. It will wind back the clock for the construction industry. I'm looking across the aisle. Can any one of those members opposite raise their hand and say: 'I have worked—not just turned up on a building site in hi-vis and a hard hat—on building sites'?

A government member: I note a number of people have raised their hands!

Mining doesn't count. You should come over this side, because you will know the absolute bullying and intimidation that the CFMMEU perpetrate on every building site. If you guys are serious, those of you who say that you've worked in the building industry, come over here. Because this is the side of politics that supports the building industry, as opposed to the CFMMEU. You guys talk the big talk about looking after workplaces and having respectful workplaces.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind the honourable member to refer to government members respectfully.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will refer through the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. Those opposite should know about the bullying and intimidation that the CFMMEU perpetrate on every building site, all the time.

Kristy McBain (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's embarrassing. It's incorrect.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Embarrassing? That's unbelievable. I'll take the interjection. Those opposite have absolutely no idea about the bullying and intimidation. If they were serious, they would know about what happens. Yet, they want to abolish the ABCC. There are builders and subcontractors around this country who may not be members of the CFMMEU, but they are good, hardworking mum-and-dad businesses. All they want to do is go to work, feed their families and put their kids through school. What we see through the bullying tactics of the CFMMEU are things like third line forcing. If you don't sign up to a CFMMEU EBA, you'll be black banned. Not just from this site, but—

Honourable members interjecting—

The member for Eden-Monaro is shaking her head as if the say this doesn't happen. If the member for Eden-Monaro seriously thinks this doesn't happen, she's living in la-la land. This happens around Australia all the time. Small businesses are put out of business, because the CFMMEU drive them out of business. If you have never seen that, member for Eden-Monaro, you have not been involved in the building industry.

This bill will remove and abolish the tough cop on the beat. Let me run through some stats. The Australian Building and Construction Commission was reintroduced in 2016. We went to a double-dissolution election over it. Since that time, since we reintroduced the ABCC—after the Labor Party had abolished it in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era—the average rate of industrial days lost per 1,000 employees dropped by 90 per cent. Let me read that again: since the ABCC relaunched, the average rate of industrial days lost per 1,000 employees dropped by 90 per cent. As of September 2022, the ABCC had imposed nearly $18.6 million in penalties and secured almost $13.6 million in payments for contractors since its inception.

Those members opposite talk the big talk about justice and looking after people in the workplace. What they don't talk about is what the Federal Court has consistently said about the CFMMEU: that it is the biggest recidivist organisation in this country. It continuously breaks laws and cops fines but considers those fines as the cost of doing business. What we've heard from those members opposite is, rather than speeches about this bill, more like pre-selection speeches to their own base. But let me keep going: as of 19 September 2022, the ABCC had achieved a successful outcome in 105 of its 114 cases. That's successful outcomes in 105 of 114 cases! That's a rate of 92 per cent—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many of those were pursuing wages, Andrew? Zero!

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton is interjecting. I reckon if the member for Moreton had a 92 per cent success rate when he was a solicitor, that would be pretty good figures!

As we speak, there are around 30 CFMEU representatives currently before the courts. If those members opposite want to go on the record and support the CFMEU when the Federal Court has found that they are the biggest recidivist organisation in breaking industrial laws in this country, then go for your lives! Thirty CFMEU representatives are currently before the courts, with the CFMEU accounting for around 1,663 contraventions since the reintroduction of the ABCC. These are unlawful activities on projects like schools, hospitals, roads and bridges. Ernst & Young have recently done a study to identify what the costs of abolishing the ABCC are. Do you know what those costs are? The estimated costs are around $47 billion—

Government members interjecting—

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member is entitled to be heard in silence!

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is he?

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly right, member for Moreton! And yet, because of this conduct that will go unchecked when the ABCC is abolished, every single taxpayer in this country is going to be paying more money for more construction.

Members opposite, in the Labor government, who want to see the abolition of the ABCC can talk the big talk, but just wait and see. The proof will be in the pudding, with the amount of disputation that will rise as a result of this bill. Disputation will increase, absolutely. This bill is about secure jobs and better pay—we'll see how secure the jobs are and the better pay when the industrial disputes increase significantly.

Of course, their Assistant Treasurer is on the record as saying, 'Well, look, we accept that industrial disputes are going to increase as a result of this bill.' I don't see any reference in the name of this bill to increased industrial disputes, but that is exactly what will happen.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It doesn't say ban stickers on helmets either!

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for McEwen!

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those members opposite did not run any reference whatsoever during the campaign to pattern bargaining. There was no reference to pattern bargaining—

A government member: Pattern bargaining?

If you don't understand what that is, look it up! They did not go to the electorate with this policy, so they don't have a mandate to introduce pattern bargaining. But that is exactly what they're trying to do through this bill. And shame on the government for gagging this debate and reducing the opportunity for members to speak on this bill.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I thank, I think, the member for Fisher. I call the member for Cunningham.

Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022.

I know that those opposite just don't get it, that Australian workers have had to deal with insecure work and having their wages held back for far too long. It's not knowing if you'll get enough shifts to pay the rent and nervously waiting on the end of the phone or an app to find out. It's not being able to plan ahead for child care for children, not knowing whether you'll be able to provide care and support for your elderly parents, and not being sure if your temporary contract will be renewed. Workers have seen their wages and conditions slowly eroded. We know that under the previous government wages were deliberately kept low and secure work was rampant.

The Labor Party has always fought for Australian workers, and it won't stop. It is in our DNA and it is a core value of each and every one of us, and that is what this bill is about—our government standing up for workers after wages and conditions have deteriorated. This bill is the first step of the Albanese Labor government's workplace relations reforms. By amending the Fair Work Act with improved job security and gender equity, we will deliver across three main themes: improving workplace conditions and protections, boosting bargaining, and restoring fairness and integrity to fair work institutions. The Fair Work Act needs to do better at living up to its name. We know this, unions and workers know this, and business understands this too. This bill delivers on a number of election commitments that Labor made, and it also acts on a range of outcomes from the Jobs and Skills Summit.

Our approach reflects our history and our values, enabling working people and their unions to better advocate for better pay and conditions and improving the capacity of businesses and employees to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Labor understands that the economy is driven by working Australians, and they deserve stronger wages growth and secure jobs.

We are improving gender equity by allowing workers to discuss pay with their colleagues and empowering the Fair Work Commission to order pay increases for workers in low-paid, female dominated industries, such as the care sector. We are also improving job security by enshrining it as an objective of the Fair Work Act. This sends a clear message on the importance of job security in the workplace relations system. The Fair Work Commission will also be required to factor in job security when performing its functions, such as when they're updating modern awards. To stop endlessly rolling fixed-term contracts, we are delivering on our election commitment to limit the use of these contracts beyond two years or two consecutive contracts, whichever is shorter. Exemptions will apply when genuinely necessary and appropriate.

We are implementing an outcome of the Jobs and Skills Summit to provide Australians with stronger access to flexible working arrangements. We are also introducing a new prohibition of sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act, including a new dispute resolution mechanism. This is in line with recommendation 28 of the Respect@Work report, and it helps protect Australian workers. We are also extending protections against workplace discrimination by adding breastfeeding, gender identity and intersex status to the list of prohibited characteristics in the Fair Work Act. We are deterring underpayments by prohibiting employers from advertising jobs with rates of pay that breach the Fair Work Act. Additionally, we are amending the small claims process to support the recovery of underpayment, and we will progress separate legislation that will finally make wage theft a criminal offence. Arthur Rorris from the South Coast Labor Council in my electorate was instrumental in exposing wage theft in the Illawarra.

We know the current system isn't working. Only 14 per cent of workers are on in-date enterprise agreements, and workers who on these agreements earn more than those on award rates. Businesses also enjoy more flexibility and productivity with enterprise agreements, but currently these are less available to small and medium sized businesses. This bill makes important improvements to increase of uptake of enterprise agreements seeking to drive up wages and productivity. We want to ensure that there are greater options for workers and employers seeking to create an agreement. To free up these negotiations, we are removing unnecessary limitations on access to single and multi-employer bargaining agreements.

We also want to ensure that enterprise bargaining is conducted in good faith. Negotiations can undoubtedly become heated and passionate. I know this, as I have been involved in negotiations from an employee's perspective here in this building. There are competing demands and ideas about what is best for the organisation and conflicting perceptions about how much workers are entitled to and how much employers can afford. These robust negotiations are to be expected. It is part of the process, and it is why enterprise bargaining is so important, but it has to be fair. Conversations and debate are formalised, with both parties understanding the rules and procedures. However, there are certain tactics that go beyond what is reasonable.

The threat of termination of an enterprise agreement during enterprise bargaining negotiations is unethical and wrong. It undermines the spirit of the entire process. When agreements are terminated, employees can be forced back onto the modern award, with less pay and fewer conditions. This can be used as a tactic to threaten workers who are trying to pursue improvements to the agreement or even just trying to hold on to what they have. We've certainly seen that here.

To eliminate the potential abuse of this process, we are introducing new limits on the circumstances under which the Fair Work Commission may approve applications to terminate enterprise agreements. These changes are specifically designed to prevent the undermining of bargaining processes or to reduce employees' pay and conditions. The bargaining process is involved, and it has strict procedures and rules that must be followed. For larger organisations that can afford industrial relations specialists, this is less of an issue. But we know that to increase the rate of enterprise bargaining we need to support small and medium-size businesses to engage in the process.

That is why we have committed to supporting the Fair Work Commission with $8.9 million over three years to increase its capacity to help employers and employees reach mutually beneficial arrangements. This will help to provide the support that businesses need. This funding builds on our government's investments in the Fair Work Commission, which will enable it to play a greater role in Australia's workplace relations.

The Fair Work Commission will also be enhanced by the creation of two new expert panels, the Pay Equity Expert Panel and the Care and Community Sector Panel. Additionally, a specialised research unit will improve the commission's capacity to assess pay equity claims and help address workforce challenges. By establishing these panels, we are ensuring that the Fair Work Commission has the specific expertise it needs to deliver pay equity—expertise that will reflect the lived experiences of our early childhood educators and of our aged-care and disability support workers. And to make it easier for the Fair Work Commission to order pay increases for workers in these industries, we are creating a statutory equal remuneration principle. This principle will remove the need for a male comparator in order to progress equal pay claims, which is a major barrier in Australia's highly gender segregated workforce. It will also ensure that gender based assumptions are not considered when assessing work value.

The measures introduced in this bill are urgent and they are vital to modernising our bargaining system and getting wages moving again, because wage growth will not happen automatically. Understandably, there has been a lot of interest in the bill, and the government has consulted closely with business groups, unions and experts, particularly over the last week but also with our Jobs and Skills Summits held across the country. They've led to some constructive amendments and addressed concerns around bargaining and the better off overall test. They are also giving businesses 12 months to adjust to the fixed-term contract changes. These are sensible improvements to the bill's implementation.

These are just some of the changes that the Albanese Labor government is legislating to make our workplaces fairer for Australian workers, to help wage growth and improve job security. Last week, after advocacy by unions, the sector and the Albanese Labor government, the Fair Work Commission made an interim decision for an increase to minimum wages of at least 15 per cent for aged-care workers in direct-care roles on a number of different awards. This is on top of the 5.2 per cent increase to the minimum wage in July. We are delivering cheaper child care and cheaper medicines. We are increasing paid parental leave. And with this bill we are helping to get wages moving and promoting secure jobs.

I am proud to be part of a Labor government that is delivering for working Australians. Australian workers deserve fair pay and conditions and they deserve a system that works for them. That is why I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some of the legislation that comes to this chamber is very straightforward—almost administrative. Some of the legislation that we vote on is complex and significant, like this week's landmark Respect@Work package, which was the result of years of work by Kate Jenkins. Inquiries, reports and consultations are all processes that keep the public informed, and they provide opportunities to contribute to the shaping of policy. They are processes that make legislation stronger.

To date, the Albanese government has been consultative, collaborative and collegiate when it's come to the significant reforms that it has pursued—the Climate Change Bill and the National Anti-Corruption Commission, in particular. This secure jobs, better pay bill was introduced just 10 days ago. We've had three sitting days with this bill, two since the government briefed the crossbench on this package. There are 243 pages of legislation, to start with, and this week we've been sent pages of government amendments to their own bill. The government is, in effect, writing this legislation almost in real time. This is not the way that legislation should work.

I regularly meet with and speak to early childhood educators, teachers, aged-care workers and disability carers who live and work in Kooyong. Had this bill been provided to parliament sooner or had the vote not been pushed so hurriedly, these workers would have had the opportunity to understand the proposal being put to parliament on their behalf, and I would have had the opportunity to hear and represent their views. The people of Kooyong, like the rest of the Australian public, have not had an opportunity to understand what is being proposed by this government in these complex and significant reforms.

Over the last week, I've been briefed on this bill by half a dozen peak body groups, here in Parliament House, led by professional lobbyists with parliamentary access, all of whom were given an opportunity to read and analyse this bill before it was introduced to parliament. Many of them saw this bill before the crossbench did. Those briefings have been the source of much of the information that the crossbenchers have on this bill. We have not had enough time to consult widely. We have not had enough time to properly analyse this complex, contested legislation. We have not had time to canvass the constituents that we hope to represent. This is not politics done differently.

Despite all of this, I will be voting to pass this bill. It's clear that we need to support our lower paid workers better, especially those in the feminised industries—child care and aged care. We know that inflation and the recent increase in the cost of living, in concert with the failure of wages to increase with the CPI, have resulted in real stress and real difficulty for many Australians.

I welcome the government's move to narrow the unacceptable gender pay gap of 14.1 per cent by appointing commissioners to address pay equity and to focus on the care and community sector. I welcome the improvements to the better off overall test and the move to improve sexual harassment and other discrimination protections in the workplace. Removal of pay secrecy clauses will increase transparency. Streamlining approvals of enterprise agreements makes sense. Prohibiting illegal pay rate advertisements is the right thing to do. Sunsetting zombie agreements—none of us have anything against zombies but this is a good change to the law.

There are, however, concerns about the more complex aspects of this bill. The proposal that a single employee can initiate bargaining on behalf of all employees in an organisation means that employees could face repeated or ongoing challenges to pay scales. This bill treats small businesses with 15 employees the same way it does those with 50,000. While Bunnings and Coles are in a position to take on complex workplace negotiations with lawyers and HR personnel, it's not reasonable to expect the same from a grocer in Hawthorn, a cafe owner in Balwyn or a nursery owner in Surry Hills. Many business owners are feeling anxious about what they've heard about multi-enterprise bargaining. They worry that their staff will be forced into agreements, forged by other businesses, that they can't afford or that won't work for their business, with only a conciliation process.

This is not what this IR bill proposes but business owners are right to feel anxious. The changes that the government is proposing have not been properly explained to the public, and business owners have not been afforded the opportunity to contribute to this discussion, to ask questions of the government or their MPs, to wrap their heads around this huge bill. Small-business owners, in particular, have been struggling for years now and I believe that they deserve to be included in these important policy reforms.

This legislation markedly expands the role of the Fair Work Commission. Appointments to that commission will now take on even greater significance. We heard in this House yesterday, from the Attorney-General, that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was stacked with political appointees in the last government. What assurance do we have that this will not happen with this government and the Fair Work Commission?

I have concerns about detail of parts of this bill, but I will vote for the bill because I'm not convinced that there's any evidence behind the claims that some lobby groups are making about it, particularly that multi-employer bargaining arrangements, closely supervised by the Fair Work Commission, could lead to mass strikes in the street; and because I do believe that affording employees a bit more standing in negotiations with their employers will increase their likelihood of securing reasonable pay rises and improved workplace conditions.

For years now the stagnant wage growth and slowing of productivity increases in this country have impacted on what all Australian workers want and deserve: reasonable shift allocations, job security, decent pay. The government shouldn't enter into every workplace in the country and tell employers what to do with their staff and with their business. Those negotiations should happen in workplaces and businesses between an employer and the people that they employ. This bill means that more of those sorts of negotiations are able to begin, and that if there is a stalemate they can be bumped up to the umpire to resolve fairly and, hopefully, quickly.

My concern is that the devil may be in the detail and that we have not been afforded sufficient opportunity to study the detail of this bill. This is a big, complex omnibus bill. If the wheels fall off the omnibus it's on the heads of this government. I'm not entirely satisfied with this legislation, but I believe that people across this country who work hard as carers, educators, factory staff—those many Australians who are essential workers throughout the pandemic; those who are finding it harder and harder to afford the basics, to pay their rent, to pay their mortgage, to send their kids to school camps, or to have that holiday that they have been denied for three years—deserve a better shot when they ask for a pay rise. I believe that the clearly positive parts of this bill outweigh the unclear, contested parts of it.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Make no mistake, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 is among the most significant reforms this parliament will consider. Workers' job security, work conditions and wages have been whittled away, little bit little, over almost 10 years of coalition governments. The previous government proudly admitted their intent to keep wages low, shamefully acknowledging it was a deliberate design feature of their so-called economic management approach. Insecure work and low wages were considered by the coalition, regardless of the pain inflicted on workers and their families.

This legislation is unashamedly about creating a fairer workplace. It's about giving workers job security. It's about ending the era of deliberate wage stagnation. At a time when the pressures of global inflation are hitting every household, our workplace laws are outdated and no longer fit for purpose. Anyone who genuinely cares about the cost-of-living impacts on hard-working people can't, in good conscience, support the ongoing wage stagnation built into the current system.

Earlier this year, prior to the election of the Albanese government, I hosted a secure jobs, better pay forum in my electorate with the now Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The impact of the previous government's mean and repressive industrial relations policy was starkly clear. Among those who spoke were aged-care workers, people who dedicate themselves to looking after the frail and aged in our community. I thank them for their service and care. They spoke of being pushed to breaking point, in tears, expected to do more and more while receiving no meaningful pay rise for years. We heard similar stories from other sectors, distressing stories from workers locked into a cost-of-living squeeze because of low wages and feeling no way out.

People in my electorate of Corangamite are working hard. They take pride in their work. Nevertheless, they are going backwards financially after years of wage stagnation and rising costs. Unlike the previous government, the Albanese government is not prepared to sit idly by and do nothing to alleviate their pain. That's why these amendments to the Fair Work Act will deliver reforms across three broad themes: improving job security and gender equity; improving workplace conditions and protections; and boosting bargaining and restoring fairness and integrity to fair work institutions. We will abolish the draconian ABCC.

The Albanese government believes that getting wages moving is especially urgent in female dominated sectors. The gender pay gap still sits at an unacceptable 14.1 per cent. We've already made a submission to the Fair Work Commission that unequivocally supported a wage increase. Aged-care workers across our nation are in line for a much-deserved pay rise, with the Fair Work Commission making an interim decision for an increase in minimum wages of at least 15 per cent for aged-care workers in direct care. I know many MPs in this room fought for this. It should have happened long ago. For a decade, coalition governments told us that low unemployment would create pressure to push up wages. That didn't happen. That's why we need to change the law to promote job security, close the gender pay gap and get wages moving.

Years ago, job security was defined simply as the difference between being a casual or a permanent employee. Job security now takes many different complex forms. Today there's the gig economy, labour hire, new forms of insecurity for part-time employees and rolling fixed-term contracts which effectively amount to a permanent probation period for employees. Legislation just hasn't kept pace with these work changes. We need fair, effective, up-to-date laws that deliver fairer outcomes for workers, reasonable wages and, importantly, better productivity gains for employers.

This bill is delivering in multiple ways on a raft of significant areas needing reform. Chief amongst the reforms is gender equity, which this legislation places at the heart of the fair work system. The Fair Work Commission will be required to take gender equity into account in all the decisions it makes. Over many years, present laws have placed obstacles in the path of workers seeking equal pay. These reforms will reverse decades of unfair outcomes for female workers by removing the need to find male workplace comparators in making decisions on wages. Last year, for example, our early childhood educators, including educators in my electorate, were unable to win a pay rise because they couldn't find an appropriate male comparator. There is not a male comparison group, and it was an impossible task. We're also stamping out workplace sexual harassment because that's central to achieving safe, productive and gender equitable workplaces. Under the previous government, there was no express prohibition of sexual harassment under the Fair Work Act. We're fixing that.

Many Australians are struggling to manage their work and care responsibilities. Women still take the main responsibility for caring work. They're often forced to drop out of the workforce or to take lower paid or less secure employment as a result. This is a major contributor to widening the gender pay gap and reducing superannuation for women as they move towards retirement. Flexible working arrangements in this legislation will not only help parents and carers; they'll also provide job security and an economic lifeline to employees with disability, older Australians, and workers experiencing family and domestic violence.

The number of workers on fixed-term contracts has increased by over 50 per cent since 1998. More than half of all employers engaged on fixed-term contracts are women. This bill will limit the use of fixed-term contracts for the same role beyond two years or two consecutive contracts, whichever is shorter. This bill also makes it unlawful to advertise a job for less than the applicable minimum rate. That should have been the case many years ago. Australia's bargaining system is not working effectively. It is broken, and it has not worked for a long time.

Yet we know that bargaining delivers simpler and more tailored workplace arrangements for business and, on average, more pay for workers each week, compared to those on awards. This bill honours commitments the government made at the Jobs and Skills Summit in September, and it will also make the better off overall test simpler, flexible and fair. Current approval requirements for enterprise agreements are onerous, complex and unnecessarily prescriptive. We'll make changes to fix this.

Now, those in opposition want more time to consider this bill. But why should workers wait any longer? The former government had nine years to increase wages. They did nothing. Instead, they fuelled a two-speed economy that denies women who work in child care, in education, in disability, and others who work delivering food or in the digital economy, the ability to earn more. Listening to the opposition, I feel like I've stepped back in time, with them dredging up the old bogeyman union and scaremongering tactics. Australians and the world have moved on. They're looking for positive and constructive change, but it seems the opposition is stuck in the past. In contrast, our government is committed to fairness and integrity, tackling rampant wage theft, addressing workplace safety, promoting good workplace relations and enabling fair and just wages for women and men.

This legislation reflects the Albanese government's vision for a fairer, safer and more inclusive Australia. We stood for these things at the last election, and people across Australia voted in favour of them. While this legislation won't on its own fix every problem in our workplace relations system, it is an impressively strong start. I'm very proud of the Albanese Labor government, which is working to get wages moving after 10 years of neglect. I commend the bill to the House.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wages have represented a declining share of GDP since the 1970s. With current cost-of-living issues, it's really important that this changes so that improvements in productivity can be shared fairly between workers and business owners. This bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill, aims to get wages moving, and there are a lot of things to like in it, but some aspects of it raise serious concerns. The good parts include the better off overall test change, gender equity improvements and the focus on low-paid workers in the supported bargaining stream.

The changes to the better off overall test affirms its original intention, and confirms that the test is a global assessment rather than a line-by-line review and comparison of conditions. This is a welcome change which should make it easier for businesses and their employees to come to win-win agreements without reference to theoretical possibilities and arcane provisions.

The gender equity provisions of the bill are welcome. The inclusion of gender equity in the objects clause will put this issue clearly on the agenda. Changes to pay transparency will help make the gender pay gap more visible, and the inclusion of sexual harassment and discrimination issues in the Fair Work Commission will ensure that employees do not have to pursue justice in multiple jurisdictions. Improvements in work flexibility will ensure that women with competing responsibilities can find fair outcomes.

Wages in low-paid, often feminised, sectors need to increase, and, having worked in community services, I'm aware that a different approach is required when the funder is different to the employer, to ensure that government can fund increases in wages. I believe there's a case to be made for increasing access to collective bargaining options in the supported bargaining stream, although simplifying and lifting the awards would be preferable.

So there are good parts of this omnibus bill, but, given the very broad scope of changes made, I have serious concerns about some parts of it which ultimately will prevent me from supporting it unless it's split. Any changes should be guided by principles of fairness, simplicity, flexibility and productivity. I'm not convinced that these principles underpin the proposed changes.

I have four major concerns. My first concern is that I don't think it does anything to address the significant complexity in our industrial relations system. In fact, it may well make it worse. No doubt there are egregious breaches of award conditions, but there are also a lot of examples of awards being so complicated that employers, especially small businesses, inadvertently underpay staff or need to engage specialists to determine whether they're paying correctly, or both. Even large companies with significant human resources teams frequently find they've breached some unknown or complicated term of an award. Adding three separate additional streams of multi-employer bargaining on top of the award system, each with different processes and requirements, is likely to result in delays, uncertainty and a huge increase in the workload of the Fair Work Commission.

The complexity also raises the potential for the system to be gamed by employee representatives or IR professionals motivated by maintaining their relevance. In such a complex regulatory environment, the main winners are the specialists—lawyers, unions, and IR professionals—who'll have a steady stream of work ahead of them. Neither businesses nor workers benefit from complexity. This bill does nothing to simplify our modern award system. Efforts have been made in recent years to rationalise the number of awards, but each award is still ridiculously complicated. There's been no political impetus to tweak the industrial relations framework so it's more functional. We've seen over the years that ideological overhaul wins out over pragmatic iteration.

My second concern is about the potential for businesses to be dragged into the single-interest stream of multi-employer bargaining. The uncertainty of the common interest test raises the very real possibility of competing companies being brought under one bargain. Businesses in Curtin and across the country, especially small businesses, are worried about how this will affect them. Like so many other parts of our historically complex industrial relations system, this would have unintended consequences that go against the aim of the legislation. The government says the aim of this is to prevent a race to the bottom. But it may have the opposite effect and create the lowest-common-denominator approach to agreements, dampening productivity and wages.

It will require the Fair Work Commission to understand every business that comes before it and make an assessment of whether there is a common interest. The Fair Work Commission may consider geographic location, regulatory regime and the nature of enterprises in considering whether there's a common interest. This could result in multiple parts of a supply chain, all competitors, being forced to bargain together. Employers could also be dragged into pre-existing multi-employer bargains and, once in the system, it's challenging to get out of it. No doubt there are some businesses that would rather be part of a multi-employer bargain than have to navigate the awards and enterprise agreements system on their own. But this could easily be addressed through an opt-in approach, rather than a compulsory approach.

My third concern is that the proposed framework greatly increases reliance on the Fair Work Commission and embeds unions in the system, with approval of an employee representative required before an agreement can go to a vote for employees. Unions have played a very important part in protecting workers over the centuries, but undoubtedly have also played a part in our IR system being so complex. The Fair Work Commission is a quasi-judicial body, and its decisions can be unpredictable. This is driven by the lack of judicial training of members, the huge discretion given to the Fair Work Commission, which will increase significantly under this bill, and appointments coming from both ideological sides. More unpredictability is not what we need in our IR system.

My last concern is about the speed with which this has gone through this House. We do need to get wages moving, but, in such a notoriously complex area of law, it would make sense to be cautious. Changes made now are unlikely to be reviewed or amended for some time. Treating the bill as urgent and curtailing debate is only part of the problem. Unlike the Climate Change Bill, there was no exposure draft shared, and, unlike the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill, there has not been extensive consultation and discussion prior to the legislation being introduced. This makes it difficult for members of parliament and stakeholders alike to provide input to avoid unintended consequences. I've not had time to consult widely in my electorate on this matter. It takes time for businesses, especially small businesses, to understand what's proposed before forming a view. With further time and improvements to the bill, I may have come to the conclusion that this was the right move to get wages moving. But this can't be done thoroughly in two weeks, and the bill contains too much complexity for me to be comfortable with rushing it through. The government says that the intention is that single-employer bargains will remain the primary mechanism for wage setting. Only time will tell if this is the case.

I support the amendments by the member for Dickson to give the parliament three months to review these changes and to split the bill so that the significant matters covered can be addressed and debated separately rather than in an omnibus bill. I support the amendment proposed by the member for Wentworth calling for an inquiry into the more controversial parts of the bill. And I support the amendment proposed by the member for Mayo changing the definition of 'small business' from 15 to 100 employees.

The government has indicated that it will propose a number of amendments to the bill, which make some effort to take into account unintended consequences identified by a range of stakeholders in this short time frame. The scale and range of these amendments is an indication of the broad scope of issues being addressed and the complexity of the regulatory regime being introduced. Given the speed with which they have been drafted and the lack of consultation and testing of these amendments, I have concerns about potential further unintended consequences. I reiterate that I'm supportive of the intended goal of this bill—to get wages moving—in these difficult economic conditions. But its complexity and far-reaching consequences for business mean that I won't be supporting it in its current form.

Given that this bill is likely to pass through this House this week, I urge the Senate to do its best to improve or split the legislation, and I urge the government to consider a fulsome review in 12 months so that this does not end up creating more unforeseen consequences that land in the too-hard basket. Thank you.

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This is the first industrial relations legislation in a long time that is designed with the express goal of improving the conditions of workers. It is an IR reform that is not aimed at undermining the pay and conditions of those who carried this country through the darkest moments of the pandemic or the workers who built one of the most successful economies in the world. IR reform should never cause the conditions of workers to slide backwards.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the severe problems that workers are coping with. Aged-care workers, childcare educators and other workers in the care economy struggled. But workers in all sectors were faced with the reality that the IR system was not fit for purpose and that it did not work in Australia's modern economy. There have been serious structural deficiencies in the industrial relations system over the past decade. The relationship between the unemployment rate and wages growth has been completely severed. If it had held up, wages growth would be skyrocketing off the back of the lowest unemployment rate since 1974. But ask any Australian and they will tell you that this is not happening. Workers will tell you that wages are not keeping up and that the work has become more insecure. And there is data to back this up.

More people are employed as casuals than ever before, and this is no longer just a transitional situation. The consequences of this were evident when workers could not afford to take off work when they fell sick. These workers had no choice. It was either go to work or not be able to feed their families. These are the consequences of insecure work. Movement between casual and permanent employment is lower than it was during the first decade of the last century. Instead, there is an increase in casuals moving to fixed-term employment. The bill will limit the use of fixed-term contracts beyond two years except in genuine and appropriate circumstances. Australians would be experiencing wages growth of almost four per cent if previous trends held true. Instead, Australians are seeing wage growth at nearly half that level. With inflation possibly peaking at eight per cent, according to the Reserve Bank, that is a real wage cut for workers. If wages won't rise when unemployment and underutilisation is low, when will they?

The purpose of the industrial relations bill is to deliver on both of our commitments at the election and the outcomes of the Jobs and Skills Summit. For the past 10 years the industrial relations system has been failing workers and failing to do what it was designed for. Half as many new arrangements were made in 2021 as were made in 2013-14. Enterprise bargaining agreements yield better pay and broader benefits for workers. Lifting rates of enterprise bargaining will get wages moving after a wasted decade under the coalition government. And do you know what? Workers who are paid properly will also increase their productivity, which is better for businesses all over the country.

A major component of the bill is the introduction of greater access to multi-employer bargaining arrangements, because of all the evidence of it boosting the conditions of workers. The idea that multi-employer bargaining will hamper productivity and cause widespread industrial disputes is unfounded, and it's certainly not supported by international evidence. In fact, most OECD countries use multi-employer bargaining, and they tend to have lower wage inequality and no more industrial disputes. The industries that will benefit most from multi-employer bargaining are those that tend to be younger, female dominated and lower skilled, but all workers have the right to better pay and conditions, and many sectors of our economy are disadvantaged by the current industrial relations system.

Organising and unionising is difficult for workers in the childhood education and the care and community service sectors, which are primarily composed of thousands of smaller workplaces. The Fair Work Commission will be allowed to authorise workers to bargain together, and it's only fair, given the power that some organisations have in such decentralised sectors. Importantly, some exemptions are made, and our government has ensured that small businesses cannot be forced into this stream of bargaining.

While multi-employer bargaining will help get wages moving, the institutions that uphold the rights of workers must themselves be strengthened. The government will strengthen the Fair Work Act to ensure better compliance and enforcement. We'll ensure the Fair Work Commission is adequately resourced so that it can help workers and businesses reach agreements during negotiations, and the government will ensure workers can reclaim unpaid entitlements, increasing the cap that can be recovered to $100,000. And remember, it's the workers' money in the first place.

Workers are entitled to a fair wage for their labour, and they are entitled to feel safe in their workplace. The bill will ensure that sexual harassment is explicitly prohibited in the Fair Work Act, as recommended by the Respect@Work report. Sexual harassment is never acceptable. While there has been a cultural shift over the years, the statistics on workplace sexual harassment are way too high. The Respect@Work report found that one in three Australians has experienced sexual harassment in the last five years. This has increased since 2012, when the number was one in five, and that is just unacceptable. Systems that are in place are often complex and difficult to navigate, meaning that only 17 per cent of workers report the harassment. The legislation will create a new dispute resolution mechanism within the Fair Work Commission to ensure that all workers have access to better reporting mechanisms.

The government is also committed to closing the gender pay gap. The gender pay gap now stands at 14.1 per cent, an increase of 0.3 per cent, and there has been nothing done over the last nine years to help it close. The primary reason for the pay gap centres around the lack of flexibility, inadequate sharing of caring responsibilities, female dominated industries being underpaid, and the pay disparities between men and women in the same industry and with the same job—something that I have seen work in practice. Governments have an important role in play, and this bill will implement several measures to improve gender equality in the workplace. A simple but vital measure is banning pay secrecy clauses, which always are in the man's favour. Workers must be allowed to talk about their pay, because this ensures transparency and the accountability of slack bosses. These clauses have been largely used to hide gender pay disparity, and this is a symptomatic issue. Not only are individual women in workplaces paid less on average than men, but entire sectors that are female dominated tend to be lower paid and subject to more insecure work. It is amazing that this is the case.

The Fair Work Act will make gender equality a key objective of the commission and will establish a panel on pay equity and a panel on the care and community sector, because the female dominated sectors tend to be those in the care economy. While we all appreciate those in the care sectors and we love to thank them for their amazing work, I really think they need more than that. They deserve to be adequately compensated for the work that they do for all of us. That is why these two new panels are so important in ensuring the Fair Work Commission can deliver on its gender equity objective. Additionally, we'll put in place a statutory equal remuneration principle. This will make it easier for the Fair Work Commission to order pay increases for workers in low-paid and female dominated industries.

Industrial relations reform is not an easy task. This bill is a significant first step for the workers of this country. It's the first tranche of the government's industrial relations reforms, and it is the step towards the necessary reforms that our economy and our workers have been desperate for. With one in four Australians struggling to get by, the workers of this country need wages to move again. They can't wait any longer, and these tough economic times show us the consequences of a decade of stagnant growth. We will get wages moving again. I commend the bill to the House.

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Governments do not create jobs; business and employers do. This is a message for those opposite. This bill delivers the worst possible news that Australian small and medium enterprises could get, on top of the mess this government is making with the Australian economy.

Thanks to this government, power prices are not being cut by $275 as promised. No, they're going up by 56 per cent. Gas prices are forecast to go up by 44 per cent. Prices are completely out of control. Inflation is at 7.3 per cent, projected to go up to eight per cent later this year. Property prices—what are they doing? They're going down. And staff shortages are at a crisis point across many sectors. What does this Labor government do, and what do their union masters do, when the economy is facing these challenges? I ask the Australian people that question. The Labor government legislate to make a bad situation worse. That's right.

What's the very first step they take? What they do first is abolish the cop on the beat that would keep unions in check, so their path is clear for unions to interfere in private enterprise—with the sole purpose of collecting union fees. Unions, since 2007, have donated over $100 million to the Australian Labor Party, and it's now time for them to pay it back—with interest. So Labor abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC, which the EY report from April this year said could lead to a total economic loss of around $47.5 billion by 2030.

Further, the Albanese Labor government's abolition of the ABCC will save Australia's most militant union, the CFMMEU, construction division, millions of dollars in civilian penalties and legal expenses in the coming years. We can expect jobs to be lost. This militant union is to run riot, causing building costs to skyrocket, and large and small businesses alike to fold. Labor, at a time of multiple challenges across our economy, want to send businesses broke and cause employees and their families to lose their income.

Reintroducing industry-wide bargaining like we saw in the 1970s will cause widespread strike action, including potential sympathy strikes by other sectors and industries. Nobody wishes to stand in the way of higher wages, but there is just no evidence that this legislation will deliver wage increases. In fact, this bill will hold up wage rises because it increases complexity and delays. It will force up prices and increase the cost of living. It will undermine competition so Australians have fewer choices but face higher costs. It unfairly targets small businesses, because these changes will be complicated and expensive, and mum-and-dad businesses don't have HR departments that can wade through these complex changes. And it will open the front door for unions into small businesses that have never had to deal with them before.

There are over 32,000 small businesses in my electorate of Moncrieff, on the central Gold Coast, and over 60,000 small businesses on the Gold Coast who will suffer under this bill, and there will be compulsory bargaining for SMEs. They're not happy. My small businesses, my chambers of commerce, are not happy about this bill. It's small and family business that holds up the Gold Coast economy—a tourism sector, a hospitality sector—and they'll be badly impacted by this bill and this Labor government. No-one—absolutely no-one—from the Labor Party is looking after the Gold Coast or Gold Coasters and their families. Those on the other side just don't get business. You just don't understand how to run a business and the costs associated with that. Gold Coasters know that the Labor Party and the unions do not have their interests at heart. They know what the coalition has delivered to our region. They believe in reward for effort and running their own business without union interference.

The head of the CFMMEU, John Setka himself, said, 'This legislation gives us the ability to go after non-unionised workplaces.' Who are non-unionised workplaces? Do those opposite even know who they are? They are your local coffee shop, your local restaurant, your local chemist, your local surf shop—on the Gold Coast, your neighbour's business and the list goes on. They'll all suffer, as will their employees, when they can no longer make ends meet to pay their bills and are forced to make drastic changes—under this bill—or, sadly, close their doors altogether.

Earlier this year, this union and its South Australian secretary were fined $27,000 for staging an intimidating and illegal protest on a construction site at East Terrace in Adelaide. During that protest, they chanted 'grubby grub grub' in the face of a female lawyer and yelled at a female employee to get off site. There are currently 30 CFMMEU representatives before the courts. Since 2016, the CFMMEU has been fined more than $15 million. John Setka has actually been convicted of harassing his estranged wife, breaching court orders, and, more recently, she's claimed that she is living in fear of him. My point is that under the Albanese government, union groups such as the CFMMEU will have more power to do as they please in Australian businesses and workplaces, including small, medium and large businesses.

Those businesses across Australia have deep reservations that the expansion of multi-employer bargaining risks jeopardising the important focus on encouraging employers and employees to reach agreements at the enterprise level. Enterprise bargaining should be the cornerstone of our workplace relations system, if we're to grow pay packets, improve job security and boost productivity—not a union armed with the right of veto over any agreement made between the employer and the employee. The union will have the right to veto any agreement made between the employer and the employee.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite don't like it when I point out the truth of this bill. This erodes the choices of entrepreneurs. It erodes the very foundation of the core values of having a go, of building something from nothing, and of keeping more of what you have earned in order to invest in yourself, your community, and, most of all, in your business.

This is the entrepreneurial spirit of the Gold Coast at stake here, which this Labor government is planning to dismantle right now. The chambers of commerce and the manufacturing sector in my electorate do not support this bill, and neither do hardworking business owners, who will be forced into doing as they are told by unions and fair work. The ACCI chief executive, Andrew McKellar, has warned that compulsory multi-employer bargaining is a seismic shift to Australia's workplace relations system, reversing decades of tripartite consensus, and it would result in more strikes, fewer jobs, centralised decision-making and less trust within our enterprises. He says:

Enterprise bargaining is the cornerstone of our workplace relations system, and any significant change requires an extended period of robust and transparent public consultation.

Yet this government is in such a hurry to ram this through the parliament they have not even conducted proper consultation, except with their union bosses. And they haven't conducted any modelling on the effects, and nor do they understand the consequences of these seismic changes to the everyday lives of working Australians.

The Business Council of Australia chief executive, Jennifer Westacott, who we all know and have heard from, said:

We want wages to go up but that won't be achieved by creating more complexity, more strikes and higher unemployment.

Australia is in the midst of a global economic storm and there's no room for error if we want to secure our economic future; we have to tread carefully.

That's the message from the Business Council of Australia. But those opposite are not treading carefully. No. They are ramming through these changes, without amendment or due consideration, for the biggest IR changes since WorkChoices. That's the message from the Business Council of Australia. But those opposite are not treading carefully. No! They're ramming through these changes without amendment or due consideration for the biggest IR changes since Work Choices.

Consider this scenario: there is a family with a printing business on the Gold Coast. There are plenty of them. There are three generations of family. They employ 40 locals and they support their local community through fundraising activities and through sponsorships. An employee goes to the boss and asks for more flexible working hours and for some time working at home. Some staff are always sick and the business is already understaffed due to shortages, as we know, so the boss has to say: 'Look, I'm really sorry. I need you here to serve customers and to supervise the deliveries. You can't do that from home, and I can't change our opening hours. So I need to have you here, please.' The employee says that's not fair and makes a complaint to the Fair Work Commission. As a result, the way you manage your rosters, your staff and perhaps even your opening hours is now subject to the arbitration of the Fair Work Commission. You are no longer the boss. You have been manipulated by this bill through the unions, who are now the CEO of your family business, and the Fair Work Commission, which is your new general manager. (Time expired)

Anika Wells (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians are struggling with the rising cost of living which is why we made an election promise to Australians that the Albanese Labor government would get wages moving, and that is exactly what we have worked to do since being elected. In June, our government accepted the Fair Work Commission's decision, following the national wage review, and gave Australians a 5.2 per cent increase to the national minimum wage. That meant $40 going directly in people's pockets. That is the difference a Labor government makes.

Last week the commission awarded a 15 per cent interim pay rise for some aged-care workers—a decision which the Albanese Government will fund. This pay rise is vitally important. It will help us recruit and retain the staff needed to reform a sector that was dreadfully neglected for nine years. But I also know that the Fair Work Commission's interim decision is a bittersweet one for some aged-care workers because it did not include our vital lifestyle, cleaning, laundry and catering workers, who are all essential to delivering the quality of care needed. I say to these workers: I understand your disappointment and frustration that the Fair Work Commission has not yet made a decision on your wages. Please know that our fight for you is not over. The Fair Work Commission will continue to consider a pay rise for these workers in addition to further increases for aged-care workers in direct care roles on the aged-care award, the nurses award and the SCHCADS award. In the meantime, I see you, I hear you and the Albanese government values your essential work.

We know that these are hard times for Australians and their families and that workers' wages are not keeping up with prices. Insecure work and nine years of low wages have shifted the nature of Australia's workforce, creating the perfect storm for workers. Rampant job insecurity makes it hard for workers to plan for their future. We as a government understand that we must intervene to improve job security and increase wages growth. That is exactly what this bill will do. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill will make job security an objective of the Fair Work Act. It will give access to bargaining and close the loopholes that continue to undermine wage growth. To get wages moving, particularly for women and lower paid workers, we need to reduce the barriers to bargaining. We know the current system is broken. Australian workers and their families know the system is broken, and they know it is not working for them. This is about secure jobs, so that, at the end of the day, at the end of a long shift, workers can go home to their families without worrying about how they will pay their bills week to week, so that they have better pay that will ensure they can continue to put food on the table and put money into the local economies of the communities that we all love to represent.

We are doing this because it is the right thing to do. We want to ensure Australian workers and their families can live life to the fullest without the added stress and pressures that come with insecure work. We know that, under the former government, wages were deliberately kept low and insecure work was encouraged. While doorknocking in suburbs like Boondall, Deagon and Zillmere, I have spoken to countless northsiders who have told me they wanted more secure jobs and stronger wages. Many were voting for Labor for the very first time because they believed in our jobs plan—a plan for a better future. They put their faith in us to do this for them, and I am proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, honouring that faith and delivering on that promise. Labor is taking action.

Workers can't afford to wait any longer for fairer wages. This is why, since this bill has been extensively consulted upon since we were elected, business, unions and Australian workers all agree that the current bargaining system is broken. So, we are fixing it, and we are working to ensure that workers get a better deal. The passage of this bill will ensure that workers can get ahead, that workers are getting a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Our Labor government is continuously working to bring gender equity to the heart of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making. The secure jobs, better pay bill is designed to ensure that all workers in female dominated professions—professions that essential, like aged care, disability support, health care and early childhood education—get the pay rises and the support that they deserve.

We know that this legislation will not only help to close the 14.1 per cent gender pay gap but also protect women at work. It will boost the commission's gender pay gap expertise. It will ban the pay secrecy clauses. And it will explicitly prohibit sexual harassment, in the Fair Work Act. This was a key recommendation of the Respect@Work report. As part of the Fair Work Commission's interim decision to implement a 15 per cent wage rise for direct care workers, the full bench accepted that the valuation of this important work is influenced by societal expectations and gendered assumptions about the role of women as workers.

More than 85 per cent of aged-care workers are female and, until now, could earn more stocking shelves in supermarkets—an utterly unfair situation. The Albanese Labor government cares about closing the gender pay gap. There is a historic undervaluation of work done in female dominated occupations, and it's past time that this changed. The Fair Work Commission decision and this bill is another step towards that change. Our government cares about closing the gender pay gap, and we will get wages moving, particularly for women, by modernising Australia's workplace relations laws. After nearly nine years of neglect by successive coalition governments, who have overseen understaffing, low pay and insecure work for the female workforce, the Albanese Labor government is the one improving outcomes in female dominated workplaces and industries.

My husband, Finn, and I juggle three young children, Celeste, Ossi and Dash. Finn is an incredibly supportive partner when it comes to caring for our children, but we understand how important it is for parents and women to have access to flexible work arrangements—it is essential—and that access is at the heart of ensuring that we can encourage more women, more carers and more young parents to come back to or enter our workforce. This bill will encourage workforce participation at a time when every sector out there is facing workforce shortages. It is no secret that we want more teachers in schools. It is no secret that we want more workers in aged care. We want more early childhood educators. We want more people in the country to join the workforce or to come back to it. But, to encourage them, we must show that we value them, that we care for them and we need to see them have a fair pay for a fair day's work, better working conditions and a secure job.

That is exactly what this bill will do. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill will help workers and Australian families to get ahead. This bill is essential. This bill is urgent. This bill will help deliver a better future for all Australians.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For many years the Greens have been crystal clear that the industrial relations system in this country is broken. It is too hard for people to organise, it is too hard for people to get a pay rise, and it has worked especially badly for women and for the low paid. After decades of stripping back awards and making it harder for people to organise, we have seen wages go backwards in real terms, and people are now suffering, especially when you combine that with massively high inflation. A big part of that is problems with the Fair Work Act.

We also have been saying very, very clearly for many years now that we have a work and care crisis in this country. It is too hard for too many workers and especially women—not only women, but the burden of caring especially falls on women—to balance their work and care responsibilities. People are being pulled at a number of ends. It's not just people having to look after their children; it is also many people being sandwiched in the generation where they're looking after their children and their parents as well. The pressures that are being brought to bear on work and care are reaching crisis point for many people in this country. That's why, going back a decade, the first bill to give people an enforceable right to flexible working arrangements was introduced by me into this House in 2012. It was designed to give people an enforceable right to flexible working arrangements. At that stage it wasn't supported by Labor or the coalition. The first bill to ban pay secrecy clauses, which we know contribute to the gender pay gap, was introduced by Senator Waters back in 2015. At that point it was not supported by either Labor or Liberal.

On this question of ensuring that people have proper enforceable rights to have better pay arrangements and that we close the gender pay gap, the Greens have been leading. The Greens have been leading for years in this place, bringing legislation to this parliament that would have an effect. We've also been crystal clear for many, many years that we need to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It is a blight on the rule of law in this country that, if you happen to work in a particular industry—in this instance, the construction sector—you have fewer rights than someone who works somewhere in a different sector. This includes that you can get brought in front of what is effectively a secret police force and you be denied your right to silence and forced to answer questions in a way that other workers just don't have.

For years we have been pushing in this place to restore the rule of law by getting rid of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and we haven't always been supported by others. But we have been consistent in fighting for women, fighting for rights for carers and fighting to ensure that people across this country have their rights protected. We took that to the election and we've also made it clear to the government that we want to see action on those areas and that we would support action on those areas. When the government brought its bill to this place, we were pleased to see a number of the things the Greens have been fighting for for years included in this bill, although we had some concerns about a number of elements of the bill because we think they didn't do what we thought the government was trying to do with them. One area is fixed term contracts, for example. Again, we'd brought legislation to this place to address the scourge of fixed term contracts and the rise of insecure work before anyone else did. It was opposed by Labor and Liberal, when the Greens brought legislation to this place to tackle the scourge of fixed term contracts in higher education and in the aged-care sector.

We raised these issues with the government and we see that a number of those matters have been addressed in the amendments that have been circulated. On the basis that a number of the issues the Greens have been raising for some time being included in this bill and also the fact that a number of the issues we raised with respect to the original drafting being addressed, the Greens will support this bill and the amendments in this House. They will make a big difference to a number of workers right across the country, so we'll be voting in favour of the bill and the amendments when it comes to a vote, which I understand will be tomorrow. There are still some outstanding issues, and we know that the bill will go to the Senate after it's passed here. In the Senate the government is obviously going to need the support of the Greens to get this legislation through and is going to need the support of others in the Senate as well.

There are issues that we continue to have with the bill where we can see the potential that people could go backwards. I don't think that's the government's intention, but having practised in this area of law for over a decade we know where the traps lie in bills like this. We will be continuing to have good faith discussions with the government about those areas as the bill comes before the Senate. Of course, it will ultimately be up to the government as to what form the legislation reaches the Senate in. We thank the minister for having those discussions with us in good faith. We will continue on that basis as the legislation reaches the Senate. We hope that those issues can be resolved by the time that it gets to the Senate.

I also want to commend and place on the record here the work of Senator Barbara Pocock from the Greens, our employment spokesperson. Before she came to this place, she was Australia's foremost academic in the field of work and care. She knows, I suspect better than anyone else, the depth of the work and care crisis that exists in this country and the solutions that are needed. In the short time that she's been here she's not only managed to get a Senate Select Committee on Work and Care established but that committee has issued an interim report that had Labor-Greens majority recommendations that said clearly we need to start taking action to address this work and care crisis. I commend her for that work and bringing her expertise to the Senate, and getting a majority of the Senate on board. It shows that in this parliament now—the parliament that the people voted for at the last election—there is a real prospect, if we choose to take and seize this opportunity, of addressing some of the big issues that have been affecting women and that have been leading to a work and care crisis in this country. If we do that we will go a long way to addressing 10 years of seeing wages go backwards, the growing pressure and a crisis that means that people can't live their lives with their families, with their friends—live the kind of full life that they want.

Basically, deregulation has got out of control in this country, and that includes in the work sector. As a result people are left with next to no ability to exercise real control over their working arrangements. That means being able to balance your responsibilities at home, your responsibilities that you might have to people who you are caring for, your responsibilities you might have to your parents who getting old and need looking after with your right to continue working. For too long that burden has been pushed down on individual people. People have been feeling the crunch for too long. If we can get some reforms through this parliament where the government does not have a majority in both houses of parliament and is going to need to work with others to get things through, if we can get reform on that during in the course of this parliament, then I suspect the Australian people—especially women across this country who bear the burden of caring responsibilities—are going to thank us for it. We're up for seizing that opportunity. We will keep pushing to ensure that people have more control over their work and care arrangements.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians are hard-working and patient. They have contributed to over a decade of healthy company profits and shareholder value, but precious little of that value has been returned to their own pay packets. Reciprocity has broken down. This is the social compact between workers and their employers. Australian workers are now running out of patience and time. They are in that pincer grip of rising cost-of-living pressures and stagnant wages. In fact, that pincer grip has turned into a stranglehold. It is disproportionately affecting our lower-paid workers, particularly those in our feminised industries—childcare workers, healthcare workers, aged-care workers, cleaners and workers in the disability and community sector. Not coincidently, these sectors have also seen an exodus of workers during the pandemic. If things were bad before the pandemic, they are now much worse. The pandemic effectively acted like a threat-multiplier—much like climate change will. It blew off those weaknesses and exposed fault lines. Those fault lines were then rent further apart so that they are now wide, and this has led to growing inequality in our society.

Although we have near record low unemployment, at 3.25 per cent, it hides a dirty secret—moribund wages growth that has not kept up. It has averaged 2.2 per cent every year over the last 10 years. We have a tight labour market, but we are not seeing a growth in wages—why? Because the pipeline of job security is leaky—it is vulnerable to exploitation, secret pay clauses that affect women, neutered bargaining power and insurmountable power dynamics. There is no contest between a cleaner and a CEO.

While wages have tanked, what has burgeoned is a growing underclass—effectively, a working poor. That's what we have in Australia—a working poor. There's a term for this that I discovered only during the election. They're called a precariat. They live on the edge of precariousness. There are about four million of these workers who are in insecure work, and they have many faces. They're in the gig economy, in labour hire, in part-time work, or on rolling fixed-term contracts. Let's meet a couple of them. One is Lucy, a woman I met in my electorate of Higgins. She lives in Malvern. She's in her 60s, a nurse educator, and she has been on a rolling fixed-term contract for 10 years. Over that time, she has done pretty well—she has managed to buy a lovely house with a beautiful garden. She has a cat. She has had a really good quality of life. Then the pandemic came, and her hours were cut. Do you know what happened? She started falling behind on her mortgage repayments. When I met her, she was on the edge of losing her home, and she's two years off retirement. That is the human consequence of a decade of wage suppression.

Then there's Maia, a colleague of mine, someone I met when I was working on the COVID wards at the Alfred Hospital during the omicron wave in January. Maia is a cleaner. I met her in the change room when we were taking off our scrubs. There she was, removing a top which was saturated with perspiration. The only part I could see that was dry was a tiny little hem at the bottom of her scrubs. I looked at her and said, 'Are you okay?' She said, 'Michelle, it's my third change of the day.' It was about one o'clock in the afternoon. I was on an enterprise bargaining agreement, and I was getting paid well for what I was doing, but I'm not so sure about Maia. She's a cleaner. What about all the other people that keep hospitals go going—porters, security guards, the people who turn up when there is a code grey for occupational violence and aggression, the people who sterilise the instruments in the bowels of the hospitals, and the people who clean up the laundry? They are almost certainly not on EBAs in the same way that I was.

What we are currently seeing, with an exodus of low-paid workers from mission-critical industries like health care, aged care and early childhood education, is a product of misplaced priorities. Low wages were a deliberate design feature from those opposite for over a decade. To me this is something much more sinister—it is a violation of the social contract between people and their leaders. When you come into this House it is such a privilege, and your job is actually to govern for everyone, for the whole country, not just for a thin slice of a sector—your favourites. You don't come in here to govern for your favourites, you govern for everyone. The complete distortion of this value is what we're now reaping from the last 10 years.

The secure work, better pay bill actually seeks to restore reward for effort and it tries to even up the field, particularly between men and women. We've heard much about the gender pay gap sitting at 14.1 per cent, and that's probably an underestimate. It's been stubbornly resistant to change—stubbornly resistant. Everyone in this House has been bemoaning the fact that this is a terrible thing and that we need to do more about it. We don't need pious proclamations: what we actually need is structural reform to close this gap, and this is what this bill introduces.

It zeros in on gender equity; it zeros in on it and makes it a key objective of the Fair Work Act. It means that the Fair Work Commission will now have to apply a gender lens to everything it does. The Fair Work Commission will be backed up by two expert panels, one focused on pay equity and the other focused on the care and community sector, which is disproportionately feminised. We will also outlaw pay secrecy, removing that cloak of secrecy which hides a dirty secret: that women are paid less than men for similar types of work. Casting sunlight over the organisational structure will help make amends.

We will also help to stamp out sexual harassment by making it easier to make claims to the Fair Work Commission rather than having to go through the courts. We will limit the use of these rolling fixed-term contracts—the same contract that was hobbling Lucy in my electorate—and we will expand access to flexible working arrangements. That's so Maia, the cleaner in my hospital, can turn up to work at 7 am knowing that she has someone to look after her children, or that maybe she can defer her work to a little later because her childcare centre hasn't opened yet.

We will increase access to bargaining. People on EBAs, like myself in my former life, earn more money than people who are on award wages. In fact, on average, $600 a week more. But only 15 per cent of workers are covered by EBAs. There is a strong emphasis throughout this bill on bargaining and arbitration. But what I've heard over the last few hours and days is that a scare campaign is being waged around strikes, or an onerous imposition on small business, or that it's overly complex legislation that we need more time on. Australians have already waited for 10 years to get to this point: how much more time do you need? The writing is on the wall!

Then, of course, there have been complaints about a lack of consultation. Really? We've had five months of continuous consultation with peak business groups, with some of the largest employers in our country, with unions, with women's groups, with academic experts and with state and territory ministers. And we've also had a long process of public consultation. We need to end the race to the bottom and to end the sort of mentality that, when it comes to wages, for too long workers have been seen as a problem to be managed rather than the social and economic benefit that they are. Our government ushered in an increase to the minimum wage and a wage rise for aged-care workers, but leaving that to elections is fraught. There must be a better way, and there is. Reforming the system is what this bill will deliver, so that we end up, as I said in my maiden speech, with healthy, happy workers who make the economy hum. I commend this bill to the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the House. In May, the Australian people voted for secure jobs and better pay. Now the Australian parliament can vote for secure jobs and better pay through this Fair Work Legislation (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. After a decade of insecure work, undermining confidence and undercutting living standards, Australians voted to make job security an objective of the Fair Work Act. After a decade in which in this nation fell to 70th in the world for women's economic participation and the gender pay gap actually grew, Australians voted to boost gender pay equity, including the creation of expert panels for the community and care sector, and writing gender pay equity into the Fair Work Act. And after a decade of wage suppression, a decade of low wages being deployed as a deliberate design feature, the Australian people voted for our plans to get wages moving again. The Australian people voted for these reforms. Now the Australian parliament can do the same.

This bill reflects the mandate that Labor won on 21 May. It also demonstrates the priority we have put on consultation and cooperation since then—in particular, the Jobs and Skills Summit, when we brought together industry groups, small business, union representatives and civil society. Those leaders, representing a cross-section of the economy, agreed on the importance of investing in cheaper child care, which we delivered in our budget. They agreed on the need to expand paid parental leave, which we delivered in our budget. They agreed on the importance of building more affordable housing, which we delivered in our budget.

Big business, small business, unions and economists all agree that the current enterprise bargaining system is simply not working. It's not working for business and it's not working for workers and, therefore, it's not working for our economy. Across the economy, employers and employees are voting with their feet. Enterprise agreement take-up is at a 30-year low. It's a one-size-fits-all system that is no longer fit for purpose. It's not attune to the way we work in Australia in 2022, it's not relevant or useful for small businesses and their staff, it's not delivering the productivity gains employers need and it's not delivering the wage rises that workers deserve.

The current system is failing women worst of all, because it is those workforces with the most women that currently have the least bargaining power and the lowest pay. Disability care workers, cleaners, early educators, healthcare workers, the carers who keep the promise of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the people who educate our youngest Australians, nurses who stand on the frontline of our health system—heroes of the pandemic but, more than that, heroes every single day. These Australians deserve more than our thanks. They deserve better support, better conditions and better pay.

I will always be proud that one of the first things our government did on coming to office was secure a substantial increase in the minimum wage. I am delighted that, last Friday, the Fair Work Commission granted a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers. Do we on this side of the House welcome this progress? I say, 'Absolutely!' But on this side of the House we understand. As the Fair Work Commission acknowledged on Friday, 'Work in feminised industries, including care work, has been historically undervalued,' and the fastest and most effective way to address this failure is to make it easier for the workers in these industries to advocate together for better outcomes. Our reforms will make it easier for small businesses to engage with the bargaining framework, to get the support and resources they need to reach a fair deal for their staff, without being buried in paperwork or starting from scratch each time. I want to thank COSBOA for their constructive contribution to this dialogue and reform.

This bill also makes commonsense changes to improve the better off overall test, removing red tape relating to the approval of enterprise agreements whilst still protecting workers. So instead of weighing every hypothetical scenario under which a new agreement might adversely affect a hypothetical employee, the commission will now be able to base its decision on realistic scenarios, giving particular weight to the views of the bargaining representatives as to whether the agreement passes the BOOT. This is about encouraging give and take, supporting businesses and unions, negotiating in good faith for win-win outcomes.

This bill enshrines gender pay equity as an objective of the Fair Work Act, and it creates expert panels for the community and care sector—two policies I put at the centre of my campaign launch in Perth, because economic equality for women is at the centre of our government's vision for a better future. This bill abolishes pay secrecy clauses, which far too often act as a barrier to employees, particularly women, being paid the salary that they deserve. Importantly, this bill also reinforces the right of every Australian to a safe and respectful workplace. In line with recommendation 28 of the Respect@Work report, we're creating a positive duty to prevent sexual harassment, as well as providing affordable and accessible processes for employees to obtain orders from the Fair Work Commission to help protect them from harassment.

Along with these measures, we're banning employers from advertising jobs for rates of pay below the legal award minimum. Imagine the fact that that's okay at the moment—just extraordinary. We're consigning the last of the Work Choices agreements and all the unfairness they contain to the dustbin of history, where they belong. We're abolishing the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission, as we committed to do—two ideological failures that did nothing to boost productivity or improve workplace safety.

I freely acknowledge that not everyone is 100 per cent happy with 100 per cent of this legislation. I understand that there are both business representatives and union representatives who feel that this legislation isn't exactly what they would want. To me, that says we've got the balance right. I've said all along that I'm focused on bringing people together to find solutions. That doesn't mean I expect everyone to agree on every single aspect of every single proposal. If you wait for that, nothing will change. But Australians voted for change. What we are seeking is consensus on a common goal, an economy with strong growth, high productivity and fair wages. The reforms at the heart of this legislation are about building a framework for employers and employees to negotiate in good faith in pursuit of this goal, to agree on those win-win outcomes that deliver better conditions for workers and better results for business. We're giving small business the chance to be a part of those conversations, too. It will be a level playing field for everyone and a strong independent umpire in the Fair Work Commission.

This bill represents an opportunity for Australia to move beyond a system that's not serving the best interests of anyone and embrace one that serves the common interests of all. The bill will help Australia to climb the ladder for women's economic equality. This bill represents an opportunity for this parliament to match its words with actions. It's easy to say that you support higher wages as a theoretical proposition. The test is, what are you prepared to do? This legislation shows what we're prepared to do as a government. We believe that after a decade of wage stagnation working Australians deserve better than more of the same. They deserve action. They deserve meaningful progress. They deserve secure jobs and better pay. The government's position is clear, and so is our mandate, and I urge the parliament to back these reforms, to boost job security, to improve workplace safety and to get wages moving again. I commend the bill to the House.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's wind the clock back, because that's what this legislation is attempting to do. It's winding us back to the dark ages of industrial thuggery in Australia. Going back to 1986, I was only 11. The Australian Bureau of Statistics—these are facts—recorded a total of 1,892 strikes across the country, involving more than half a million workers. Those strikes amounted to over a million working days lost. Businesses, including many small to medium businesses that could ill afford it, had to wear the cost of that low and lost productivity. In the year to June 2022 there were 52 disputes. That's 97 per cent less disruption than there was in the bad old days.

The industrial relations system isn't broken, but those opposite want to fix it, and by 'fix it' I mean change it to benefit their union mates. There's been plenty of talk from the other side about low-paid and insecure workers, but it's a smokescreen. If Labor really cared about lifting up low-paid and insecure workers, it would split the bill and get those elements passed. Instead, it has become the feel-good mantra the other side can keep spouting to avoid talking about the reality of the rest of this damaging and dangerous bill. These reforms will put unions back at the centre of industrial relations, remove choices for employers and workers, and we will be on a downward spiral of escalating disputes, strikes, loss of productivity—very important work productivity—and competitiveness.

In pursuing this payback to the unions, those opposite are also willing to trash the Hawke-Keating legacy. Even before the Hawke government was elected in 1983, they had struck a chord. Unions, who, from the 1970s, had used their power to push for ever higher over-award wage increases, were brought to heel. Industrial strikes, surging real wages, high inflation and a low-growth economy had to be addressed. The Prices and Incomes Accord saw unions agree to control wage demands to help get inflation under control. The Hawke government would compensate workers through a series of measures including tax relief and a compulsory retirement savings scheme. Workers would also benefit from a stronger economy and economic reforms to open Australia to competition and improve productivity. The accord lasted, in various iterations, until the mid-1990s.

In May 1986, Treasurer Paul Keating made his infamous banana republic reference. Keating told 2UE Sydney broadcaster John Laws on 14 May 1986:

If this government cannot get the adjustment, get manufacturing going again, and keep moderate wage outcomes and a sensible economic policy, then Australia is basically done for. We will end up being a third-rate economy ... a banana republic.

Keating was sounding the alarm bell, warning that things would get tougher unless reforms continued. Tariff cuts, deregulations and a shift away from centralised wage fixing were key elements, and by the late 1980s it was generally accepted that a more flexible and more productive economy would raise and maintain living standards for all. Accord Mark III, which came into effect in 1987, set out a minimum safety net for workers pay and conditions and allowed unions to negotiate at the enterprise level for higher wages tied to increased productivity. It is a principle that has remained at the core of wages policy ever since, and now it has been trashed.

Labor have made it clear they want to hand over all workplaces to the unions, including small and family businesses. Industry-wide bargaining will be devastating for the Australian economy, leading to widespread strike action. Labor promised higher wages but then delivered a first budget that didn't address wage growth. They don't have the stomach for the economic reforms required.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite may be interested in this: the Hawke-Keating era is notable because it demonstrated that governments are most effective when they are prepared to take on elements of their own constituency. This government is instead handing over the reins to the unions. It is capitulating. It is abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a recipe for chaos and costly delays in the building sector. It is expanding multi-employer bargaining, including the single interest stream, by allowing Fair Work Commission to authorise workers with common interests to bargain together where it is in the public interest for them to do so. The common interest definition is so broad as to be laughable: their commonality could just be trading in the same shopping centre.

Business groups are united in their condemnation of this aspect of the legislation. Those opposite are gifting unions the power to compel employers to bargain together if the move has the support of the majority of employees. This is backed by the right to strike. Small businesses could be coerced into bargaining based on some vague common interest, which is fundamentally unfair. In time, these multi-employer agreements will be the new form of a centralised wage fixing system, where the wage will be fixed by a union or the commission. We are going back to the bad old days. By retaining the ability of employees to take industrial action at the same time as allowing a broader range of employees to be compelled to bargain together, the bill significantly increases the risk of multisector industrial action, and strikes will be the norm rather than the exception.

Understandably, businesses, including businesses in my electorate, are worried about a future that can force them to negotiate with the unions and enter arbitration, rather than dealing directly with their own workers.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Chief Executive, Andrew McKellar, has warned that compulsory multi-employer bargaining is 'a seismic shift to Australia's workplace relations system, reversing decades of tripartite consensus that would result in more strikes, fewer jobs, centralised decision-making and less trust within our enterprises.' Innes Willox from the Australian Industry Group said:

The legislation is fundamentally flawed and needs to be rethought and reworked. Given its implications for our economy, employers and workers …

Business Council of Australia Chief Executive Jennifer Westacott said, 'We want wages to go up but that won't be achieved by creating more complexity, more strikes and higher unemployment.'

We all want wages to go up, but this is not necessary reform to encourage proportionate and productive growth in wages. It is reform aimed at restoring the relevance of unions and ceding to them the power to return to the bullyboy tactics of the past. It's a recipe for chaos and disruption. For the businesses in my electorate, there will be no dividend. They will face higher costs, lower productivity and an increased threat of industrial disputes. It will require small business owners with more than 14 employees to spend a significant amount of time away from their work, negotiating a joint bargaining position with other employees and then negotiating with unions and their employees. The bargaining process will be a multi-employer agreement that will inevitably lead to clauses that are not relevant to the requirements of the business and will cause operational difficulties.

Here's just one example: disputes over flexible work arrangement requests will be dealt with by the Fair Work Commission, which can move them to arbitration. A single employee can go to the commission, and it can decide on the flexible work request, which is unprecedented in Australian workplace relations history. It effectively takes away the employer's right to manage their business. This so-called plan for higher wages will threaten the viability of businesses and cost jobs, and you can't earn higher wages if you don't have a job because the person running the business has gone out of business.

The Productivity Commission has warned that any changes to the Fair Work Act to increase the use of multi-employer and industry sector-wide bargaining are likely to have uncertain implications for productivity and should be undertaken with caution and subject to detailed, rigorous and transparent analysis. That's not what we are getting as both houses of parliament move through looking at this bill. The crossbench have made that very point. The changes that Labor now proposes to make enterprise agreements easier and sunset zombie agreements could have been passed 18 months ago, but Labor opposed them. Rather than agreements locking in terms for the life of the agreement that might be developed by businesses and employees, terms can be subject to continuous challenge or scrutiny if there is a prospect of employees being worse off under the agreement when compared to the modern award, so it will lead to more confusion and more uncertainty for businesses that employ people and pay wages.

If this government wants to help workers and raise their standard of living, it should be tackling the cost-of-living crisis and not adding to inflationary pressures. It should be tackling affordable energy, but instead this government is driving up gas and electricity prices with flawed policy. This is a bad bill. It's bad policy and I cannot support it.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very happy to contribute to this debate on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill. I thank the previous speakers, both on this side and that side of the House, as well as the members of the crossbench who raised some interesting concerns around how this legislation has been brought into the national conversation. Such is the impact of this legislation, so profound are the costs for the workforce and the changes in the way Australia's workers go about their work that this may well be the defining legislation of this parliament. Much as we saw the mining tax define the Rudd government and the carbon tax define the Gillard government, I do believe this will be the legislation that defines this current government. In addressing this IR bill, I'm happy to state that I have no inherent animus towards unions. I'm not entering this from a union-bashing position.

I grew up on a construction site and spent most of my life in the mining industry, and I saw the decline in union membership in both of those industries during my time. When I started out in Ipswich there were union guys everywhere; if you go onto a construction site nowadays that has changed. It's the same in the mining industry. But I've always been happy to work with them and to have open fights with them. Together we work to make our workplaces safer and more productive. They're part of that conversation. What I do rally against, and what this legislation brings into the debate, is the undue accumulation of power. I rally against that, with its monopoly in business, overreach of bureaucracy and government or, as here, excessive union dominance. That's what this legislation threatens.

Our IR system is not perfect, and I'm not arguing that it is. I join with the Leader of the Opposition and many on this side—and, certainly, on the other side—in wanting to see it improved. Over the long-stay course of the last three decades we have seen many improvements made by both sides, and I recognise that. There's no argument that across Australia's history, our workplace relations have improved. In a comparative view, I look to my experience in managing projects overseas with large, unionised workforces and it would be completely untrue to say that Australia's industrial relations are not generous or supportive of workers. We live in a good country and we've worked hard to get here.

But so profound are the changes that this bill brings to the Australian workplace, it's right to shine a light on the government's attempts to rush this bill through without proper scrutiny. I refer to some of the comments the Prime Minister just made around bringing people together and seeking consensus. The actions taken in pushing this through deserve such scrutiny; the government did not take a clear or consistent position on this legislation to the election and thus cannot claim a mandate for it.

I'm sorry members opposite; I hear the interjections, but that is not true. I'd be happy to see that, because it's not there. There are conflicting accounts on what industrial relations legislation is to be brought through. A clear mandate was not sought and was not given. Labor has also refused to support the opposition's proposal. We have proposed a joint select committee inquiry into the bill, to work through it—to seek what the Prime Minister just talked about, a bringing together of people and seeking consensus. We've offered that, but it was pushed back. We've sought that and we would work with that.

So rushed is this bill that the minister has already amended the bill, on the fly, in the media, even before it hit the floor of the parliament. As legislators, every single one of us should be worried about that—every single one of us should be worried! That is not a sign of good legislation. We come here to represent our communities and to make sure that their voices are heard here—to make sure that the legislation we pass is worthy of the Australian people. To see it get changed on the fly in the media is a clear sign that this is not good legislation.

I want to talk about the impact of multi-employer bargaining on small businesses. This is introducing a huge unknown to small businesses, a segment of our economy that is inherently accepting of a higher risk profile. But in the context of the time we're seeing increasing external risks, like supply security, workforce shortages, inflation and interest rate movements. And amongst all of these risks we're bringing in this legislation. Labor's own budget highlighted how precarious our current economic situation is. The Treasurer has been at pains to point out repeatedly how troubling the economic times are and, indeed, how troubling they will continue to be for the foreseeable future. There's no way that a reduction in productivity resulting from this legislation is an answer to any of those problems.

In its current form, this legislation will have widespread and detrimental impacts on small businesses. Under this legislation, a small business is now exposed to the workplace practices in another small business whose only relationship is geographical proximity. Our workplace relations are being dragged to the lowest common denominator, and there's nothing that a small business which acts in good faith or which engages in best practice can do about it. Worse, this is a hit to small businesses that they did not see coming. According to a recent survey by the Franchise Council of Australia, 68 per cent of small franchise businesses did not understand the industrial relations changes included in the bill or know how they might impact on their business operations. Worse again, of those who felt they did understand the reforms, more than half were concerned about the changes in the bill, particularly concerning the multi-employer bargaining provisions.

Business groups across Australia, small, medium and large, have been posing their opposition to this. SEA, the Australian Chamber of Commerce, the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia have all raised their concerns about this, and yet we're having this rushed through.

The aim of enterprise bargaining has long been to encourage and incentivise employers and employees at a workplace to come together to discuss innovation and productivity, and to find better and more rewarding ways to work together. This simply cannot occur across multiple enterprises of different sizes and interests, who will often be in commercial competition with each other, and who will have different internal operating models, commercial concerns and commercial strengths. In a modern economy, it makes no sense to lump the employees of one business in with employees of a totally separate business in the same industry. This is not a solution for a modern economy; this is a throwback to the 1970s-era union appeasement, which was detrimental back then and is detrimental now.

As with small business, this has significant impact on big business. This bill introduces a risk. I want to focus on one specific area, as the debate is being rushed through, and consensus isn't being sought and people aren't being brought together as the Prime Minister intends. This is just one star in a galaxy of issues raised by this bill. I turn specifically to the impact that this bill would have on the certainty of delivering major infrastructure in Australia. Again, I speak from my own experience and from that of people who have come to me since this bill was put forward. Managing IR risk is not new for major projects. In fact, it's an important part of that project delivery. But what this bill does is fundamentally reduce the ability of major projects to secure insurance to cover against industrial action. Business continuity insurance is hard to get—and so it should be. To get it, a project has to demonstrate that every single one of the subcontractors are operating at the highest-performing standards. It is hard to get, but under this legislation the risk of industrial action will be held in the hands of third parties, and it will then be beyond the ability of the delivery organisation to control. Business continuity insurance is now no longer just unaffordable but also simply unobtainable. You cannot manage a risk you do not hold. Major projects in Australia cannot secure that insurance that they have long been required to hold under Australian government contracts.

The fact that this issue hasn't been raised in the debate so far shows how rushed and without a mandate this position is. It shows that this is ill-thought-through. It is an ill-thought-through piece of legislation. I am standing here after the Prime Minister has spoken, raising an issue that has a significant impact on our ability to deliver major projects in Australia. Major projects in Australia are being held up because of what this will deliver, and it hasn't been thought through. There is no clearer demonstration that what we have in front of us is a government that wants to rush this legislation through without having it debated, without going through and collecting that consensus—that mandate—that it claims to have. It refuses to put it to the test like this. We hear those opposite saying, 'No, this must happen,' that this must be our fault, or something—no, these are the actions of this government. This legislation requires significant and thorough review and scrutiny. This impact will be felt across our economy. This reverses three decades of bipartisan support for enterprise level bargaining. This goes against the long-held objective of boosting productivity. And, as the single case that I described shows, this will have a detrimental impact on productivity at a time when we need to be delivering major projects in infrastructure, in defence and energy, building our nation through this period of a cost-of-living crisis. The government has handed over control to dominant unions.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. For the last decade Australian workers have been let down and left behind by our workplace relations system. We have an aged-care system in crisis, with our loved ones not being able to get the care that they deserve because workers can't earn enough to stay in the industry. We've got nurses literally run out of the system because they are run off their feet. Teachers are teaching in subjects that they haven't been trained in because we can't get enough teachers to teach in the subjects that they specialise in—most of them are fed up and they've left the industry. We have major airlines sacking their workforce and contracting out the work that those workers were doing to foreign corporations on lower wages and conditions—and the previous government let them get away with it, with no opposition at all! Gig economy workers are working all day on several platforms just to pay the rent. Miners are working side by side with their colleagues doing the exact same job, but their colleagues are being paid different wages and conditions.

Australian workers have had enough. The system that allowed employers to suppress wages while cost of living went up and up and up has frustrated workers—mortgage payments going up, the cost of running cars going up, energy costs going up, childcare costs going up, insurance going through the roof. Everything was going up except their wages, under the last government. And finally, after the last election, Australian workers woke up to what the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments were all about.

Remember the cuts to penalty rates? This opposition, when they were in government, actively encouraged a policy that saw low-paid workers take home less pay to their families at the end of the week because they encouraged cuts to penalty rates. Labour hire and contracting out of work exploded under the previous government, reducing security of employment for workers. Public sector wage caps—remember those? They actively discouraged wage increases in the public sector, refused to support wage increases for low-paid workers in the Fair Work Commission, refused to support work value cases for some of the lowest-paid workers in our economy who were doing some of the most important work.

Well, the Australian people worked out at the last election that the Liberal and National parties do not support workers; they never have and they never will. And they do not support a system that delivers fair wages. Everything that they did in government was deliberately aimed at suppressing workers' incomes so that they fell further and further behind. And at the election the Australian people said, 'Enough is enough.' They voted for change. They voted for a party committed to supporting workers. They voted for a government with a policy to improve the rights of workers in workplaces, particularly women, and to lift wages and make it easier to bargain in their workplaces. They voted for this bill, and the Albanese Labor government is delivering the commitment that we made to the Australian people by delivering this bill to the parliament. It is a bill that will promote enterprise bargaining through a fairer system that ensures that workers can fairly bargain with their employers and get better outcomes in their workplaces. It is a bill that promotes pay equity in Australian workplaces and closes the gender pay gap over time. It is a bill that will promote job security and real wages growth so that workers aren't falling further and further behind.

The secure jobs, better pay bill will update the objects of the act to include promotion of job security and gender equity to ensure that Australian workers know what this government is about when it comes to workplaces. It will prohibit fixed-term contracts of more than two years, ending the job insecurity that many workers are faced with on a daily basis. It will expand the circumstances under which employees can request flexible work arrangements to meet their family commitments. Importantly, it will make enterprise bargaining easier by prohibiting employers from unilaterally terminating agreements after their expiry date and trying to force workers back onto award wages and reducing their pay and conditions. It will simplify the requirement for approval of enterprise agreements, making the better off overall test easier for unions, workers and employers to work through. And it will ensure that the Fair Work Commission can amend or remove a clause that does not meet the better off overall test.

Importantly, it will support bargaining across multiple employers, particularly in industries where there's a prevalence of low-paid workers and those who are working in precarious employment, who haven't had the bargaining capacity in the past to fairly bargain with their employers. In that respect, it will lift the pay of some of the lowest paid workers in the country. It will also introduce an equal remuneration principle to ensure, particularly for the care and community sector, that secrecy clauses are prohibited in those sectors so that all employees are aware of what their fellow workers are earning, introducing more transparency into the system. Importantly—and I can't believe that this isn't already in legislation—it will prohibit sexual harassment in connection with work. It's unbelievable that it's taken so long for the parliament to realise that this is an issue and to deliver on that.

I want to make some comments about the attacks that those opposite have made on this bill. They've attacked this bill by attacking unions. I want to say to those opposite: who do you think the teachers union is made up of? It's made up of teachers. The nurses union—have a guess! It's made up of nurses. The aged-care union, believe it or not, is made up of aged-care workers. And the miners union—have a guess who runs the miners union? Miners do! So, when you come into this place and you attack unions, you are attacking workers. You are attacking the workers that make up that union. I say shame on you. Shame on you!

Australian workers deserve better than your patronising, belittling contempt for their hard work, particularly when it was these workers that got us through the pandemic and ensured that our economy was one of the few that continued to be on a better trajectory into the future. How dare you attack those workers, who risked their health and safety? Many Australians could stay at home, but many others, like nurses and aged-care workers, had to continue to go to work to ensure that industries continued to run and that loved ones were looked after. You come into this place and you attack them as a means of trying to undermine this bill. Shame on you for doing that. We will not allow that contempt for and that attack on Australian workers. They deserve better, and that is what this bill is about. It is about delivering a better set of conditions under which Australian workers can bargain for their wages into the future.

This bill is not only good for workers; it's good for our economy. We all know that real wages have been falling in Australia. In the last quarter, the September quarter, CPI rose by 7.3 per cent. Guess by how much wages grew in the June quarter, under the wage price index? It was 2.6 per cent on an annual basis. If you can't see from those figures how far workers are falling behind in current circumstances, then you need your head read. The latest GDP figures, in September, showed that inflation isn't being driven by wage rises and that workers are getting less and less of the national income than ever before. In the June quarter, just 44.1 per cent of GDP went to workers' wages. That is a record low in this country. Yet, at the same time, profits as a share of GDP are at almost 30 per cent, the highest level they've ever been except for the 2020 period, with the outlier associated with JobKeeper. Real wages have lagged behind and have lagged behind on productivity growth as well. It shows that wage rises in reality are linked to the ability of workers to negotiate better pay, and that is what this bill is all about and that is what is frustrating about those opposite—that they don't understand that.

Workers need the ability to bargain fairly in their workplaces that they haven't had in the past because of the restrictions that have existed in the act. This bill will deliver those changes to ensure better bargaining conditions and better pay for Australian workers.

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure that the claims by the member for Kingsford Smith can be realised. Having regard to the budget that has just been released to the Australian people, it says that real wages in the next three years will diminish because of the inflation rate across this nation. I'm not sure that the claims by the member for Higgins, as strong as they were, can be realised by this bill.

The government members that have spoken today and spoken passionately about this bill have said that this bill is the panacea for all of the ills of the nation. Well, it's not. It's not. Some of us have around long enough to see these changes to legislation that come through.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will be heard in silence.

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, I'm happy to have them interact with me! It's actually a great pleasure. I haven't said anything for a long time that has caused anybody any distress, so if I'm doing it now then we're getting somewhere, Deputy Speaker!

The more important part of this is that I don't like to go to the Australian people and say, 'This bill is going to fix every problem in our workplace.' That's because they never do. If you think you're going to fix the wage disparity by just this one bill—that it will all be fixed tomorrow—then it's as the member for Kingsford Smith said, 'In time, we will address some of this.' In time—not tomorrow and not next week, but in time.

If this bill does go towards wage parity between men and women, and does make a difference, it will have my wholehearted support. I'm speaking to those people now who are listening to this debate and getting a view that this, as I said, is the panacea for all ills in every industrial relations area—every business. It's not! Parts of this bill will actually cause businesses like the one I used to own a real problem when they start to say, 'Well, that similar business over there, which is a very, very large one,' perhaps it's a Coles-Myer, 'can afford to pay at a certain rate.' My business, which was totally different, may not have been able to afford that. Did we pay the award? Yes. Did we pay over the award to every employee? Yes—mainly because I didn't want to get into trouble! But we paid over the award—always paid over the award.

Were we flexible? Most of my staff were female and they had children, so we had to be flexible otherwise they wouldn't work with me. Some had to come after they dropped their kids off at school, some had to leave before they came home from school and some chose to work at night so that their partner was home. Of course we were flexible, because we wanted the staff! The most valuable thing for any small business in this country is their staff. You have to have the product to sell, but the staff who are in that building are crucial to the wellbeing of the business. Their relationships with their customers or their relationships with their suppliers are crucially important to the running of any business.

Now we're getting legislation like this, which has been criticised quite strongly by a number of people in the business community, who have said, 'Well, you'd expect them to do that.' What I'm worried about with legislation like this is not the glowing reports of what this legislation may or may not do, it's the unintended consequences of what you may have put forward. We heard the member for Kingsford Smith say that all we have done today is attack unions. I ask the member for Kingsford Smith to go back over the Hansard and try to find somewhere where I have attacked a union. Try to find one place where I have attacked a union. Try to find—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You voted for WorkChoices!

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I did. I was a great supporter of WorkChoices, and survived that campaign very, very well with my support for WorkChoices! That's because all that was doing was putting flexibility into the market. There was more going on in that election campaign than WorkChoices. But please speak up, because everything I've done, all the way through, has been consistent in my desire for flexibility in the workplace, because that's how I had to live as a business owner. I had to be flexible, I paid high wages and I benefited 23 families every day of my life and their lives while I was in that business. And I'm proud of it.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Moreton will cease interjecting.

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What you're doing, member for Moreton is attacking every business owner as the enemy, and they're not. I've seen what they do for their employees and I've seen how they look after their employees. I've seen how they care for their employees, and those are the stories that you never hear because you're not listening. You never listen, and if you're not prepared to listen then you're not going to know what's going on out there in the community. There has been very strong—

Government members interjecting—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, the member will resume his seat for a moment. There is far too much noise. Every member in this place deserves to be heard in silence.

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know they're frustrated and I know that some of them are quite uncomfortable with parts of this legislation. When it leaves this place it's actually going to be split, and the good bits of this legislation will go through and the controversial bits will be held over until next year when they can do some further consideration. It does need closer scrutiny. You all know it needs closer scrutiny and you all know, because of the action in the House yesterday and today, that the bill is being rushed through. In fact, members are not being allowed to take their full time to speak on the bill.

You could say, 'Well, hang on, you were part of a government that crunched a whole lot of bills through very quickly.' I'll admit to that, but I won't take what the member for Kingsford Smith said, and that was that I should be ashamed. I'm not ashamed to put forward another point of view. Isn't that the role of democracy in this House? Isn't there an opportunity for people to stand up and speak their piece and have a say on the legislation? In fact, that's what you are withdrawing from the opposition, putting forward reasonable processes and reasonable discussion and engagement.

I'm enjoying the engagement of the parliament today. I'd love to hear any of you put forward a proposition where you said—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Moreton will cease interjecting. I will ask people to leave the chamber if it continues.

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the member for Moreton is a friend of mine. I would hate for him to leave the chamber on my behalf because I couldn't talk to his family for months.

It is important that all legislation that comes before the House gets reasonable scrutiny. I know this will now go to the Senate and to a Senate committee where it will be reviewed. But the opportunity is now; give the parliament a chance to address some of the issues that have been raised. The No. 1 issue that has been raised is: this bill hasn't been thought through far enough. There will be unintended consequences from this. It will damage small businesses who will be caught up in a net they don't to be caught in. They don't have the HR and all the things that back it. They have organisations. We were part of the Australian Retail Association. They did the negotiations, they set the award, we paid the bills, and we generously paid them. There were other benefits that employees get that are not heard of in this legislation. I admit there are some employers who are totally inappropriate with their staff. They do not pay the appropriate amounts because there are rogues in every area of life. There are people who do not perform in the way they should perform. Having said that, I know the next contribution from this side will be a class act, so I'll stop there to allow the next speaker to make a very good proposal on this matter.

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill represents part of the legislative implementation of our commitment to get wages moving again. After a decade of wage stagnation, it is high time that Australian workers see the pay rise that they so sorely need and so sorely deserve. This decade of stagnation was not caused by simple economic mismanagement but rather by something far more sinister. The nine years of wage suppression under the previous government was a deliberate policy decision. In fact, it was only earlier this year that the former Prime Minister, the former Treasurer, the former minister for health, the former Minister for Finance, the member for Cook, et cetera, et cetera said that raising the minimum wage by just a dollar an hour—a single dollar an hour—would be 'reckless and dangerous'.

The real danger to our economy is the gap between wages and profits. The real danger lies in failing to pass on a dividend from productivity gains to workers in Australia. Throughout the last decade, those opposite regularly and wrongly cited a false economic imperative for wage suppression. In fact, our economy has been damaged by their lack of regard for Australian workers. Organised labour is the best and most efficient way of regulating labour prices in our economy. A well regulated labour price is a necessary prerequisite for economic health and sustainability. By weakening workers at the bargaining table, the reckless former Liberal government fundamentally compromised the health of our economy. And let's be clear: the Liberals fundamentally believe in propping up profits at a direct cost to Australian workers and their wages.

A government member: And their families.

And their families; indeed. Driven by their desire to ensure everyday Australian workers had less money in their pockets and less money to pay their household bills, the strategy of the previous government was to weaken the rights of these workers in the enterprise bargaining process. It is therefore no surprise that we are seeing fewer agreements being struck between workers and employers and fewer again being renegotiated on their time lines prior to expiration.

As I said, whilst the dismantling of our enterprise bargaining process may assist the big business mates of those opposite, it has undeniably damaged our nation's economy. Wage share of national income is at an all-time low. Worker have seen no real wage growth over the last decade, with wages at effectively the same level as in 2013. It is no coincidence that that was when Labor last left government and the decade of wilful Liberal wage suppression began.

The consequences of this deliberate wage suppression have been devastating for Australian workers and their families. In my electorate of Hawke there are thousands of workers in insecure work, unsure of how much money they will have each week to support their families, pay their bills and meet the terms of their mortgages. There are tens of thousands of hardworking families in Melton, Bacchus Marsh and Sunbury who have bought houses and established themselves in our wonderful community, many coming from overseas in search of a better life. This bill is about providing those families and those workers with better pay and better conditions, reflective of the immense contribution they make to our communities, our society and our economy.

In Hawke, there are 15,000 workers across health care, social assistance, education and training. Eighty per cent of these workers, in places like Bacchus Marsh, Diggers Rest and Ballan, are women. Our communities and our country love to celebrate the contribution these workers make. This is the bill that will ensure that those workers are given the wage increases that match that contribution that we celebrate. This legislation will tip the scales and ensure that workers are given a fair and significant platform from which to exercise their rights at the enterprise bargaining table.

The bill will ban pay secrecy clauses, long used to conceal discrepancies in pay, particularly those between men and women. The bill will establish two new Fair Work Commission expert panels, one on pay equity and one on the care and community sector. It is well known and broadly agreed that care work is undervalued, underpaid and all too insecure. So many of these care workers live in Hawke—in Hillside, in Sunbury and in Melton. This bill is about fighting to get them the pay rises that they deserve.

Whilst we recently welcomed a 15 per cent increase in the minimum wage of aged-care workers, this was the result of a long process, including the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. I note that some members have cited this pay rise as a demonstration that this legislation isn't needed. Of them I ask: are we really going to have a royal commission for every industry that needs a pay rise; are we really going to ask that Australian industries become so dysfunctional that they warrant a royal commission before a pay rise is provided?

We cannot rely on one-off processes to change the trajectory of wages in our economy. We must provide significant reform to empower workers at the bargaining table.

We've heard from some in this place that we shouldn't move quickly to enact this important legislation, that there is no urgency to deliver this reform. How long do Australian workers have to wait? They've already waited 10 long years under the previous Liberal government. We on this side of the House will not stand by while the Liberals try to continue to suppress wages from the opposition benches.

In September the government hosted the Jobs and Skills Summit here in Canberra, along with local summits around the country, including the outer western Melbourne summit that I hosted with my colleague, the member for Lalor. This summit brought together unions, employers and governments to discuss our shared economic challenges and potential solutions. The legislation being debated here today is a direct outcome of that extensive consultation process. Any suggestion that the consultation process has been insufficient is nothing more than an insincere attempt to simply delay this important reform. In fact, the consultation process has already led to several government amendments to the bill, including allowing businesses and workers who already successfully negotiate fair, single enterprise agreements to continue to do so, and not extending multi-employer bargaining to industries in which it is neither appropriate nor necessary.

This bill is a about restoring the balance between the power of workers and the power of employers at the bargaining table. It does not set the conditions for economic disruption, for industrial action. But in its rebalancing it demands that employers take a more constructive and responsible approach to bargaining. With profit growth outstripping wages growth so substantially, this bill lays the pathway to a fairer distribution of income from business activities and is ultimately a vehicle for delivery of the real wages growth that our society and our economy so desperately needs.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We once had, in this place, a policy called 'fight back.' It didn't work so well. Now we have 'payback.' This is payback. This is the Labor Party's payback. This is what they're going to do for the unions. Brought to the unions in time for the union Christmas parties, rushed through the federal parliament with debate virtually gagged, rammed through the House of Representatives, rammed through the Senate—hopefully not. Hopefully they will show a bit more common sense—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that those opposite have the numbers in the House. Speaking of numbers, how many of those opposite have ever run a small business—not into the ground but just run a small business? Not many. Let's do little bit more interaction. How many of those opposite have been a member of a union for more 21 years? Again, not many. I've run a small business, and I've run a successful small business. I've also been a union member for 21 years—

I'm getting a few claps. I appreciate the role of unions. I do. I come from south-west New South Wales where the shearers' strikes of the 1890s were in some way a genesis for the union movement. But I have also seen what the destructive power of unions does. I also see that the members opposite are the best money that unions can buy—$100 million since 2007 straight into the ALP coffers—and that is why we're rushing through this particular policy at this particular time. Why the rush? Why not, as so many of the stakeholders have said, just consider this; look at it in detail; make sure that it is considered, practical, effective. No, no, no. That wouldn't be in time for the union Christmas parties, would it? That is why it should be called 'payback.' It's called the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. I've got to say—I'll give you some credit—'secure jobs, better pay'; you're very good at politics, not that good at policy. And that's the problem with this. It is an ill-named bill. It's not about secure jobs, it's not about better pay, and deep in your heart of hearts you know it.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is now interrupted in accordance with standing order 43—enough time for everyone to take a breath, I think—and the debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member was interrupted—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was interrupted.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and it's entirely unclear to me, you will be able to continue your remarks when the debate is resumed.