Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

I have to say, it's always very interesting to sit here and listen to Senator Cameron talk about his support for vulnerable workers You would actually think, based on everything Senator Cameron says, that he would then be able to articulate everything the former Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments did in relation to protecting vulnerable workers. Let me just remind the Senate exactly what the former Labor governments did in relation to this issue. I'd say it's going to take me all day, but it won't. In fact, it's going to take me less than one second, because they did absolutely nothing. So, despite standing here and articulating your support, Senator Cameron, when you were in government and when you had the opportunity to actually change the law to do something to protect vulnerable workers, you did nothing.

But for those who are listening to this debate, it actually gets worse. Not only did the former Labor government actually do nothing by way of policy implementation to protect vulnerable workers but they actually did the exact opposite: they ripped the guts, quite literally, out of the Fair Work Ombudsman. They ripped the guts out of them by way of both the dollars and the number of staff given to the Fair Work Ombudsman. When the Hon. Bill Shorten, the current Leader of the Opposition, was the minister, he decreased substantially the number of staff working at the Fair Work Ombudsman. That's what they did to help to protect vulnerable workers—they decreased the number of staff working at the Fair Work Ombudsman. But it gets worse. Forget about decreasing the number of staff; when in government, those opposite ripped $26 million out of the Fair Work Ombudsman. When the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, was the minister responsible, he ripped $26 million out of the Fair Work Ombudsman. They ripped the guts out of the Fair Work Ombudsman by taking money away from it and reducing its staff, but they also did absolutely nothing—not by way of one positive policy—to address the issue that they stand up today and say they are so committed to.

In relation to this particular amendment, this is absolutely where Labor's complete disregard for business comes into play. The government is opposing these amendments. Labor's amendment shows that they have no regard for or understanding of how business works. This amendment means that just about any person who is in any way involved in the supply of goods or services could be liable for the underpayment. That's right: any person. Imagine if 10 people were involved in the chain. You'd better hope that you're not number 4, 5 or 6, because you may well be liable. This just reinforces that those opposite are completely out of touch with how this bill works.

Let's turn this into a real-life example so people can understand what this amendment will do. You have a nice young couple. They don't even need to be young; they could just be a couple. They save up their money to renovate their home. They may well be responsible, because of this amendment, for the underpayment of a subcontractor by another subcontractor. Worse still, there is actually a presumption of guilt against this couple. Again, that is something that the government cannot and will not accept. Let's work this example through. If you're renovating your home, as so many have done in Australia, you engage a builder who has a good reputation. Let's face it: you wouldn't want to engage a builder who has a bad reputation. That builder, as many in the building industry do, subcontracts out part of the work. For example, you're renovating your kitchen. The kitchen company, as it can do, further subcontracts work to a plumber. It makes perfect sense to me: they want the plumber to come in and do the plumbing work. The plumber then pockets a premium by underpaying a small subset of their employees. Is that wrong? Absolutely, 110 per cent! And the worker, under current law, can—and should—pursue the plumber for the payment to which they are entitled, with the assistance of the Fair Work Ombudsman should they so desire it. Under the opposition's proposed amendment, you personally would be assumed guilty of the underpayment of the employees three steps removed from you unless you could prove your innocence.

Let's take another practical example that will affect small business: a small printing business. There are plenty out there; we've all used them at one stage in our life. Under this proposal this small business owner, who just wants to run his business, pay his taxes and pay his employees, could be held liable not only for the underpayments of their own workers—which they should be held liable for and can be—but for underpayments by a courier who delivers goods to the small business, the maintenance workers who are contracted to mow the lawns out the front or the service company that comes in once a month to pick up the old toner cartridges for recycling. Not only that, the small business owner would be presumed complicit—that's right, you will be presumed complicit—in any underpayments of workers by these other entities unless you can prove otherwise. In other words, you will now have to provide proof about underpayments that you had no idea were occurring because you were so far removed down the chain. But, under this amendment, you are potentially liable.

Serious concerns have been raised in relation to this amendment by the small-business community right across Australia. If this goes through, it will literally have a chilling effect right across the Australian economy. As we know, given that small business is the biggest employer in Australia, it will have a disproportionate effect on small businesses. In terms of the work the government is doing in relation to labour hire, some time ago—as those opposite will be aware—we established the government's Migrant Workers' Taskforce. It is a cross-portfolio task force. More than that, it is chaired by Professor Allan Fels. I don't think anybody here would dispute, in any way, Professor Allan Fels's commitment to doing the right thing by vulnerable workers. Professor Fels, on behalf of this task force, will be providing the government with seriously considered policy options early next year.

The bill itself is a significant improvement in protections for vulnerable workers, including those engaged by labour hire companies. As I said, we have established the Migrant Workers' Taskforce, which is actively examining, in a very serious and considered way, the issue of exploitation of workers, including labour hire workers. Anyone who can stand here—Senator Cameron has—and say they support laws that will ensure that vulnerable workers are not exploited cannot then, in the same breath, say, 'But if our amendment doesn't get up, we will not support the bill.' Senator Xenophon has clearly articulated the benefits of this bill. This bill is not just confined to the amendment we are discussing today. There is so much more in this bill—in particular, in relation to the increase in penalties. The increase in penalties—and it is a very substantial increase—will send a very clear message to any employer out there: if you are going to underpay employees, you will be caught and you will pay the financial price, as you should.

In relation to this amendment, again, I will not stand here on behalf of the government and say that a mum and dad who are renovating their kitchen should be held liable for the underpayment of someone when they had no knowledge it was happening because they were so far removed down the chain. I will not stand here and declare war on small business in Australia. Why? Because that has already been adequately done by those on the other side and, in particular, by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten. As I have said, this amendment, if passed, will have a very serious chilling effect across the Australian economy. On that basis, I ask all senators to not support the amendment.