Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

or SHELDON () (): I will start off by just thanking all the committee members who considered Senator Roberts's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Equal Pay for Equal Work) Bill 2022, because it was a collegiate group talking through the pros and cons of the intentions of the bill. There are a number of us on the committee who have a serious concern about what's happening in this country with regard to the misuse of labour hire—not the essence of labour hire, because labour hire does appropriately have a place in the Australian economic market, but not as a means of decreasing wages and ripping people off. All of those discussions—and I include our deputy chair in this—were honest, open and frank discussions, and we also had the questioning of a number of witnesses. I am pleased to say that the Minerals Council of Australia turned up. They were a little bit displeased by having to appear before the Senate inquiry, considering that the mining industry are among the greatest abusers of the use of labour hire, and I'll go to some of those points in a moment.

But one of the things I find particularly disturbing from the opposition is that they haven't changed their tune, because they think there isn't a problem. In fact, when we started raising the issue of 'same job, same pay' many, many years ago, including through the Senate Select Committee on Job Security inquiry, they actually said that job insecurity and the abuse of labour hire in the Australian workforce was a made-up issue. They just can't get their minds around the fact that they have to hold to account those people in our economy who are exploiting Australian workers. So they decided, 'We'll just pretend it doesn't even exist; that way we don't have to pretend that we're taking any side,' whilst they were actually taking the side of big corporations that have been abusing labour hire.

I note some of the statistics that came out of that Senate Select Committee on Job Security inquiry. For example, the number of labour hire jobs in Australia has increased from 540,622 in 2013 to 797,710 in 2019, a 48 per cent increase in six years. The Queensland Coal Mining Board of Inquiry reported that in 1996 94.1 per cent of Queensland coalmine workers were directly employed. Today, just 50 per cent are, with the remainder being labour hire or contractors. BHP confirmed to the Senate Select Committee on Job Security that across their nationwide coal operations—get this—just 29.11 per cent of their staff are BHP employees. The rest are labour hire or contractors.

During the inquiry into this bill, there was also evidence given by Qantas in response to questions on notice that the Qantas Group has 17 subsidiaries that act as employing entities just for some of the areas such as cabin crew; tech crew; engineering; 'below the wing', which is ground handling; fleet presentation and catering; freight; and other frontline roles, which are described as 'above the wing', at airports. They had 21 external companies that they engaged, all in an attempt to artificially break up the bargaining process and the bargaining position of workers—gaming the system. Of course, we'll hear later today what we've heard now from the opposition that this is a made-up issue. We will hear that everything is fine and we don't need to change the IR legislation because—don't worry—Qantas have got the answer. They know how to drive wages down by not following 'same job, same pay' and by gaming the system.

The important thing about the intent of this bill was to look at some of those aspects in some of those industries that it could address. The committee did come to a view that there were some challenges in the bill and that the bill requires, and this question requires, further consultation. But, again, before I get into that, I think we should also make it clear that this isn't just about aviation workers and mine workers; it's other industries. In evidence given during the inquiry into job security over those 18 months in 2021 and before, a meat worker, Matt Journeaux, from the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, said:

At ACC there was a worker on labour hire working beside another worker, and there was a $500-a-week difference. We see labour hire companies not even paying the award in a lot of instances. Even if they do pay the award, typically our agreements would be 20 per cent or 30 per cent higher than the award, so those workers, even if they did receive the award rates of pay, would be on 20 per cent to 30 per cent less than what the local worker would be receiving.

This included, of course, the Public Service. There 'wasn't a problem'—the government at the time, the now opposition, were very happy that there was no problem, because they were also paying labour hire workers substantially less than what was being paid to direct hire workers. Rather than giving people a career path and building our Public Service, they just treated labour hire as a cheap form of labour. Hardworking Australians doing their bit for the country were paid by our own government, the opposition now, substantially less.

A labour hire worker from the NDIA said: 'In my office, planners, despite doing the same job, were paid differently. When negotiations for contracts happened, we found out that other staff were being paid up to $10 more per hour. Pay for staff performing exactly the same role is often disparate, and many labour hire agencies prohibit their employees from discussing their pay, making it difficult to ask for parity.' That's one of the reasons why the government now has made it clear that misuse of labour hire is one of the direct policy changes that we're taking action on as we speak.

Nick Thackray is a labour hire worker at the Australian Maritime Safety Authority—another example of misuse of labour hire for an area of expertise critical to maintain, within our national maritime safety. You'd think you would want to make sure that those people belonged and felt connected, but, no, the government at the time, now opposition, didn't give those workers one iota of concern because, don't forget, it was a 'made-up issue'—remember that continual parody from the now opposition, then in government? Nick Thackray from AMSA said in August 2021:

Obviously there's the difference in pay, but then we don't get sick leave, we don't get miscellaneous leave, we don't get carers leave and we don't get things like domestic violence leave. Or if somebody close to you dies, there's no leave like that. So essentially every day, depending on what's happening in your life, you make the choice, 'Am I going to get paid today?'—compared with what else is happening in your life.

As far as the opposition are concerned, these are made-up issues.

The committee went through the issues that were raised in the inquiry into this bill:

The increased use of labour hire, without particular reference to jobs performed or the duration of employment, appear to have blurred the distinction between labour hire employees and those permanently engaged by the host employer. Indeed, it may also be contributing to the underreporting of labour hire employee numbers, with many workers who have been persistently employed by labour hire firms identifying as employees of an industry, rather than a labour hire firm.

After those substantial statistics about the massive increase in labour hire, it also says there is a very strong belief that there is an under-reporting of labour hire within the country. Of course, the committee supports the broad aim of the Fair Work Amendment (Equal Pay for Equal Work) Bill 2022 and ensuring that a labour-hire worker doing the same job as a directly engaged employee receives the same rate of pay, but the committee did recognise that any legislative response must be effective and operate as intended and that this requires further consideration. The committee also acknowledged the significant misgivings expressed by most inquiry participants about the limited scope of the bill and the lack of clarity concerning its key provisions and definitions. Whilst I go to some of the details and concerns about the bill—not the objective of the bill but the details of the bill—I also take into account the concerns that are raised again by those in the community. These aren't made-up people. These are real people giving real evidence. Anne Baker, Mayor of Isaac Regional Council, and Kelly Vea Vea, Deputy Mayor of Isaac Regional Council, said casual labour has always traditionally been engaged in the mining industry but usually for things like shutdown work and construction of new developments. No-one is saying it's not a new concept. What with have seen absolutely in the last 10 years is a huge increase. We've never expected to see casual jobs actually being put in place of permanent jobs. We have seen permanent jobs being made redundant and being replaced with casual labour. That's just something that we've witnessed over the last 10 years. It's not a made up issue. It's an issue of a great deal of concern.

This is why it was so important for the discussion on the bill to take place in the hearings with all those participating members who played a role in the consideration of this bill. Several stakeholders commented on the limited scope of the bill—for example, the ACTU was concerned that businesses could move employees onto contracting arrangements to remove the risk of being covered by the provisions of the bill. It argued that the labour-hire sector will no doubt swiftly evolve language in its contracts to move any employees onto contracting arrangements to greatly limit the risk of ever being captured by the terms of the bill.

I might pause there for a moment. One of the things that's also critically important—and the government has foreshadowed this—is dealing with gig workers. Regulation of one part of the labour market also requires regulation of the other part of the labour market: the gig economy. Then we will see individual contracting where it's inappropriate as way of avoiding responsibility. I think that, over the last three and a half years, many in in place and many outside will have found that I'm a strong supporter of contract labour and the rights of contract labour. This is not about contractors not existing; this is about mechanisms being used to turn around gig work to go to the lowest common denominator. I don't mean the workers are the lowest common denominator; I mean their pay is being used and abused.

Quite often it's not often the company that directly employs—though sometimes it is—but the company right at the top, which I describe as the economic employer, that makes economic demands for those companies down their supply chain to keep taking a section off by ratcheting down wages and conditions. Quite often, safety arrangements lost are lost in parallel. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation noted this would be particularly relevant to carers and nurses working in aged care, who have historically had lower wages than their public and private acute counterparts. The ANMF also expressed significant concerns about the use of digital platforms and independent contractors in the aged-care sector.

Similarly, the employer association for labour hire, the RCSA, warned that some businesses would find ways to circumvent any regulations. The RCSA, the employer group, argued that 'any equal-pay-for-equal-work scheme must consider how it can be applied across all forms of market activity relating to the provision of labour, not just to labour hire structures'. It noted that any regulation 'needs to adequately address the activity and behaviour, not the structure, if it is to have any real impact'.

Again, while I support the concept of this bill, and it's important that the government continues to have conversations about same job, same pay, it also has to be run in parallel with what we do with the gig economy, because that means we actually are properly giving people minimum standards.

Some stakeholders were also concerned about the limited number of modern awards that would initially be covered by the bill. For example, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers argued that the bill offers no protection to workers in parts of the economy where labour hire arrangements are common, including construction, transport, hospitality, cleaning, and aged-care and disability-care services.

In contrast to the concerns about the bill's limited scope, some industry stakeholders raised concerns about the breadth of the proposed requirement for labour hire companies to provide additional payments based on the employee base rate of pay, including incentive allowances, such as overtime, penalty rates and other identifiable amounts. I think it would join many of us—other than the opposition—so we have a very clear position, and I think the intention of Senator Roberts's bill is to encompass those sorts of allowances to make sure that it is same job, same pay. I think there are a number of us in this chamber, including Senator Roberts, who see the importance of those issues being dealt with. (Time expired)