Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Hansard source

I too thank Senator Roberts for bringing forward this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Equal Pay for Equal Work) Bill 2022. I know that this has been an issue that Senator Roberts has spent a lot of time working on. When I was on the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee in the last parliament, I have to commend Senator Roberts for his tenacious questioning of the departments and the agencies that came before us. It was specifically to address—based on what he saw and the advice he got—certain inequalities in some of the awards, particularly the Black Coal Mining Industry Award. I note his interest in superannuation as well. I also note Senator Sheldon's true commitment to same job, same pay, and his ongoing commitment to addressing issues in the gig economy. So I thank Senator Sheldon for his contribution today, too.

I think the key issue is that this bill seeks a one-size-fits-all approach which overlooks the nuances in our labour hire industry that Senator Sheldon himself said has a place in our economy and a significant place in our workforce. We coalition senators note the work of the Senate Select Committee on Job Security and its establishment to inquire into this issue specifically and into the impact of insecure, precarious employment on the economy, wages, social cohesion, and workplace rights and conditions. That was a very wide ranging committee process. I thank everyone who participated in the committee for the comprehensive report that was raised.

There is one thing that I really want to focus on as I address the bill that is before us. While the bill in its current form is specifically applicable to labour hire employees under the Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2020 and the Aircraft Cabin Crew Award 2020, as well as four other awards that currently don't have provisions for casual employment, it also allows the minister to add awards by disallowable instrument as he sees fit. There was a whole chapter in the committee report dedicated to workforce arrangements in agriculture, and I want to focus on that. If this bill goes through as it is, it sets a precedent for a future minister to look at where else labour hire plays a significant role in meeting the needs of that workforce. Agriculture is one of those, as identified in the committee's own report.

The committee heard about the increasing prevalence of labour hire in agricultural industries, specifically in the horticulture and the meat processing industries, which are inherently seasonal in their practice and inherently short term in their labour hire needs. I know blueberry growers who have full-time staff of about five, but during their harvest season—which can come on very rapidly, depending on weather conditions—they can have a call overnight and a need for employing up to 50 people on their farm to help them meet their harvest. You can't just fill those gaps through a SEEK ad or through an ad in the classifieds of the local paper—particularly as we thankfully have an Australian unemployment figure of 3 per cent, which is great news; that means there aren't that many Australians running around seeking employment. But these farmers and meat processors have developed agreements with labour hire companies who have, on their books, a large availability of workforce, and they play a significant role in helping us get the fruit and nuts off the trees, the vegetables off the ground and the meat into the packages.

In 2019 the committee heard that up to 56 per cent of labour carried out in those two industries alone—horticulture and meat processing—was carried out by contractors or other business operators such as labour hire companies. I want to remind people that horticulture is a $15-billion-a-year industry and meat processing is about $17 billion a year. These are not small parts of our economy; they're quite significant.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website shows that, in 2021-22, 60,000 to 70,000 people employed in horticulture alone were employed on a contract of some form. Some of these contracts are provided through our Pacific Australian Labour Mobility Scheme, which is a highly successful scheme. It is a two-way diplomatic relationship between Australia and those Pacific nations, with the communities from which that labour has come and the economic support they provide back to their families and their communities. Just yesterday I met with a group of young people from the Pacific Australian Emerging Leaders Summit, run by Micah Australia and the Pacific Conference of Churches. One of those young people was Remwatia Nokite, from Kiribati, and her key message to me was to thank Australia for making provisions under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme that her family participates in that provides not only the economic security but also the opportunity for her family members, when they come here, to learn skills that they can then take home and apply when they go home. This is a scheme through which a lot of those visa holders come to us, or come to the end employer, through a labour hire company. My concern with this bill in its current format is it leaves the door open for uncertainty in the labour hire economy.

I also want to raise the issue that, yes, while labour hire is a significant portion of our economy and it plays a strong role in our economy, contrary to some representations we've made in relation to labour hire and the broader workforce it is not at epidemic levels. According to the submission to the committee from the Australian Industry Group, only 1.1 per cent of the workforce is employed by a labour hire firm and this proportion is perhaps lower than it has been over the last 10 years. My point is that labour hire employees fill essential needs gaps across industries, including in the black coal industry, that meet market demand within the workforce.

The other key point I want to make is that there are some employees who actively seek to be employed under a labour hire agreement because it provides them more flexibility than if they were employed under a full-term contract. So we need to ensure that we're not accidentally curtailing the rights of people to be employed under an arrangement that suits them and their families' needs. I do agree that Senator Roberts has seen an area that needs to be addressed, but this is not the solution.