Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is my honour to rise and speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Equal Pay for Equal Work) Bill and follow Senator Farrell and Senator Roberts before him. It's interesting listening to is Senator Farrell, who I respect and admire in this place, would you believe, Senator Farrell? He's a thoroughly decent person, Senator Farrell. I always enjoy listening to his contributions.

I wouldn't mind that wine, yes, thank you! I'm deputy chair of the Education and Employment Committee with Senator Sheldon as chair. I want to just say before I make my remarks that I always respect and admire the way that Senator Roberts brings issues to this place and the way that on this inquiry he sincerely brought forward the issues that this bill contends with. I really admire and respect him and I appreciated his contribution, his passion and his commitment to this issue and, indeed, to the workers in that industry. As author and key contributor to the additional comments that were put into the report, while we indicated that we don't support this bill—at least the make-up of it, the particular provisions and how it's been put together—I wanted to say that I very much respect Senator Roberts' long standing connection and commitment to this issue and, indeed, particularly to those working in the black coalmining industry. Senator Roberts worked as an underground worker in the coalmining industry, so he does have firsthand experience and, obviously, through that, he has a very deep connection to not just the issue but, indeed, the people who are connected with it. The witnesses he was able to arrange to come before the committee clearly had a lot of respect for Senator Roberts and they came and presented very passionately their issues. I really appreciated that and appreciated being able to sit, listen and inquire of them.

This bill does primarily focus on the Black Coal Mining Industry Award and the Aircraft Cabin Crew Award 2020, as well as four other awards that currently do not have provisions for casual employment. The coalition does believe that this bill, erroneously, seeks a one-size-fits-all approach. It overlooks the nuances of the labour hire industry. It will have unintended consequences and ignores some of the really important fundamentals, including the desire by some workers to have flexibility and other benefits afforded to them by being labour hire employees. Before coming into this place, I was running an organisation called Generation One, which is an Aboriginal employment agency. Through that organisation, we saw tens of thousands of long-term unemployed Aboriginal people take up training that led to a guaranteed job. It's something that I'm very, very proud of. I hope I can have a similar sort of impact in this place. When I look at the work that I did there through the excellent team that we had there and across the country, it's something I'm very proud of.

We worked a lot with labour hire businesses in creating those opportunities. Sometimes, in this debate, there's a real denigration of labour hire, but it does have a place. It particularly has a place for those who have been unemployed for a long time and who might have significant and multiple barriers to employment. In terms of being able to step out of long-term unemployment and establish a pattern of work, sometimes labour hire provides a unique and flexible environment that enables them to make that transition from having no work and no pattern of work to picking up some casual work, perhaps starting part time or on reduced hours and building their capacity over time. So our organisation was able to use labour hire. We worked with many different businesses—and some of them were subject to this inquiry—that were able to provide a stepping stone for people who had been long-term unemployed with low skills but who, through that transitional intermediary role that labour hire was able to play, were able to transition into longer term sustainable full-time work. So I think it's really important that there is a bit of balance in this debate—a balance that, I know, Senator Roberts did bring into it. We've got to be careful that labour hire isn't denigrated. I respect Senator Farrell's comments that there is a place for labour hire. There is definitely a place for labour hire. I join the concern that it might displace permanent jobs, but there is a place for it and I think we've got to be careful we don't denigrate it.

The Australian coal industry has played a significant role in the modern prosperity of this country and in our economy. Like other sectors of the mining industry, it has provided numerous employment opportunities and benefited regional communities across Australia. The coalmining industry employs around 50,000 workers across Australia with another 120,000 indirect jobs supported by the industry. As a valuable commodity, coal is Australia's second-largest export after iron ore—which is primarily coming out of my home state of Western Australia—and accounts for approximately 11.5 per cent of Australia's total exports. As well as being a strong economic driver and an export commodity, coal is an affordable, reliable source of electricity. While there are detractors of coal in this place, I'm not one to diminish and disrespect the valuable role that coal plays within our industries and our economy and the wealth that it creates. Without doubt, the coal industry has played a pivotal, influential part of the narrative of the Australian success story.

Regarding the role of labour hire, I do respect that there are significantly diverse views on this matter. As I've said, I don't, however, share the sentiments espoused by some who have sought to demonise the vital function played by the labour hire industry. For many businesses—particularly when it comes to shutdown work in the mining sector, when you need a surge capacity or you need to bring in a temporary workforce that can move in and move out—labour hire obviously plays a critical role.

Contrary to representations made in relation to labour hire and proportion of the broader workforce, the current use of labour hire in the Australian workplace is not considered at epidemic level. In fact it's only one per cent of the Australian workforce that are employed within labour hire firms. This proportion is lower than it has ever been, or at least in the last 10 years. In their submission to the EEC, the Australian Industry Group stated that a policy such as equal pay for equal work is unfair, inappropriate and unworkable. Additionally, the AIG contends that the bill does not sufficiently define what a labour hire employer is or what a labour hire employee is, resulting in some businesses inadvertently being caught up by the provisions of this bill.

In the remaining moment I have in this debate I want to pick up on a couple of things that Senator Farrell said. In discussing the government's plans in this area, the government's plans around the fair work bill and the amendments, he said that they have a mandate to do some of the things that they said that they are going to do, that no doubt we'll be debating later today. I find it really interesting that Senator Farrell says that there is that mandate and it was something that they took to the Australian people and got support from the Australian people for it. Granted they did say it was part of their slogan throughout their campaign that they will get wages moving, and lines like that, talking points like that. I absolutely give you that. Australians clearly supported the government. You won; we don't deny that. It's disappointing. I'm disappointed by that result, but it happened and we're living with it right now.

But Labor senators can't say that they have a mandate for the particular provisions of this bill when they actually ruled it out. Mr Chalmers, the now Treasurer, when he was in opposition, when he was the shadow treasurer ahead of the election, was asked in the Insiders program back in November whether or not industrywide bargaining was part of the government's plan. He categorically ruled it out. He said 'We have no plan for that.' Maybe they're just weasel words that members of parliament are very adept at using sometimes. 'We have no plans for this.' Maybe the shadow treasurer, as he was at the time, wasn't in the loop with the government's industrial relations agenda, because he didn't quite know what the then opposition would do if they were to form government and bring in such wide-ranging significant changes to the industrial relations landscape. Or maybe he actually knew that it would be catastrophic to the economy if such a change was brought in. Because he said that they had no plan.

I wish they had stuck to that, because the plans that the government actually had to change the landscape of the industrial relations system are so significant. Bringing in multi-employer bargaining and allowing for anticompetitive natures to be brought into the bargaining system is going to be incredibly troubling to the Australian economy. For example, you've got a situation where you could have Coles and Woolworths having to bargain together in a shopping centre and then rope in all the other smaller retailers that are in that shopping centre, even though those businesses may not have the HR departments, the in-house counsel, the legal advice readily available to them in the same way that a big company like a Coles or a Woolworths might have. These companies could easily be roped in. I see there are some changes to the thresholds that might allow businesses to be excluded—lifting from 15 to 20—but you're not actually a very big business to have 20 employees. All you need to have is a regular pattern of work to be included, so casuals can easily be included. So you can see situations where businesses are going to be caught up in this.

The government don't actually have a mandate on their proposals. They don't have the mandate. Yes, we want to see wages moving. Of course we do. Everyone does. But we can't create a situation where we're actually going to lose jobs. It's better to have a job than not to have one. Your wages are only going to go one way if you've lost your job, and of course that's going to have a devastating impact.

But back to this bill. I again commend Senator Roberts for his commitment and his approach. I look forward to continuing to work with him to find solutions to this problem. Unfortunately, what that lot over there have devised is not the answer. It's not actually going to bring the results that I know you're looking for, Senator Roberts—through you, Chair. But I really hope that we can get ourselves into a position where we can move things. Obviously, what's happening here with this government is going to set us back a long way, but we're going to have to work hard together to bring about sensible ideas and proposals that could really shake things up and shift things around. With that, I thank the Senate for the time and I thank Senator Roberts again for his commitment to this issue.