Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023
Second Reading
I was elected in 2022 to this place to get wages moving again, and the Albanese government was elected to this place to get wages moving again.
That's because the Australian people had seen year on year on year what the deliberate policy of those opposite when they were in government to keep wages low was doing to their incomes and to their ability to ensure that they were getting what all Australians support, which is a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
That's what the set of workplace reforms in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 is all about.
It is about cracking down on the labour hire loophole that has been used by too many for too long to undercut the pay and conditions of hardworking Australians.
It is about making sure that we finally criminalise wage theft, which takes money out of the pockets of people who are earning it and puts them in the incredibly difficult situation of having to go through very complex processes in order to get back the money that they themselves have earned.
We seek to finally and properly define 'casual work', so that we remove the exploitation that casuals have been experiencing in workplaces, and I will go to some of those stories in a little while.
We want to make sure that gig workers aren't being ripped off.
We know that the gig economy has changed the nature of employment in this country, and, as many Australians choose to use services such as Uber, they want to know that the people who are delivering the services they're buying have fair industrial conditions, fair pay and the sorts of protections that Australians would expect when they are working in an Australian workplace, whatever the nature of that may be in 2023.
I think it is important to note for this debate, because some of the commentary we have seen from those opposite has implied that somehow this whole proposal was a huge shock to them when it was announced that we would be introducing this legislation, that this policy was announced by those who are now in government when we were in opposition.
It was announced more than two years ago, and we took these ideas to the Australian people. We put them out there for all to see.
We were very transparent about our commitment to cracking down on the labour hire loophole, very transparent in our commitment to criminalising wage theft, very transparent about our desire to properly define casual work and very transparent about making sure that gig workers are not being ripped off when they're doing their work.
As the minister has outlined, there has been extensive consultation on the precise design of these measures, including with business groups.
But the most important consultation of all was that consultation we did with the Australian people when we went to the election, saying that this is exactly what we would do.
In many areas, these are not radical changes—indeed, they are about making the current law work more effectively.
I've heard all sorts of commentary from those opposite in terms of how they see this particular piece of legislation.
They claim that they hate red tape, but they're very happy to tie that red tape up in little loopholes that allow wage theft.
They are very happy to tie that red tape up in little loopholes that allow the exploitation of casuals, and they are very happy to tie that red tape up in ways that rip off gig workers.
Like many in this place, I don't mind using UberEATS on a Friday night, but I want to know that the people who are working for Uber are being treated as any other worker in Australia should be treated—with respect and with fair pay and conditions.
When it comes to the exploitation of casuals, we saw a debate in question time today about the exploitation that is happening and we have seen reports on people who work in the agriculture sector.
My two-year-old loves raspberries, and, if she could, they would be all she eats.
I want to know that the people who are picking those fruits that many Australians love and enjoy, including my two-year-old, are getting paid for a fair day's work and are not experiencing wage theft.
Similarly, when it comes to closing labour hire loopholes, it is a really simple proposition, simply requiring an employer to pay rates that have already been negotiated and agreed to, or the rates of pay that have already been set for that work.
When we talk about the employee-like reforms, we are simply requiring workers to have some minimum standards benchmarked against existing award rates when they are working in a way which is similar to employees. Again, we're making sure that people are not treated differently and that people are instead treated with dignity, fair wages and respect in the workplace.
When it comes to our definition of casual, this will just clarify what was always intended for casual work. If you are working regular and predictable hours and you want to be permanent, you will have that pathway available to you.
We're not defining the entirety of the employment relationship at the point at which someone is initially employed, but recognising that, over time, the nature of that relationship starts to become more like that of a permanent employment relationship, and so it should be recognised as such and employees who wish to have it should be given a pathway to permancy.
This is about strengthening Australia's existing workplace relations framework and providing certainty, fairness and a level playing field for both businesses and workers.
I want to go to what we saw in the impact analysis that was provided, again as referred to by the minister in question time today. The impact analysis goes to the question: what is the challenge that we are trying to address when it comes to casual workers?
It acknowledges that some employees choose to be casual because of the benefit that it gives to them. But it also notes evidence in the impact analysis that is in front of this parliament, on the table right now, of some of the 'significant negative impacts of job insecurity that can come about from casual work'. It notes that it can contribute to poorer physical and mental health. It notes that it can result in some Australians being less able to afford medical care.
The impact analysis notes that it can lead to difficulty in securing adequate and affordable housing, and the impact analysis notes the negative consequences of not being able to access paid sick leave, particularly when you're in a long-term employment relationship.
It also references the review, which identified a range of problems with the current framework.
It noted that there were some really problematic challenges that had come about from people who find themselves stuck in long-term casual employment, and these aren't just problems for the individual employees; the impact analysis notes the detrimental aspects of casual work, including the fact that it can often result in an incentive structure where people attend work while they are unwell.
It can often result in people choosing not to take leave, which we would obviously all want them to do, to support the wonderful Australian tourism businesses and other things, because they have a fear about endangering their future employment.
It notes the challenges of long-term casual employment resulting in people's inability to 'properly balance work, personal and caring responsibilities'.
It notes that people who are in long-term casual employment where they've been unable to transfer into permanent employment experience last-minute changes to working hours and, equally, sudden loss of what had been, for sometime years at a time, regular work.
Again, it results in people losing those opportunities around a career path.
There's limited access to training, poorer health and safety outcomes, and there's the inability to secure a home loan or finance.
I would have thought, for the party who are always lecturing about how important it is to help people buy a home, so much so that they want to raid people's superannuation to do it, that, when you've got a piece of legislation that will actually helps people get better-paid, secure jobs, jobs they're already doing, this is the sort of thing those opposite would want to support.
We saw, again in the impact analysis, stories from people who do absolutely essential work, such as casual teachers.
We saw Kristie, a full-time casual teacher.
She's been a full-time casual teacher for six years. She notes:
Teachers, with degree qualifications, are working day to day casual or on temporary contracts for literal YEARS on end, not knowing what we are doing from one day to the next. Hopefully we get a contract, and then we spend time fighting others for our jobs each year …
The system we've got now is literally forcing the teachers who educate the next generation to fight it out for work, when we know we have a shortage of teachers in this country.
Indeed, we want to make sure the kids in those classrooms are happy but also the teachers in those classrooms are happy.
We see the comments that come from the National Foundation for Australian Women, which notes that the current statutory definition for casual 'licenses constructive impermanency and the downward pressure on wages'.
That's the system we've got at the moment. Again, we see these stories time and time again, and it becomes clearer and clearer that we do indeed need change when it comes to our industrial relations system.
This bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, does deliver the change that is needed for so many.
I'll go to the labour hire loophole in a bit more detail. On this side of the House, we recognise that there are legitimate uses for labour hire in providing surge and specialist workforces, and this bill does nothing to change that from being the case. But what we're really concerned about is the loophole which companies deliberately use in order to undercut the agreements that they've already made.
They've agreed, through fair processes, through the existing legislation that has been in place for many, many years, on fair rates of pay for their workers made by an enterprise agreement, and then, despite having made an agreement, they undercut the agreement by bringing in a labour hire workforce that's paid less.
When there's an agreement in law or honour, we have a general principle in this place that agreements should be kept. That's why this is a loophole that we have to close.
And then we go onto gig workers. What we are seeing more and more and more often is that those who work in the gig economy are, indeed, in employee-like forms of work.
That's why we're going to give power to the Fair Work Commission to ensure that it provides rights and protections for people in those employee-like forms of work, allowing it to better protect people in new forms of work from exploitation and dangerous working conditions.
This will enable the Fair Work Commission to make orders for minimum standards for new forms of work such as gig work.
We're not trying to turn people into employees where they don't want to be employees. Many gig workers enjoy the flexibility from using this technology, and that won't change either.
But we do know there is a direct link between low rates of pay and safety. It leads to situations where workers take risks so that they can get more work because they're struggling to make ends meet.
We can't continue to have a situation where 21st century technology platforms are resulting in people working in 19th century conditions. Just because someone is in the gig economy shouldn't mean they end up being paid less than they would have been if they were an employee.
Time and time again we've seen stories like that of Lihong Wei, the widow of food delivery driver Xiaojun Chen, who died in Sydney. Lihong Wei has dedicated herself to fight for the rights of those who work in the gig economy.
She has very generously shared her story of fighting for personal injury compensation for her family after her partner died some two years ago. We've had some five riders across various food delivery companies pass away in the last year or so while working in the gig economy.
During COVID, we saw stories of outbreaks of COVID increase for those working in the gig economy. We've seen increases in injuries. And we've seen so many people struggle to make ends meet when they're relying on gig economy work.
I'll finish by noting something that I started with, which is these reforms have been consulted on widely. They were taken to the Australian people. Indeed, as the minister noted in the West Australian just a week ago:
The Government announced these policies when we were in Opposition two-and-a-half years ago and we took them to the Australian people last year.
So, we consulted with the Australian people. We've spoken to a range of businesses. We've consulted with workers in the gig economy, casual workers, those on labour hire.
We have a commitment to get this done. We made a promise to the workers who are seeing their pay packets shaved off because of these loopholes.
We made a commitment to the Australian people we would get this done.
We've brought the legislation into the parliament and it is just so, so disappointing that those opposite are not just seeking to express their views on this, but in the other place today we saw a deliberate attempt to slow down the progress of the parliament, to slow down the consideration of this legislation and preventing senators from considering this and preventing those who work in casual and labour hire from getting fair rates of pay.