Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (12:01): I have a riveting speech to deliver here! I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: (1) the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Crown References Amendment Bill 2023 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill; and (2) the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 and five related bills at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:03): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report No. 8 of 2023: National Capital Authority—Scrivener Dam Dissipator Strengthening Project and other works.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr PERRETT: by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's eighth report for 2023. This reports considers four proposals referred to the committee in August, with a combined value of just over $650 million. The first proposal, from the National Capital Authority, is for the strengthening of Canberra's Scrivener Dam dissipator. The second proposal, from the Australian Taxation Office, is for a fit-out of new leased premises at 15 Sydney Avenue, Barton, ACT. The third proposal, from the Department of Defence, is for a mid-term refresh of the Edinburgh Defence Precinct in Adelaide. The fourth, which was withdrawn before review by the committee, was from the Department of Defence for stage 2 of the Armoured Fighting Vehicles Facilities Program.

The National Capital Authority's Scrivener Dam project is to strengthen the dissipator, the basin-like structure at the bottom of the dam wall that dissipates the energy of the water and protects the dam and the river downstream. The proposed works will rectify known structural deficiencies in the dam and ensure the ongoing, safe operation of the dam for the next 100 years. Several risks associated with the stability of the dissipator structure under flood conditions have been identified which, if not addressed, could lead to the failure of the dam. The total cost of the proposed project is $39.86 million.

The committee understands that, if this project does not go ahead, there is an unacceptable risk to the city of Canberra and its inhabitants. The committee also recognises the importance of Lake Burley Griffin, and therefore Scrivener Dam, to the fabric of Canberra, providing public value as a resource for recreation, commercial activities and tourism to the local community, domestic and international markets.

The second proposal in this report is the Australian Taxation Office's fit-out of new lease premises at 15 Sydney Avenue, Barton, ACT. The proposed works will replace the ATO's two existing Canberra City sites. The fit-outs of both these sites are at the end of their usable life. The new lease will also consolidate the ATO's Canberra workforce into a single building and reduce net lettable area by 48 per cent. The total cost of the proposed project is $125.8 million.

The committee supports this project, noting that the Australian Taxation Office conducted thorough consultation with their staff around fit-out design and have a concrete plan to continue staff involvement throughout the following stages of the project. The committee encouraged the ATO to monitor the impact of the proposed project on staff travel times, as the relocation from Canberra's central commercial district to the Barton site reduces access to public transport such as light rail and express bus routes.

The third project in this report is the Department of Defence's proposed Edinburgh Defence Precinct Mid-Term Refresh. The works will replace or upgrade engineering services and associated facilities and infrastructure right across the precinct. This infrastructure is aged and approaching the end of useful life, has capacity and compliance issues, or poses risks to current and future functions. The total cost of the public works is $311.9 million.

The committee supports this project, noting the strategic requirement for the Army's ongoing presence at Edinburgh and the importance of maintaining the functionality of the precinct through the proposed refresh.

The fourth project in this report is stage 2 of Defence's Armoured Fighting Vehicles Facilities Program, which was referred to the committee with the proposed cost of $176.1 million. After the referral, the Deputy Prime Minister announced key changes to the Australian Defence Force's units and equipment locations, which has had an impact on this project. On the advice of Defence that the project will not be going ahead in its current form, the committee did not hold any hearings and concluded its inquiry without making any recommendation regarding these proposed works.

The committee would like to extend its thanks to all those who provided written and oral evidence in support of these inquiries. We'd also like to thank the personnel from the ATO for their presentation, the National Capital Authority, and the Department of Defence for facilitating site inspections in the ACT and South Australia.

For each project, the committee recommends that it is expedient that the proposed works be carried out. I commend this report to the House.

Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:08): I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023. The purpose of this bill is to improve the ability of the Professional Services Review, PSR, to investigate potential inappropriate practice by health professionals, by addressing issues and ambiguities in the Health Insurance Act 1973.

The Professional Services Review is an independent statutory agency responsible for maintaining the integrity of Australia's Medicare program, through investigating and sanctioning inappropriate practice by health professionals. This bill builds on the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023 passed in September this year. That act continued the reform to the PSR, commenced by the former coalition government, to strengthen the review mechanisms—primarily the claims on MBS items. This bill also continues to implement changes arising from recommendations of the Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip.

The bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to clarify and improve administration of the PSR scheme, including to: better align requirements for qualifications of committee members to the definition of inappropriate practice and clarify how these requirements should be applied; ensure that committees can be properly established for practitioners who hold a rare combination of specialties, or are practising in a different field to their formal specialist qualifications; make it clear, where appropriate, that a reference to a practitioner includes a practitioner who is not currently registered, such as a deregistered or suspended practitioner, to ensure that the PSR scheme applies consistently; clarify the requirements for a person under review to notify a committee that they are unable to attend a hearing due to a medical reason, including that the person must provide a medical certificate supporting this; and provide the director with the power to extend the statutory time frame of 12 months for deciding a matter if the person under review leaves Australia or if there are ongoing court proceedings in relation to the matter.

The coalition support this bill, as it contains sensible changes in line with our strong and long-held commitment to protecting the integrity and financial viability of Medicare. Australia's Medicare system underpins our world-class health system. Importantly, it is there for all Australians. We in Australia are so fortunate to have a health system that is accessible and available to every Australian no matter where they live or how old they are. Protecting the ongoing viability of Medicare is key to this.

Medicare, including the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, continues to provide Australians access to free hospital care and more affordable health care and medicines. When the coalition were last in government investment in the MBS and PBS grew significantly under our leadership. In fact, the coalition oversaw record investment in this area and we were committed to continuing that record through our commitment to invest $133 billion over four years into Medicare.

Our approach to Medicare saw the highest bulk-billing rates on record. That is why it has been extremely disappointing to see since Labor came into government that bulk-billing rates have been dropping consecutively every single month. The latest annual data shows a Medicare bulk-billing rate of 77 per cent and 80.2 per cent for non-referred GP appointments in the 12 months to June this year. These are the lowest bulk-billing rates recorded since 2013. This is in stark comparison to the 12 months to June 2021, which saw rates at an all-time high of 88.8 per cent under the coalition.

The Albanese government has overseen plummeting bulk-billing rates at a time when Australians are struggling to pay the bills, let alone cough up for an unexpected GP appointment. We know that the cost of seeing a GP could rise to over $100 per consultation. This government was elected with a promise to strengthen Medicare, yet all the data is suggesting otherwise. In fact, it has only become harder and more expensive to see a doctor under Labor, despite all the headline promises. Bulk-billing rates are falling and the cost of seeing a GP is increasing, creating an unacceptable barrier for Australians in need of critical health care. This proves how important it is to ensure the viability of Medicare is safeguarded into the future.

Right now it is clear that Medicare has been weakened from every angle, and Australians cannot afford for this concerning trend to continue. That is why the coalition will always be committed to supporting the integrity and financial viability of Medicare to ensure that all Australians have access to the critical support provided by Australia's healthcare system into the future.

We were glad to see the government pass the Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill in December last year. This was a coalition bill, which we proudly introduced into the 46th Parliament to strengthen the compliance powers of the PSR and add a degree of flexibility to their ability to address any inappropriate practice. We understand how vital it is that there continues to be rigorous and effective health practitioner compliance to protect the financial integrity of Medicare.

We also have a strong track record of supporting our hardworking healthcare practitioners and peak bodies to correctly claim health payments, with a clear focus on education, engagement and consultation. Australians rightly expect that their tax dollars are being used appropriately and effectively, particularly when they are being spent on our health system, which is facing increasing pressures. We need to not only support practitioners who are doing the right thing by the taxpayer and by their patients but also identify the healthcare practitioners who are not acting in good faith.

We do have concerns, however, with the amount of consultation undertaken prior to the introduction of this bill, particularly with respect to the review which prompted these reforms. Time and time again we are concerned by this government's refusal to allow for appropriate levels of consultation on their policies and to follow proper processes. Dr Philip stated in his report:

Given the timeframes set for this Review, my formal consultation with stakeholders has been necessarily limited, supplemented by informal discussions with participants, and I have based most of my work on desktop analysis.

Once again, we record our disappointment in the way that the tight time frames set for this review acted as a significant barrier for Dr Philip to undertake a necessarily thorough consultation. This is now a well-entrenched theme from this Labor government—they do not take the consultation process seriously, and any consultation that is formed by this government seems to be merely a political exercise. Their approach continues to be all headline and no fine print.

The coalition will support this bill and its proposed changes in the interest of improving the Professional Services Review scheme. We acknowledge that this bill builds on the coalition's work to strengthen the PSR, and we are committed to supporting sensible reforms that protect the viability of Medicare long into the future. I thank the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (12:16): In rising on Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023, I want to move the following amendment:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the severe workforce shortages across the country, high levels of job vacancies and employing businesses having difficulty finding suitable staff;

(b) hiring and retaining employees remains a key challenge for small businesses;

(c) under the Government, the cost of food is up by 8.2 per cent; the cost of housing is up 10.4 per cent; the cost of insurance is up by 17 per cent; the cost of electricity is up by 18.2 per cent and the cost of gas is up 28 per cent; and

(d) the failure of the Government to tackle the escalating cost of living that is impacting older Australians; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) increase the work bonus from $300 to $600 a fortnight to incentivise eligible pensioners to work more hours without penalty from 1 January 2024; and

(b) review this increase every 12 months to ensure these settings remain appropriate".

The coalition will support this bill but moves a second reading amendment calling on the government, as I have just done, to increase the work bonus from $300 to $600 a fortnight. Whilst we agree with the basic proposition of this bill, which is, ultimately, to incentivise pensioners to work more hours without penalty, this does not go as far as what the coalition first put forward quite some time ago. In essence, the coalition has always believed that the best way to ensure that Australians get ahead in their lives and can be their best selves is through employment. We know that jobs change lives, they improve families and strong families make our communities better.

As my second reading amendment has outlined, the cost-of-living crisis is well and truly being felt by the majority of Australians. Across our economy, we're seeing severe workforce shortages and high levels of job vacancies. Of course, it's difficult for every single business to find suitable staff. So having more people be able to access the workforce without it impacting their social services benefits, as we have advocated for for a long time, is a laudable way of not only improving their lives but also ensuring that our economy, at a time when it needs as many shoulders to the wheel in our workforce, is able to get access to a bigger pool of people.

This particular measure implements measures from the government's Working futuredocument, which is their white paper on jobs and opportunities. As I have said before, when this measure was first put in place on a temporary basis, we congratulate the government on finally seeing the merits in what the coalition has already proposed in policy development. This particular measure is undoubtedly a way in which the government is able to, in essence, run with the coalition's idea in a slightly different way so they can claim it as their own thinking.

The problem here, though, is that it doesn't go as far as what the coalition first announced. We first said to the government in August last year that a sensible way of addressing some of those workforce shortages was to increase the work bonus from $300 to $600 a fortnight. It was a well calibrated policy and it was done in a way that truly incentivised those people to work a little bit more without it impacting on them. We know that, throughout our social services system, very punitive taper rates apply. For every additional dollar of income earned, a disproportionate amount of benefit is either lost entirely or tapers off at quite a significant rate. One way in which, certainly on a temporary basis, that can be addressed is in this way.

Twelve months ago, when debating the government's workforce incentive legislation, which was a temporary measure at that time, we—in a similar way to what I've done today—moved amendments to make the changes that were being proposed by the government to the work bonus scheme ongoing and subject to an annual review. The government didn't support that amendment, and here we are. We find ourselves now, 12 months down the track, or a bit longer, and the government is separately legislating precisely the amendments that I was moving last year. Had the government not, in a stubborn and pigheaded way, wanted to have the charade that this was somehow their idea and had independently sprung forth from their policy process—had they been honest and accepted that they were following good coalition policy—they would have accepted that amendment then, and we would be in a much better position now. We'd be saved this process of passing a separate bill just to do what I was suggesting last year. In that sense, pensioners and small businesses would already have the certainty now. In fact they would have had it for the last 12 months.

So I say to the government: last year you opposed our amendments, and we find ourselves here today with you implementing our policies and implementing amendments that were put forward over 12 months ago. Bite the bullet. Have the courage of your convictions. Be honest with the Australian people. Support the amendments that I've put forward today. Let's ensure that the income-free area rises from $300 to $600, which is more generous than the $4,000 increase to the work bonus, which is the subject of this bill and which will be made permanent by virtue of this bill. It's a start. It goes part of the way, but it doesn't go the full way.

Perhaps what we'll be doing, by the government accepting my amendments, is avoiding a circumstance where, in 12 or 18 months' time, we're standing back here and the government is yet again backflipping and accepting coalition policy. Let's not worry about who takes credit for it. Let's just get the best outcome for the Australian people. Let's see that increase from $300 to $600, as opposed to the $4,000 increase to the work bonus from $7,800 to $11,800, which doesn't go as far. It's a movement in the right direction but it doesn't go as far, and we are giving the government every opportunity to do that.

We also are proud to support the income nil rate. This was a Howard government initiative. It was introduced in 2003, which I know seems like a lifetime ago now, but these sorts of policies, once upon a time, were contested. They were difficult policies to get through. Indeed, when we first announced in August last year that a sensible way to address our workforce shortages and to let people work a little bit more without it impacting their benefits was to increase the work bonus from $300 to $600, there was sniggering and chuckling on the other side, and I think in their heart of hearts even the Labor Party walked away and thought, 'Well, that's a sensible idea. That's a win-win.' It's a win for the individual, who gets to earn more, and it's a win for our small businesses, who get to have a larger pool of people whose talents and skills they can tap into. In many cases they are people who have had a lifetime of skill in the workforce and who have a lot to contribute.

To some extent we take for granted now that it's a source of bipartisanship, but our message to the government is that this doesn't go far enough. It's a step in the right direction in that you are adopting coalition policy, but you haven't gone far enough. Let's go further. Accept our amendments and let's see a really fair dinkum increase to the work bonus: a doubling of the work bonus, as opposed to what the government is proposing. We're always happy to work with the government on sensible ways in which we can get the dual benefits of policies such as this, which is, as I said, supporting individuals and supporting small businesses and the communities that are built around them.

The truth, and I say this as a former Assistant Treasurer, is that a lot is spoken in this place about the dollars and cents of getting people into the workforce and the efficacy and the size of our social welfare budget, but in the end I think for most of us in this House—certainly for most on my side of politics—the interest we have in facilitating people back into the workforce is less about the dollars and cents. It's less about the budget bottom line, important though that is, and more about the individual. As I began with in my remarks, it's more about their ability to be their best selves and to provide for themselves and their families. We know the strongest communities are those with people who have that mission each and every day to get up and go to work, to contribute to our country, to contribute to our community and, most importantly, to support themselves and their families.

It's ultimately about that individual—let's forget the dollars and cents; put the abacus away—and about what's in the best interests of that person, and I think that any changes, even though they don't go as far as we here in the coalition would like and certainly don't go as far as those we proposed more than 12 months ago, are at least recognition from the government that the coalition got it right at that time and that our instincts on this were not only good for our economy but also good for individuals. Even though I might criticise the adequacy of this change and the way in which the government has sought to put in place coalition policy with a slightly different name to it, in good conscience we must support any measure, even if it doesn't go as far as we would like, that achieves the objective that I just outlined, which is to empower, to enable and to remove the barriers for individuals to be their best selves and to get back into the workforce without it being punitive and punishing, which we know can act as a disincentive.

Finally, I say again to the government: let's stop the charade—support our amendments. You didn't support the amendments that I moved last year, yet we find ourselves here today, now implementing those amendments. Let's not find ourselves here in 12 or 18 months time, again taking forward coalition policy and accepting amendments I've moved, when we can do it immediately and give people that certainty.

The SPEAKER: Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Landry: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Debate adjourned.

Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Leader of the Nationals) (12:30): On behalf of the federal coalition I rise to speak on the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 and the related set of primary industry bills—six primary industry bills which all go to the core of Australia's agricultural levy system. This is a package of bills which involve a national levy framework that is both comprehensive and complex in its nature, but which provides a crucial role in securing and strengthening the resilience and sustainability of Australian agriculture.

Before we go into the detail of this legislation, it's important to recognise that our nation's agricultural levy system is something we should be immensely proud of. Growers, producers and industry stakeholders all agree that the statutory levy system has been a resounding success over many decades. It has achieved what it was intended to do and done this resoundingly. So any legislation that modifies or changes this framework must be considered carefully. Having done so, I can advise that, while the federal coalition will be supporting the passage of these bills through the House, there are some areas within this legislation package that need to be scrutinised. That's why I'm giving notice that we will be moving detailed amendments—amendments that we believe are necessary to ensure the transparency of Australia's levy framework.

Our $80 billion agricultural sector makes an extraordinary contribution to the economic, social and environmental fabric of our nation. More than 300,000 Australians have jobs in agriculture, fisheries or forestry, while a further 229,000 are employed in the food and beverage manufacturing sector. Not only do our farmers produce our food and fibre but they also manage and care for 50 per cent of the entire Australian land mass. It's an incredible record, and an important reason behind this success is the agricultural levies. Australia's agricultural levy system provides for an industry led levy or charge to be imposed on farmers to pay for research; innovation and development; marketing; biosecurity activities; and national residue testing, as well as ensuring an effective response to any incursion of exotic pests or diseases. In short, these levies are used to fund priorities and initiatives a farmer could not pay for individually. Responsibility for collecting the levies on behalf of the sector lies with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. These funds are then paid to levy recipient bodies, which include the 15 research and development corporations, plus Animal Health Australia, Plant Health Australia and the National Residue Survey.

Despite the essential need for these levies, there is widespread acknowledgement that the current legislative framework does come with a fair degree of complexity and red tape. Since commencing more than 30 years ago, this framework has resulted in more than 50 pieces of legislation which govern more than 110 levies across 75 commodities and 18 levy recipients. The federal coalition recognises that this is not ideal and that it does result in some confusion for farmers and the agricultural industry. That's why, when we were in government, the coalition kickstarted a comprehensive review into the levies framework that was aimed at streamlining, modernising and deregulating the system. This review on the levies legislation was conducted in 2018 and included targeted consultation with 70 stakeholders. Overall, it found the legislative framework serves the objectives of the agricultural levy sufficiently. It also concluded that it was necessary for forging a strong relationship between government and industry. Despite this, the review also concluded that the current legislation is ineffective in meeting the industry's needs, both now and into the future. The message was clear: it was complex and inconsistent, and that with sensible changes the system could work better.

So we took action. After this review, the former coalition government committed $7.2 million over four years in the 2020 budget to modernise the levy framework into one that was business friendly, fit for purpose and easy to use. So it's absolutely clear that streamlining and modernising the agricultural levy framework is something the coalition strongly supports. Ultimately, this is the government's proclaimed intent of the six bills that are before the House today, and the intent is commendable.

The six bills in this package, which were introduced to modernise the framework, have been classified as follows. There are three imposition bills: the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023 and the Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023. There is one collection bill: the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023. There is one disbursement bill: the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023. There is one consequential amendment bill: the Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023.

I will start with the three imposition bills, which will enable existing excise levies and custom charges to be re-established in regulations imposing levies on products such as grains, red meat, poultry and forestry. Currently, levies and charges are split between acts and regulations, so this will allow quicker and easier adjustments to be made to the levy system, including to the rates. We also note that there is a consultation process that must happen with farmers before a levy or charge rates are changed. Other notable take-outs from this imposition bill include the ability to impose excise levies on certain agricultural services. As an example this would include bee pollination services that are provided on a commercial basis to pollinate orchards and crops, which is an industry opportunity that was not available before.

The regulations will impose levies in relation to goods for use in the production of nursery products. Excise levies and custom charges will now be provided in relation to goods consumed by, or used in, the maintenance or treatment of animals, plants, fungi or algae. This will allow the horse disease response levy to be provided for in regulations, rather than in the standalone bill that we have currently. Importantly, a consistent framework will be established across all three of these imposition bills, capturing definitions and exemptions from levies or charges, as well as the rates of these. The bills also provide an instrument to set out the requirements for the conduct of a poll, which will allow the re-establishment of requirements for polls that are in place for the dairy and wool industries.

Also contained in this legislation are some additional changes to Australia's levy system. This includes streamlining the ministerial process for specifying particular industry bodies, making it easier to adapt as names change, bodies merge or new bodies are established. Making other regulations and instruments will also be allowed, which will foster flexibility and deliver arrangements that are tailored to suit the agricultural industry needs. Meanwhile the maximum charge rate will be removed—a move which the government explanatory memorandum says has the support of industry stakeholders. Overall, the federal coalition believes that these measures are practical and will help make the levy system more efficient, more logical and more orderly. However, it's important to recognise that there are further improvements which should be made to these imposition bills so that the transparency of Australia's agricultural levy system is maintained and protected.

During consideration in detail, we will pursue this by moving detailed amendments that the coalition hopes will be supported by the House in the spirit of bipartisanship. This will involve clarifying and solidifying the essential roles that Animal Health Australia, the AHA, and Plant Health Australia, the PHA, have within the levy framework. Both the AHA and PHA are integral in securing a national approach to enhancing Australia's plant and animal health status. They do this by facilitating industry-government partnerships for pest and disease preparedness, prevention, emergency response and management.

In these bills, reference to the existing AHA levy and PHA levy have been removed. In fact the levies have been renamed as the 'biosecurity activity levy'. This is problematic. The coalition believes that removing reference to the AHA and PHA will, as a direct consequence, reduce the transparency of where the levy funds are going. Unfortunately, this has the capacity to generate confusion for levy payers, especially when we consider the future introduction of the government's biosecurity protection levy. Combined with this proposed biosecurity activity levy, this would establish three biosecurity levies. This is not an ideal outcome, and it actually goes against the aim of these bills, which is to streamline, simplify and modernise. As I've said, the coalition will be pursuing this matter further via amendments.

The government 's collection bill—the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023—forms the second part of this legislative package, and I'm pleased to confirm it has the support of the coalition. We are comfortable that the provisions in this bill will improve the agricultural levy framework. Basically, it allows all levies and charges enabled by the three imposition bills to be gathered by the government, and it does not change how individual agricultural levies and charges are collected.

This bill will also modernise the levy framework's monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers and bring it into line with other government regulatory schemes. In other measures, it will introduce infringement notices and civil penalties which allow for proportionate response to noncompliance. It will support the continued use and disclosure of information to administer the levy system, and it will strengthen research outcomes by allowing ABARES and other Commonwealth entities to access levy payer and collection agent information for statistical and agricultural policy development purposes.

Finally, we move into the disbursement piece of this package, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023, which is supported by the coalition. This disbursement bill simply allows the levies which are collected by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to be given out to the 18 recipient bodies, these of course being the 15 research and development corporations, Animal Health Australia, Plant Health Australia and the National Residue Survey.

It's worth noting that the amount of funding collected by agricultural levies is significant. In 2021-22, the department collected around $600 million, and over the forward estimates that figure is not expected to change to any great extent.

In summing up this package of bills, I want to reaffirm that improving the structure, efficiency and operation of Australia's agricultural levy system is something that the federal coalition is strongly committed to. It was a process that commenced when we were in office, and, on the side of the House, we will always work constructively with government on measures that will benefit our agricultural sector. Therefore, the coalition will be supporting the passage of these bills through the House and moving amendments that will ensure our levy system is completely transparent in how it's run.

Another reason why we'll be supporting this legislation is because it is different from Labor's proposed Biosecurity Protection Levy, which is expected to take $153 million from farmers over the next three years. However, the coalition is concerned the imposition of this new levy will interfere with existing industry imposed levies by causing confusion in the sector and potentially putting the whole agricultural levy system at risk. But not only would the new biosecurity protection levy cause confusion, it's just bad, lazy policy and punishes farmers.

Announced by the government in their May budget, this new levy was Labor's answer to delivering a sustainable funding model for biosecurity. Under the government's levy, Australian farmers will be hit with a bill equivalent to 10 per cent of their existing industry-led agricultural levies from 1 July next year. This approach is appalling, shocking and absurd. Why would any Australian government tax their own farmers to pay for the biosecurity risks of their international competitors to bring their products into this country. To slug our farmers with this levy hit is fundamentally unfair. In fact, at Senate estimates when the minister for agriculture was questioned on why the levy was set at a rate of 10 per cent, he admitted he felt this rate was a fair contribution to make. Crucially, this amount was not based on any kind of economic modelling or evidence. It was simply plucked from thin air.

Having dealt with this legislation today, we know the agricultural sector already contributes significant amounts of funding into biosecurity activities through their existing industry levies. The government should appreciate this reality and immediately scrap such a forward proposal. They should listen to those voices of industry stakeholders who are united in their opposition to what amounts to an undeserved tax grab on the hardworking men and women who produce our food and fibre.

When it comes to agricultural levies and maintaining the integrity of our nation's biosecurity system, this policy completely misses the mark. On this side of the House, we know that having a strong and robust biosecurity system is vital for protecting Australia against the threat of exotic pests and disease. That's why the coalition has always supported a sustainable funding model for biosecurity. However, taxing farmers was never considered or part of the mix. In contrast to those opposite, our approach to funding biosecurity into the long-term was targeted at the risk creators, the importers. This was to be done through what is known as a container import levy, which would apply to all containerised cargo imported into Australia by sea. This is what the coalition stands for and it's what the agricultural sector is calling for. This government ought to apply some commonsense, listen to these concerns and take the action that's required.

In conclusion, the federal coalition is proud of Australia's world-leading agricultural levy system and the enormous contribution that it makes in the fields of innovation, research and biosecurity. We want to see this success continue in the future. Our primary producers and our national biosecurity system depend on a levy framework that is fair, modern and efficient. When it comes to the measures outlined in these six bills before the House today, they have our support and we hope the coalition's sensible amendments will have the support of the government.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (12:45): I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the former government provided extensive support for 3.6 million small and medium businesses, which employ almost 8 million Australians, including through tax relief to support investment and reduce costs; energy programs and initiatives to reduce their power bills; and providing billions in support to keep small businesses open and Australians in jobs during the pandemic;

(b) small and medium businesses will be hurt the hardest by the Government's first round of workplace reforms, which the e61 institute analysis has shown will harm firm growth and hurt competition; and

(c) that despite promising to only raise taxes on multinationals at the election, the Government has broken promises by raising taxes on superannuation, on unrealised capital gains, on franking credits, and end small business tax incentives; and

(2) calls on the Government to support the Opposition's amendment to restore the Instant Asset Write Off to pre-COVID levels to boost productivity and take pressure off prices".

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is an eight-schedule Treasury omnibus bill that implements a range of changes to small-business tax incentives, charity tax arrangements, superannuation complaints, superannuation transfer pricing rules and tax treatment of insurance. While not opposed in principle, the coalition has significant concerns about the design, effectiveness and utility of the small-business incentive, and will examine this through the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. The coalition is also concerned about Labor's plan to create different rules for large superannuation funds and small and self-managed super funds through its changes to the non-arm's-length expenses provision, and will examine this too through the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. While the coalition will support the bill, we will move amendments to recognise failures from Labor to support small and family businesses and to extend the instant asset write-off back to the levels seen in the 2019-20 budget.

Schedule 1 of this bill will mean 26,500 medium-sized businesses will be deprived of access to accelerated depreciation. Sadly, this is just another example of this Labor government turning its back on the small-business community. Small businesses employ almost half of Australia's private sector workforce and represent over 97 per cent of all Australian businesses. Since Labor came to office, small business has been all but abandoned in Labor's draft national platform and is an afterthought, and has been an afterthought, in each budget. Time and time again this government has demonstrated it simply does not understand small business—returning union lawlessness to the construction industry by abolishing the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission, removing flexibility from the gig economy, depriving gig economy contractors of the flexibility they rely on and driving up costs for small businesses that use those services. Labor's series of changes to superannuation, award variations and workplace entitlements will make it more expensive for small businesses to employ Australians—and we know what that means; they will employ fewer Australians.

Labor's energy policies are increasing power bills for small businesses that then have to be passed on to consumers in higher prices. Sadly, that means we are not seeing anything like the $275 reduction that was promised by Labor on so many occasions. Even Labor's multinational tax crackdown has been designed so poorly that the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has told the Senate that the law will increase taxes on Australian small businesses. This is an incompetent and distracted government putting in place the wrong policies to support small businesses to prosper and grow. A small business that has to close employs nobody.

Labor's plan for more cost, more red tape and more union power will see small businesses shut their doors in the coming months and years. That's why the coalition is moving amendments. Our amendments will mean 26,500 businesses with aggregate turnover of up to $50 million will be eligible to use the instant asset write-off. The asset threshold will increase from $20,000 to $30,000, allowing businesses to claim accelerated depreciation on a wider range of assets. This aligns the eligibility with the small-business company tax rate and Labor's Small Business Energy Incentive measure contained within the bill. Our amendments would also have a modest additional cost over the forward estimates compared to Labor's measure.

This is a government that is removing measures that would help drive productivity at a time when we have seen a record collapse in labour productivity. We've seen a record collapse in labour productivity in the last 18 months in this country. This bill is just another example of a government that can't manage the economy and that is distracted. While the government has been focused on its divisive and failed referendum, the Reserve Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD all expect inflation to be higher for longer. Minutes of the latest meeting of the Reserve Bank Board suggests that the RBA was tossing up between leaving rates on hold and increasing them again by another quarter of a per cent. Sadly, they made the call to increase, and that is not surprising given the policy and economic context that has been given to them by this government.

Australians need a government that makes reducing the cost-of-living priorities No. 1, No. 2 and No.3. We aren't seeing that under this government. It is a distracted government. A small business that has to close employs nobody. Labor's plan for more costs, more red tape and more union power will see small businesses shut their doors.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Landry: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Debate adjourned.

Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (12:52): The Crown References Amendment Bill is a solution to a problem that does not exist. Under section 16 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, existing references to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in Commonwealth acts are already construed as references to the present His Majesty King Charles III. The Crown References Amendment Bill 2023 makes several amendments to a variety of bills to replace outdated references to 'Her Majesty' and 'the Queen' with 'the King' and 'the sovereign'. The bill creates a new term for senior counsel to include 'King's Counsel' and 'Queen's Counsel'. The bill amends oaths and affirmations by removing references to 'Her Majesty' to insert the applicable pronoun, such as 'his' or 'her'. That is, a king would be referred to as 'His Majesty' and a queen would be referred to as 'Her Majesty'.

However, it is important for the coalition that we seek assurances that the government has consulted with the crown's representative in Australia, the Governor-General, before we can take a formal position. The coalition does, however, wonder why this is the priority of the government in a cost-of-living crisis. It is clear that this government does not have a plan for the economy while Australians are in a cost-of-living crisis. This government's priority is semantic changes to legislation rather than bringing in real legislation to help Australian families.

Debate adjourned.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (12:54): I was talking last night about the fact that there are 4.4 million Australians who are living with a disability. People who live with a disability are 10 times more likely to experience violence. They are three times more likely to be victims of sexual assault than people who don't have a disability. Their life expectancy and their quality of life is significantly less than most Australians without a disability. Theirs—people who live with a disability—is a cause that we must all take up.

As the father of a young adult with disabilities, I have seen firsthand how government can help but also hinder efforts to raise kids and empower young adults with disabilities. That's why I've advocated for accessibility, amenity and health and social care since day one in this House.

I'm proud of the way that our parliament has worked together over the last 40 years to realise a fairer, more equitable and more accessible Australia. For over a decade, both sides of this chamber have been united in their pursuit to make the National Disability Insurance Scheme a world-class, functional and resilient institution. It's really worthwhile stopping and pausing a moment to recognise just how world-leading the NDIS is in the disability sector. We were the first country in the world to adopt such a scheme. I'm not sure if it's been replicated, even to this day.

There are critics of the NDIS about its cost, and it does cost a significant sum of money, but the lives that it changes, from young kids, to young adults, to adults—it is a remarkable scheme. It is a testament to both sides, both parties of government, working together to achieve the intended outcome. The NDIS is as much valued today in our Australian society as is our universal commitment to Medicare.

The current Disability Services Act has been in place for 37 years. In the decades since 1986, there have been numerous developments in the disability sector, including changes in legislation, regulations, international agreements and the provision of disability services.

The Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 will support all Australians with a disability, regardless of whether or not they are participants in the NDIS. The bill will provide a single-source statutory framework for the Commonwealth to fund disability supports and services that are not funded by the NDIS, the states or territories. This bill will not change, nor will it impact, the NDIS or the disability support pension paid under social security law. The Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 will provide legislative authority for new and existing spending on disability related programs outside the NDIS. The bill does not directly allocate funding for specific supports or services; rather, it oversees these supports and services. The bill also improves quality and safeguarding arrangements by introducing a mandatory code, which will mirror the NDIS Code of Conduct. Under this bill, supports and services may be provided to any person with a disability, including those with a physical, psychosocial, cognitive or intellectual condition or sensory impairments.

Whilst there are good parts of the bill, I don't agree with all parts of the bill. One of the concerns I have with the bill is its failure to define target groups. This is where the key issue lies with this piece of legislation. The bill does not define target groups that will be eligible for supports and services. This is a departure from the current legislation. Under section 8 of the current legislation, the Disability Services Act 1986:

(1) … target group … consists of persons with a disability that:

(a) is attributable to an intellectual, psychiatric, sensory or physical impairment or a combination of such impairments;

(b) is permanent or likely to be permanent; and

(c) results in:

(i) a substantially reduced capacity of the person for communication, learning or mobility; and

(ii) the need for ongoing support services.

While not having a legislated definition of 'target group' may provide greater flexibility and access to services and supports, without the additional infrastructure in place there may be unknown practical consequential impacts on the provision and delivery of timely supports and services to those who are most in need. The inquiry currently underway in the Senate should provide greater insights into these concerns.

I'm also concerned about the changes to funding channels through the new legislation. The current legislation only allows for funding through grants, while, under this legislation, other forms of financial arrangements, such as procurements and contracts, are permitted. The act also enables the minister to make grants of financial assistance to states and territories or to eligible organisations for capital works, research activities, disability services and rehabilitation programs. I think that in many ways this is actually a positive thing. The social care sector is in desperate need for innovation and reinvigoration. The old model of the care economy is changing, and we need to be more responsive to technology, health and medical research and opportunities for more effective but perhaps lesser recognised service providers. Loosening the legislation to allow better public access and engagement only works where procurements and contracts are awarded fairly, transparently and with regard to the private sector and community sector—specifically, localised services and small and family businesses.

I am concerned about this for a few reasons. Firstly, this either directly or indirectly means relying on the minister's discretion. Labor have shown that their exercising of ministerial discretion is unreliable. It's the same discretion which saw mobile phone service rorts. It's the same discretion which saw cuts to space, cyber and defence technologies. It's the same discretion which has seen a 90-day review to infrastructure become a 200-day political exercise, at the expense of regional communities across this country. Labor's discretion is guided by union interests and political expediency. You cannot count on Labor to have your best interests at heart.

Along the same lines, I'm incredibly concerned about the disproportionate impact of Labor's discretionary decisions on regional and remote communities. Mobile services, road and rail and defence manufacturing projects; taxes and red tape on truckies, fisheries, forestry and agriculture; and Pacific labour mobility, backpacker visas and regional student worker incentives—all of these have unfairly impacted on regional communities, regional economies, regional businesses and regional families. The fact is that, when Labor gets into power, regional Australians miss out. When Labor gets hold of the purse strings, regional Australians pay the price. Labor seriously need to consider how they engage and actually implement the concerns of regional Australians, their service providers and their businesses.

When we were in government we understood this. In 2021 we released the landmark Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031, which was a transformative new strategy backed by a $250 million investment. It was a decade-long plan guided by an implementation advisory council of experts and lived experience practitioners. The aim of the strategy is to improve the lives of all Australians with a disability. It sets out priorities and plans for governments at all levels to work with the community, business and people with disability to deliver the needed changes. This includes providing good employment opportunities; providing high-quality, inclusive education; and making homes and communities safe, inclusive and accessible. Signatories to the new strategy include the Prime Minister, the first ministers of all state and territory governments and the president of the Australian Local Government Association.

In our last full financial year in office the coalition government delivered more than $39 billion in direct support to Australians with a disability, including $17.7 billion in the disability support pension, $1.4 billion for disability employment services, $155.3 million for the disability royal commission, $134 million for the Information Linkages and Capacity Building program to support community based and evidence based support services and $13.8 million for the Disability Gateway. We mainstreamed the vulnerabilities of people with disabilities across all portfolios, including child safety, family violence, education, employment, industrial relations and even foreign policy. That's what a government does when it cares—it listens, it learns, it leads and it legislates where required.

We await the findings of the Senate committee inquiry into these bills. I simply ask that the government take into consideration the two concerns that I've raised: firstly, that it reconsiders the broad definition of target groups and, secondly, that it seriously considers its track record in relation to supporting regional communities and looks to rectify this before it legislates to allow funding that is open to ministerial discretion. If the government cannot be trusted to keep the faith with regional Australians then it cannot be trusted with the social care of our most vulnerable.

In the short time left for me I want to raise one thing in relation to disability services. I recently travelled with my daughter in a mobility scooter through Sydney Airport. I have to say that the disability services at Sydney Airport were absolutely appalling. Sydney Airport, particularly Qantas, needs to take a very good, long hard look at itself. I cannot imagine how a person who is unassisted would be able to navigate their way around terminals. With transport—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank the member for Fisher for his contribution.

Ms MASCARENHAS (Swan) (13:07): I start by thanking the member for Fisher for sharing his experience as an MP and also as a father of a daughter with a disability. It sounds like he has firsthand lived experience of the way our world is geared. It sounds like he had a pretty awful process at Sydney Airport. I hope someone is listening and they can action how we can improve accessibility for all Australians, including those with a disability.

Inclusion is something that is close to my heart. There are many people here in this place who have a connection to someone—a friend or a loved one—with a disability. The person who comes to my mind is Alice Migdale. She is a woman I have known for over 20 years. She has cerebral palsy   . She is incredibly smart and positive. She was studying psychology when I met her. She is also a really great social justice advocate. She is also in an electric wheelchair. We always love spending time with Alice.

One thing I think is important in this place is that we are conscious of the decisions we make and how they impact the lives of others. Fundamentally, I believe in an Australia where everyone belongs and where everyone can be understood, heard and included, so I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate on this very important legislation—the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 and the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023—and I am proud to be part of a government that puts the interests of people with a disability who live in our community at the centre of its public policy.

A sense of belonging is feeling that you belong to a group or a community. The opposite is isolation and exclusion. Fundamentally, belonging is important for everyone's health and wellbeing. Unfortunately, many of our systems, institutions and structures are still catching up with the needs of people living with disabilities. Because of this, people living with disabilities are at risk of being marginalised and are probably being marginalised at times.

When individuals are unable to participate fully in economic, social, political and cultural life, it leads to social exclusion. When people are denied full access to rights, opportunities and resources that are normally available to members of a different group, this leads to exclusion. Some may describe exclusion as unintentional, such as when disabled people are excluded from services or excluded from participating in social or civic life or have issues travelling through Sydney airport simply because there is a lack of awareness about their needs. This is why we need to be very intentional and make concerted efforts to ensure that structural exclusions are rectified and stamped out.

This means introducing laws that actively include people with a disability and encouraging programs and activities that promote awareness of the needs of people with disabilities. It is something that I have thought about in my role as an MP. In fact, for my last mobile office that we held in my electorate, we had an Auslan interpreter. It's a small step at a local level, but it's an example of how we can include people in our community and make sure they can be included in providing feedback to the government and be consulted with. It's an example of how we can provide access to participation in civic life to make sure that the voices of all people are heard.

It's time for the entire community to become more aware of our deaf community and recognise their culture, their language and their achievements. The National Week of Deaf People occurred last month, and the national organisation representing deaf people, Deaf Connect, hosted a parliamentary breakfast in this place to promote those achievements. I was inspired by the representatives from the deaf community speaking out about their experiences. They talked about the importance of the NDIS and the wonderful Auslan language in promoting the inclusion of deaf people in the community. They also threw some great questions to the NDIS minister, Bill Shorten, which I think that some people, including the media in the press gallery, would be a little bit jealous of. Similar events have taken place around the country. Such events will continue to make sure that we're making a difference to ensure that deaf people are known and included in communities and groups and that their needs are known and understood.

But more needs to be done at a statutory level. For all of us, a sense of belonging gives us the sense of wellbeing that we need to prosper, so why should people with a disability be excluded from that? That's why I'm proud to be part of a government that, through statutory reform, is delivering a commitment to enabling people with a disability to participate fully in a society. The current legislative framework is outdated. Legislation that is now almost 40 years old does not account for changes to the public policy framework since it was introduced.

Firstly, it doesn't account for Australia's international obligations in protecting the rights of people with disability. It was a commitment made by Australia when we ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007. The purpose of this treaty is to promote, protect and ensure the full, equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. Parties to this convention are required to ensure that people with disabilities are treated equally and fairly. The changes made by this bill will reflect our commitments and obligations.

Secondly, the current statutory framework does not account for the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme in 2013, which was rolled out across Australia by 2020. The NDIS now supports more than half a million adults and children with a disability. Many of these people are receiving support for the first time. This includes people in my electorate, who can get support through a wonderful, homegrown organisations which is leading the way as an NDIS service provider. It's in East Victoria Park, and it's called the Healthy Strides Foundation. I am really proud to share with you that Healthy Strides is a world-class and leading facility that puts the latest science, technology and research into practice through intensive therapy programs, and the results are truly transformational. It's providing outcomes for nearly 300 NDIS clients who access their work and facilities.

When you step into Healthy Strides, you see enthusiastic staff and high-technology equipment, and it's a fun, bright and child-friendly environment. I can see all the students upstairs here right now, watching the parliamentary proceedings; the truth is that we want all children to achieve their full potential. We want to see these children and students having a sense of belonging so that they can engage in community. We want to see every single person with respect and inherent dignity. This is part of the philosophy at Healthy Strides; it's an approach that's based on the needs of individuals.

They have intensive therapy programs where, basically, they look at the individual and measure each child's development by using high-tech equipment and then tailor their program accordingly. It's innovative technology transforming the lives of NDIS clients on a scale that was unimaginable decades ago. This is why this government wants to ensure that the NDIS is sustainable for the future—to make sure that it's here to stay so that organisations like Healthy Strides will prosper and be replicated. This will ensure that we see more fantastic outcomes for children across the nation. The changes introduced by this bill will ensure that our legislative framework supports such initiatives. It will do this by matching the achievements of the NDIS.

The bill will reflect on another significant milestone: the implementation of Australia's Disability Strategy 2021 to 2031. The strategy outlines a vision for a more inclusive and accessible society in Australia—a place where all people with disability can fulfil their potential as equal members of the community. For the strategy to achieve its mission, it needs the legislative framework to support it. That's why the legislation we have before us today is critical. It will establish a framework that reflects the current landscape for service provision for people living with a disability and it will adapt to changing needs.

How will the bill do this for all? It will introduce a code of conduct that mirrors the NDIS Code of Conduct. This will contribute to an improvement in the safeguarding arrangements for disability services. It will also align quality standards with those that have been put in place by the NDIS, and will provide the ability for disability services to recognise other standards relevant to disability service provision. It's this provision which is relevant to the release of the disability royal commission final report, which made 222 recommendations. This bill will strengthen safeguards and support a timely response to the recommendations of the commission. It will strengthen the legislative framework that supports people with a disability and won't exclude non-NDIS initiatives.

One of the recommendations of the royal commission was the development of a disabilities rights act, and this is a development that I welcome. This will be an important step towards a proactive approach in good mechanisms for the treatment of people living with a disability. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 is reactive; it comes into force when discrimination against people with a disability is already allegedly occurring or has occurred. The proposed disability rights act will enshrine in law the ability to make proactive and positive actions to ensure the inclusion of, and the protection of the rights of, people with a disability. This bill will work towards those actions and will mean the inclusion of some of the most marginalised people in our society, such as Indigenous Australians who live with a disability. For example, it will support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by providing them with culturally-sensitive protective rights. It will provide legislative authority for current and future programs, as identified for attention by the royal commission.

The bill will not be restricted by a definition of 'disability'. That means that it will provide a broad approach, not limited in its application, and the ability to respond to current needs and adapt to future ones. Including a definition of 'disability' in the bill would function to exclude. This would be contrary to the overarching premise of this bill. Therefore, I support the position of the bill to omit the definition of 'disability', noting that it was a decision made after two rounds of consultation.

In conclusion, people with a disability have the same rights as every other member of our Australian community: the same right to receive support or services, the same right to control over the decisions that affect their lives and the same right to pursue a remedy or complain after receiving poor services. The bill before us today is based on the principles that I have outlined and upholds this fundamental premise that people living with a disability have the same rights as everyone else. It honours the commitment of the Albanese Labor government, and I stand here advocating for the passage of this bill as a proud member of the government. It means that we, in this House, can create the legislative framework to safeguard the rights of people living with a disability, to create an environment for people in the community to construct the standard of service that is needed to ensure that people living with a disability are heard, to ensure that people living with a disability are included and to ensure that people living with a disability experience the same sense of belonging as other people in our community. It means including people to ensure they have the best opportunity to reach their full potential and have autonomy and control in terms of how they do this. That's what this bill is about.

This single, unified piece of enabling legislation will ensure consistency. It will promote best practice. It will be responsive to the modern public policy framework, and it will develop a more streamlined approach to the administration of disability supports and services. It's fit-for-purpose legislation, and I think that it has the ability to improve the lives of all Australians with a disability. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

Mr BATES (Brisbane) (13:22): I want to start by thanking all those in the disability community who contributed to the feedback on the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, throughout both the initial government consultations and the inquiry. Their continued involvement has allowed for the voices of those with lived experiences to be heard.

The Australian Greens welcome the repeal of the Disability Services Act 1986, which entrenches segregation and fails to set out a vision for an inclusive Australian society. By stating that the objectives of this bill are to 'provide funding, outside of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to persons that provide supports and services for the benefit of people with disability, their families and carers' and 'advance the inclusion and social and economic participation of people with disability', the government sets itself a benchmark of success in this legislation which it seriously fails to meet.

This bill also fails to implement recommendations of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with a Disability. The Australian Greens are disappointed and frustrated by these failures because we understand the effort expended by the disability community over decades to share clearly with the federal government the barriers to inclusion experienced by disabled people and the services and policy responses needed to break those barriers down. In my own electorate of Brisbane, I have heard from dozens of constituents calling for change.

In their submissions, the disability community are clear that this bill is an opportunity to put into action Australia's commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This would include committing to time frames for the end of segregated employment, segregated education and segregated housing. Moreover, it would include proactive steps to ensure the provision of services for disabled people over 65 who are not eligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This is an area that has particularly impacted residents in my electorate, and I'd like to share the story of one constituent who, unfortunately, was not able to access the NDIS because she had just reached 65 years of age. This jeopardised assistance with all her activities of daily living, including cleaning and meal prep, as well as support for her to access social events and connect with her community. Moreover, access to the NDIS would have offered her an array of assistive technology to be determined through consultation, assessment and support by an occupational therapist.

This is an opportunity to tangibly and immediately improve the lives of disabled people, including by making reforms to the disability support pension, ensuring the provision of equitable access to preventative and primary health care and making reforms to ensure national standardisation, including a national assistance animal framework. Such reforms are all absent from this bill. The only barrier to the inclusion of these mechanisms is political will. Therefore, while the Greens are supporting this bill in the House, we will seek to make significant amendments to the bill in the Senate, in line with the calls of the disability community. We implore the government and opposition to support these amendments. It is imperative that this opportunity to replace the Disability Services Act does not pass by without our doing everything we can to end the cycle of segregation that too many disabled people find themselves trapped within.

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (13:26): I rise to support the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023. This is a very important piece of legislation because it will help one in six Australians who are living with disability. This bill, together with the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, replaces the Disability Services Act 1986. Anyone listening to this broadcast who thinks of how we understood people living with disabilities back in 1986, compared to our much better understanding of the needs, aspirations and wants of people living with disability now, will appreciate that this bill is a very important piece of legislation that will help so many Australians.

The bill will establish a framework for the funding and regulation of programs for the benefit of people living with disability. And it doesn't just affect the one in six Australians who are living with disability. Think about their families and their carers and how important this type of legislation is. Through this bill, the Albanese Labor government is going to strengthen supports for people living with disability outside the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We're reforming that scheme. Under the previous government, that scheme was let go. It wasn't operating anywhere near effectively enough for the hundreds of thousands of people who are enjoying the benefits of that scheme. There are many, many more Australians living with disability who are outside of that scheme because they do not qualify for the NDIS, and this piece of legislation that is before the chamber will support them. The bill seeks to repeal and replace that old piece of legislation from 1986 with a stronger piece of legislation that has better safeguards and a more modern approach to disability. It seeks to ensure that we provide a better way to fund disability services and support them now and into the future. There are quality and safeguard requirements for supports provided outside the NDIS—and as I said, this bill goes beyond the NDIS—through a mandatory code of conduct and certification, when required.

The bill also gives effect to Australia's obligations. Under our Constitution, there is a foreign affairs power that gives the federal government power to pass laws and sign treaties and also to bring those treaties into effect in Australian law. The legislation that is before the chamber gives effect to Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It introduces a more modern and inclusive framework to provide responses to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. It supports people living with disability to participate in the development and review of services and supports. That consumer choice is absolutely critical. We consider that is really important in the aged-care reforms that we introduced when we were last in government—the living longer, living better package under the current Minister for Health and Ageing. The reforms in this legislation are about giving people greater choice as well.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) (16:25): In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to the question on the amendments moved by the honourable member for Banks to the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.

The SPEAKER: The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the member for Banks to the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be agreed to.

The SPEAKER (16:34): In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wentworth to the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023 on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing orders. No further debate is allowed. The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Wentworth be agreed to.

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway—Minister for Communications) (16:42): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (16:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023 will update, improve and clarify the intended operation of key provisions in the Crimes Act 1914, the Criminal Code and the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002. These amendments are required to support the proper administration of justice and combat serious and organised crime.

Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Crimes Act to confirm that the Attorney-General has unambiguous authority to make parole order decisions for federal offenders. The amendments put beyond doubt the Attorney-General's duty to make or refuse to make a parole order for a federal offender, even if their non-parole period has expired. This addresses circumstances where it is not possible for a decision to be made prior to the end of a non-parole period, such as where that period is reduced on appeal.

The amendments in schedule 2 of the bill will help agencies deal with the threat of serious and organised crime, which poses a grave and enduring threat to Australia's national security and prosperity. In 2020-21, the Australian Institute of Criminology estimated that serious and organised crime cost the Australian community up to $60.1 billion.

Existing import controls have proven insufficient in preventing criminal groups from importing chemicals that contribute to Australia's illicit drug market. Transnational, serious and organised crime actors are using increasingly sophisticated methods to import illicit drugs and precursor chemicals into Australia. Schedule 2 to the bill makes amendments to the Criminal Code to enhance import controls on chemicals that are commonly used as illicit drugs and precursors but which are also used legitimately by industry—for example, in the manufacture of plastics, adhesives or ingredients in cosmetic products.

Currently, these chemicals can be legally imported into Australia for legitimate industrial use by importers that are registered with the Australian Industrial Chemical Introduction Scheme. However, entities not registered with the Australian Industrial Chemical Introduction Scheme that import the chemicals into Australia only face maximum financial penalties of up to 500 penalty units, and the Australian Border Force is not empowered to seize the chemicals from unregistered importers. These measures will ensure that, where listed substances are imported by unregistered entities, the importation of these substances will be subject to appropriate criminal penalties under the Criminal Code and be subject to seizure by the Australian Border Force. The amendments will also ensure the relevant regulation making powers under the Criminal Code are capable of listing dual use substances in a consistent manner.

To fully implement these enhanced import controls, consequential amendments to the Customs Act 1901 and the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 are included in the bill.

Organised crime syndicates are well resourced, highly resilient to traditional investigative and intelligence gathering techniques and readily adapt to advances in technologies in their attempts to evade detection and disruption.

As Australia's national criminal intelligence agency, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, or ACIC, provides mission critical intelligence to combat the destructive and complex threats Australia faces from transnational, serious and organised crime. The ACIC's unique capabilities are critical to supporting law enforcement's understanding of, and response to, serious and organised crime.

The Australian Crime Commission (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Act 2022 streamlined provisions in the ACC Act to provide greater certainty with respect to the ACIC board's powers to authorise special ACIC operations and special ACIC investigations, simplify the determination drafting process and make the determinations easier to understand.

The amendments in schedule 3 to the bill put beyond doubt the validity of things done in reliance on authorisations given, and special operation and special investigation determinations made.

The amendments are required to ensure that the ACIC can continue to undertake its vital statutory function to combat serious and organised crime in Australia and keep the Australian community safe.

The amendments do not expand or otherwise alter the powers available to the ACIC when undertaking special ACIC operations or special ACIC investigations.

Conclusion

The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023 makes amendments that will support the proper administration of justice and help protect the Australian community from the pervasive and multifaceted threat of transnational, serious and organised crime.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (16:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill will amend the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to clarify when a person will be automatically discharged from bankruptcy.

The bill amends the legislation to accurately reflect the way automatic bankruptcy discharge dates have been calculated by the Australian Financial Security Authority and its predecessors for over thirty years, and will apply both prospectively and retrospectively. This will provide certainty to individuals who apply for bankruptcy or have become bankrupt, creditors and trustees.

The bill affirms longstanding practice and common understanding of the way the provisions of the legislation have been historically applied. Upon passage of this legislation, the government will take steps to notify all affected parties so they are aware of these measures.

Statement of affairs and automatic discharge from bankruptcy

For a person to apply to enter into bankruptcy voluntarily, they must file a statement of affairs. This document outlines a person's financial circumstances and is used to determine eligibility for bankruptcy. Persons who become involuntarily bankrupt through a sequestration order made by the court must also file a statement of affairs. The information provided enables the trustee to effectively administer the bankrupt person's estate during the period of their bankruptcy.

Under section 149 of the Bankruptcy Act, a person becomes discharged from bankruptcy three years and one day after their statement of affairs is filed. The filing of a statement of affairs essentially commences a person's period of bankruptcy. This provision was inserted in the act in 1991 and was intended to encourage those subject to a sequestration order following a creditor's petition to file their statement of affairs.

Established practices of the official receiver

In practice, individuals often need assistance from the Australian Financial Security Authority, in its capacity as the official receiver, in order to provide a statement of affairs that is adequate for the purposes of administering the person's estate under bankruptcy.

It has been the longstanding practice of the Australian Financial Security Authority, and its predecessors, to record a bankruptcy applicant's statement of affairs as having been filed on the date it is accepted, rather than the date it was initially 'presented' or provided. This practice is designed to support vulnerable people by minimising the risk of an application for bankruptcy being rejected. The process allows bankruptcy applications to be assessed for completeness and, if required, applicants to be supported to identify and obtain missing information. Where a statement of affairs is adequate, it is accepted on the day it is provided, however where it is not, the acceptance date may be later. The same approach has been taken where someone becomes bankrupt involuntarily.

Amendments to align the act with current practice

The bill will amend the act to enable the Australian Financial Security Authority to continue its practice of assessing bankruptcy applications for adequacy before the period of a person's bankruptcy commences.

New provisions will be inserted into the act to require the official receiver to either accept, or refuse to accept, a statement of affairs within 14 days of receiving it. This will ensure that decisions are made within a reasonable time, and provide greater certainty to individuals who apply for bankruptcy or have become bankrupt involuntarily.

Validation of discharge dates and decisions

The bill includes amendments to ensure that the bankruptcy period of those who are, or have been, bankrupt is consistent with the dates recorded by the Official Receiver prior to commencement in respect to the bankruptcy. This will validate decisions made before commencement of the bill in reliance on those dates. This will allow bankrupted persons, the trustees of their estates, and other entities who rely on the dates within the National Personal Insolvency Index, to be assured that the discharge dates of existing bankruptcies are not being changed.

However, the validation of things done before commencement does not apply to criminal proceedings. This is to ensure that, if a person believes they were wrongfully convicted of a crime due to a mistaken understanding that they were bankrupt at a particular time, the bill will not restrict their ability to challenge their conviction.

Conclusion

It is essential that there be certainty in the bankruptcy system. The amendments in the bill will provide certainty to individuals and industry by affirming a longstanding practice and common understanding of the application of the legislation.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (17:34): The Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, along with the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional) Bill, will help deliver on the Albanese government's commitment to enable people with disability to fully participate in our community life and exercise agency over their lives. It's very important for people with disability to have the same kinds of choices all of us have—in fact, it's absolutely crucial. If we do this in relation to people living long lives so they live better in their senior years, we should do it for people living with disability. This is really a fundamental principle underlining the NDIS, which aims to give people living with disability greater choice and control over their lives. It also reflects the principle of equity—which is a fundamental principle in our democracy and is also in the DNA of Australians—that we should target assistance to those most in need.

Some groups in our society may need additional support and resources to build their capacity so they can participate fully in society and reach their potential as equal members. At the same time, the new act will ensure more responsive Commonwealth funded services for the 4.4 million Australians with disability, outside the NDIS, to improve their independence and participation in community and in the workforce more generally. This is because supporting Australians with disability is more than just the NDIS. This act will help enable that by bringing legislation for all people living with disability into the 21st century.

Disability supports and services have changed very significantly since the 1980s. The current legislation is now more than three decades old. It is outdated and too restrictive in its understanding to accommodate the changing landscape of disability policy. This includes a shift towards creating a more inclusive society as well as the nature of services that are required to complement the NDIS. What's more, the act predates many of the important milestones in the evolution of arrangements that support people with disability in Australia. These include the introduction of the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020, which was followed by the development and implementation of Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031, providing a national framework and commitment from leadership towards greater inclusion of people with disability across all areas of public policy.

The establishment of the NDIS occurred under the last Labor government in 2013 through the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. The NDIS currently supports over 610,000 people living with disability. It's imperative that outdated and restrictive disability legislation is repealed and replaced so it's more aligned with the kind of services that are necessary to enable us to fully participate. The act assists the government's intention by implementing reforms linked to the policy priorities that the disability community set through the Australian Disability Strategy, which will enable us to provide a broad range of tailored services and supports to people with disability into the future. These developments have also seen the Australian government move from solely providing direct block funding services provision to embracing other models, including person-centric market models of service delivery and support, both within and outside the NDIS.

Getting rid of block funding, whilst beneficial, has seen some organisations go to the wall in this space. In my community, Community Access and Transition Service, known as CATS, was one of the great organisations in our area which went to the wall with the absence of block funding. That was very sad because I thought they were a great organisation which did a lot of work, working very well with young people in Ipswich and working closely with the special schools, including Ipswich West State Special School and Claremont Special School in Ipswich. But that's the nature of what happened.

One of the concerns I have, personally, as a federal MP and a local MP, is the absence of the states and territories in this space, leaving this issue solely to the federal government. I think the states and territories really need to think about getting back into the space in a better way.

In response to the changing landscape, and taking into consideration pretty comprehensive feedback from people with disability, the bill and the consequential amendments and transitional bill have been drafted to support the government's programs. Because of this, protection, safeguarding and inclusion should apply outside, and not just within, the NDIS.

As I've just indicated, the bill was developed with the input of people living with disability through extensive community and sectoral consultation since November last year. Across multiple rounds of consultation, the government has heard from people, their families and carers—and their carers can't be ignored. That's why I was so pleased to see the carers legislation being examined by the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee that deals with these issues. The member for Dunkley is doing a great job in relation to that particular carer recognition act as it's being looked at by that committee. Carers can't be left out, so it's important we get families and their carers of people living with disability to give feedback as well as disability representative organisations, and there are many of them in every electorate across the country. This consultation process highlighted the importance of inclusive, accessible, safe supports and services to people with disability and their families and carers in the broader disability sector.

On that front, I want to acknowledge the excellent work done by disability service providers in my electorate, which covers most of Ipswich, the Karana Downs area and the Somerset region in South-East Queensland. One local organisation is Focal Community Services, headquartered in Ipswich. Focal has made great efforts to continually innovate and to ensure people with disability and their carers can feel engaged, supported and needed.

Focal was established in 1974 for people with disability leaving the Challinor Centre in Ipswich. Their families and friends wanted to ensure they were well cared for and had opportunities in life. Since then, Focal has provided services and support for people with disability, including accommodation, respite, advocacy and services.

Focal's community hubs in North Ipswich and Booval are bright, welcoming spaces—and I've been to them on many occasions—where people with disability can hang out, perform, train, liaise with service providers and receive friendship and support in a nurturing community. They provide safe and comfortable environments. Well done, Focal. I really want to commend Focal for what they do.

ALARA Queensland is another excellent not-for-profit, community-based organisation which provides services in Ipswich, the Somerset region and the Lockyer Valley. ALARA provides a broad range of innovative services for people with disabilities and their families. ALARA rose from respite care services, which was established in Ipswich in 1991. Today, ALARA provides services for more than 900 people with disability who live in the Ipswich, Somerset and Lockyer regions. It has a committed a team of over 250 staff and volunteers.

ALARA has community hubs in Ipswich, Lockyer, Esk and Kilcoy. I was instrumental in helping them to go into Kilcoy and take over the reins near the community centre up there. I thought that the local community in Kilcoy absolutely did the right thing in engaging ALARA to come into that community. It had the runs on the board at Ipswich and in other parts of the Somerset region. Each of these hubs provides access to a diverse range of opportunities designed around the interests and preferences of the participants. I've seen personally how the local participants, people living with disability, have such great input into what ALARA is doing, tailoring the needs of the individuals and of the community. I've seen the local community in places like Kilcoy actually participate and decide themselves what they want to do. These include general life skill development, computer training, gardening, craft, visual and performing arts, meal planning and cooking, volunteering, physical fitness, and recreational and leisure outings.

This bill, which we're dealing with today, provides support for the inclusion of people with disability by broadening those supports. It's an enabling piece of legislation, providing a single-source statutory framework and a clear basis for the Commonwealth government to fund certain disability supports and services that are not covered in the NDIS. It contributes to reducing significant administrative delays in implementing important programs, delays which are a result of disaggregated legislative frameworks for disability services and support. There's a clear authority under the bill to continue funding existing programs and, at the same time, provide a flexible basis on which to fund non-NDIS supports in future.

The bill provides quality and safeguard arrangements by introducing a mandatory code which will mirror the NDIS Code of Conduct. This code will set minimum standards for all service providers and workers and show people with disability, their families and carers what they should expect from providers under the legislation: to provide support for the provision of consistent high-quality supports and services and ensure people with disability are safe in accessing them.

The bill and other consequential and transitional arrangements will enable the government's timely response to the findings and recommendations from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and non-NDIS initiatives arising from the NDIS review. The disability royal commission has highlighted the importance of inclusive access and accessible, safe supports and services for families over the last four and a half years. The government has followed closely the hearings and the reporting from the royal commission. The broad and flexible nature of this bill is intended to ensure the government has appropriate power to respond effectively and efficiently, and the government has accepted these. Of course there will be further amendments to the bill at a later date if required.

Make no mistake: the government's committed to ensuring people with disability are safe from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. This is a significant legislative reform and demonstrates our commitment to breaking down the barriers for people with disability and enabling participation by providing a broad and flexible legislative basis for government to fund services and supports. Consistent national standards are critical. A code of conduct is critical. Support services are critical. We will need to make sure that every Australian, regardless of their level of disability, gets those supports.

Ms WARE (Hughes) (17:46): I rise to speak on the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023. I support this bill. The bill's stated intention is to establish a new legislative framework for the funding and regulation of programs targeted for the benefit of people with disability, their families and carers. It shows how, since one of the first pieces of legislation was introduced in 1974, we in this place have evolved with legislation in terms of how we assist people with disabilities. The bill also aims to update the language of the legislation. It focuses on the human rights of people with disabilities and gives effect to some of our international obligations, particularly the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The bill essentially repeals the current Disability Services Act 1986, which was regarded as groundbreaking in the care for people with disabilities back in 1986. That act had, in turn, repealed and replaced a 1974 act known as the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974. We can see how just in those periods language has changed around people with disabilities, and that is certainly appropriate.

This is enabling legislation. The bill allows the relevant minister to provide funding for eligible persons for regulated activities. Statutory funding conditions will apply to relevant payments. These conditions are tied to the quality and safeguarding arrangements as set out in the bill. The bill provides legislative authority for new and existing spending on disability related programs. This is outside of any funding under the NDIS. This bill does not directly allocate funding for specific supports or services; it is the enabling legislative framework. In that regard, it facilitates funding for supports and services to assist all people with disabilities, regardless of whether or not they are a participant in the NDIS.

In our country at the moment, we have about 4.4 million people with disabilities. This is a significant number in our community. There are about 610,000 participants under the NDIS. This framework will cover all 4.4 million people, regardless of whether or not they fall under NDIS. It will neither affect NDIS nor have any impact on the disability support pension, which is, as we know, paid under social security law.

The bill also aligns different regulatory schemes and provides for a code of conduct similar to that which is contained within the NDIS Act. Finally, it establishes a criminal offence for the unauthorised use or disclosure of personal information.

At present, it is the Disability Services Act of 1986 that provides the framework for the funding and provision of disability services across Australia. In 37 years, there have been significant changes and it is appropriate now that this regime be updated after almost four decades. Essentially, it will enable the relevant minister to make grants of financial assistance to states and territories or to eligible organisations for, amongst other things, capital works, research activities, disability services and rehabilitation programs. The stated objects include furthering the integration of people with disabilities into the community, assisting people with disabilities to achieve positive outcomes, enabling increased independence, supporting better employment opportunities and providing a positive image of people with disabilities.

There have, in the 37 years since the Disability Services Act was established, been numerous developments in the disability sector, predominantly around the way that we now consider that the most important thing to assist people with disabilities is empowering them to make their own decisions about their own care. Also, there is now increasing awareness of the abuse, neglect and violence which has been directed towards people with disabilities and the lack of safety, quality and value in some disability services.

In terms of international developments, in 2008 Australia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The underlying principle of that convention is that people with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community, and that is part of the underlying principles of this new proposed act. That required Australia to establish a framework for promoting, protecting and monitoring the implementation of the convention. This has been done under successive governments through the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 and also under the former coalition government when they brought it in in 2021.

It is worthwhile to note in passing the difference between this and the NDIS and how they interrelate. Another major development since the passage of the Disability Services Act has been the NDIS. The main component of the NDIS is individualised packages of support to eligible people with disability. The NDIS is intended to be tailored to each participant's needs and goals, and the NDIS aims to help participants use their individual plans to choose and purchase services and supports from a consumer driven and competitive marketplace. There are currently 610,000 Australians receiving support from the NDIS.

The NDIS has had a significant impact on the provision of disability services; however, there are many Australians with disabilities who are not eligible for the NDIS. There has also been recent discussion about the scale of fraud by some disability services providers in the NDIS—and I say that it's about the providers, not about the recipients—with some commentators suggesting that over a billion dollars could be lost to fraudulent or unethical practices. In addition to undermining the integrity and financial sustainability of the NDIS, fraud and noncompliance harms and exploits people with disabilities. This has led to an increased awareness of the need for disability services to be appropriately regulated. This, again, is one of the underlying principles of this bill.

The importance of effective regulation of disability services was also highlighted by the findings of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, which I will simply call 'the royal commission'. This was established in 2019 under the former coalition government. The royal commission, sadly, uncovered numerous examples of abuse and neglect by disability service providers. It took a human rights focused approach in understanding the forces that shape the lives of people with disabilities and made recommendations for lasting change. One of the key recommendations said:

Human rights play an important role beyond just imposing legal obligations on government. They reflect a set of values, such as the dignity, autonomy, freedom and equality of all people. The CRPD—

the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—

articulates values and standards by which people with disability should be treated and informs community values and standards.

That is one of the intentions of this bill. The bill has been drafted to, in fact, reflect those values and standards.

Under this bill, supports and services may be provided to any person with a disability. That includes those with physical, psychosocial, cognitive, intellectual or sensory impairments. They may be either long-term or episodic. The current legislation only allows for funding through grants, while, under this bill, other forms of financial arrangements, such as procurements and contracts, are permitted. So this will make the provision of disability services available to a wider community than that which is receiving support under the NDIS. But it will not, at that time, increase access to disability payments that are currently dealt with under social security legislation. In conclusion, I commend this bill to the House. It reflects work that commenced under the former coalition government. It also reflects many of the recommendations that came out of the royal commission. It does also reflect Australia's international obligations under the United Nations convention. For all of those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

Ms ROBERTS (Pearce) (17:56): On 14 September, the minister introduced the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 into the House for the second reading, indicating that she would also be introducing the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. Both bills will help to deliver on the Albanese Labor government's commitments to enable people with a disability to fully participate in our community, exercise choice and control over their lives and improve job opportunities, readiness and support in employment. It became clear that the Disability Services Act, more than three decades old, was outdated and too restrictive. Times have changed, and we have moved towards creating a more inclusive society. In the minister's second reading speech on the substantive bill, she advised:

In response to this changed landscape and taking into account comprehensive feedback from people with disability and the disability sector, the bill and the consequential amendments and transitional provisions bill establish a contemporary, inclusive framework to fund Commonwealth programs targeted for the benefit of people with disability, their families and carers—because this protection, safeguarding and inclusion should apply outside, not just within the NDIS.

I know that the bill supports inclusion of people with disability by broadening the support and services that can be funded under the bill and seeks to avoid placing unnecessary restrictions on who can and can't receive support and services. Both bills enable a response to findings and recommendations arising from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and non-NDIS initiatives arising from the NDIS, National Disability Insurance Scheme, Review.

Given the recent release of the final report from the royal commission, there is more to be done to ensure everyone with a disability can take part and feel like they belong. The bill before us makes a start on the journey towards a more inclusive society. The Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 will make amendments to existing Commonwealth legislation that are consequential to the repeal of the Disability Services Act 1986 and its replacement by the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023. The bill also sets out savings, provisions and transitional arrangements for the transition period between the repeal of the Disability Services Act and the implementation of the new bill. It's important to note that grant agreements made under the Disability Services Act will continue operate under the provisions of that act until they conclude. All new grant agreements and financial arrangements will be made under the new Disability Services and Inclusion Act.

Schedule 1 of this bill repeals the Disability Services Act. Schedule 2 of this bill makes amendments to Commonwealth legislation to reflect the repeal and replacement of the Disability Services Act. Schedule 2 also provides some limited savings provisions to ensure a smooth transition between the old act and the new Disability Services and Inclusion Act. Schedule 3 sets out application and saving provisions for the Disability Services and Inclusion Act, both preliminary matters and the operational matters for the DSI Act and operation of the Disability Services Act.

We are advised that when the Disability Services Act was introduced it created a legislative framework for the Australian government to provide a range of disability services. The Disability Services Act focuses on assisting people with a disability to achieve independence, employment and opportunities to integrate into the community. The act also regulates the certification of service providers and specifies standards to adhere to in the delivery of services. During the ensuing years Australian governments have moved to solely direct service provision to include person-centred market models of service delivery and support, including through the NDIS, which I understand currently supports over 600,000 people with a disability.

One in six people in Australia are estimated to have a disability and it became clear that the Disability Services Act was no longer fit for purpose. A more modern streamlined legislative framework that will effectively facilitate funding to assist people with a disability for support and services is required, regardless of whether they are a NDIS participant. As stated previously, schedule 1 of the bill before us repeals the Disability Services Act 1986. Replacing the act will ensure that government is better able to respond to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and the review of the NDIS. The bill will provide a source of legislative authority with consistent statutory requirements for funded providers.

Schedule 2 makes important amendments that are consequential to the repeal of the Disability Services Act and the implementation of the Disability Services and Inclusion Act. These amendments are largely instrumental in protecting information under the relevant acts so that protected information can continue to be disclosed to the department administrating the Disability Services Act if there is a reasonable ground that the information will assist in the performance of the functions or the exercise of the powers of that department.

In relation to the Age Discrimination Act, section 41 provides that certain actions taken with respect to pensions, allowances, benefits and other things are not unlawful it done in direct compliance with certain Commonwealth legislation. The consequence of the amendment will be that any actions done in direct compliance with the Disability Services and Inclusion Act will not be unlawful under the Age Discrimination Act. The effect of the amendment to subsection 8(3) of the Australian Hearing Services Act is to provide that the authority, Hearing Australia, must as far as practical perform its functions in a manner consistent with the objects of the Disability Services and Inclusion Act and the principles set out in section 4 of that act.

Clause 28 of the bill sets out the consequences for the unauthorised use or disclosure of protected information under the bill. It is an offence for a person who has obtained protected information while performing functions or duties or exercising powers under the Disability Services and Inclusion Act to disclose or use that information in an unauthorised manner.

Again, other amendments pave the way for transition from any reference to the old Disability Services Act to the new act. One such example is an amendment recognising that currently employment services for people with a disability, such as vocational rehabilitation services, are provided under the Disability Services Act. In the future new or altered programs will be provided under the new act. It's important to note the changes in relation to operation of the old act and how they relate to the new act. The Disability Services and Inclusion Act will provide legislative authority for new spending on disability related programs outside the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Arrangements and grants made under the Disability Services and Inclusion Act will be supported by appropriate quality safeguards, such as a code of conduct and certification standards. All providers funded under the bill will become subject to a single code of conduct which largely mirrors the NDIS code of conduct and the aged-care code of conduct. This ensures that people with disability know what to expect from their providers, consistent with the NDIS.

In future, when current funding arrangements end the bill will ensure flexibility to continue or redesign current programs as appropriate, subject to consultation with people with disability. This will allow for a smooth transition for people with disability and those providing support and services. When current service providers enter new or renewed funding arrangements, they will be subject to the full requirements of the bill. Service providers delivering regulated activities defined in the bill will be required to hold a certificate of compliance. I note that the human rights implications of the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill are set out in detail in the explanatory memorandum to the bill.

In conclusion, I acknowledge that the Disability Services Act is no longer fit for purpose and does not provide legislative authority for a range of disability programs. This can cause administrative delays in implementing important programs, and means that some programs are not subject to any form of quality standards or regulatory oversight.

In my first speech I spoke about my friendship with Robert Sully, a man special to me. Robert gave me a painting that I brought to Canberra with me, and it sits in my window in my room. It serves as a daily reminder of the importance of our decision-making and its effect upon people such as Robert. I continue to be driven by the desire to understand and be inspired by people such as Robert, to support them to live the best life possible with disability. What we do here today is in line with the government's commitment to enable people with disability to participate fully in society and to exercise full choice and full control over their lives. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston—Minister for Social Services) (18:06): I thank all members who have contributed to this important debate on these two bills before us, the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 and the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. The government has listened closely to the contributions of all members, and I'm pleased to address some of those contributions in this summing-up speech. I acknowledge all those who have provided input into the consultation process that has resulted in the bill we see before us today. I particularly acknowledge all those people living with disability that have contributed. I also acknowledge the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for their consideration of the bill.

This bill will help deliver on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to enable people with disability to fully participate in our community and exercise agency over their lives. This bill will establish a contemporary framework to fund programs targeted for the benefit of people with disability and their families and carers, regardless of whether or not they receive support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It's been designed to complement other national legislation and, together with those laws and the laws of state and territory governments, give effect to international obligations, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The bill, along with the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, will replace the Disability Services Act 1986, which, after almost 40 years, is no longer fit for purpose. The bill broadens funding options and service categories to include an extensive range of disability supports to provide a basis to strengthen the inclusion of people with disability across our community. This will provide flexibility to allow the government to respond to changing circumstances now and into the future, including in the important context of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and the review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The bill will improve quality and safeguarding arrangements, aiming to ensure the safety of people with disability and the quality of supports and services they receive. To this end, the bill introduces a mandatory code of conduct allowing people with disability and their families and carers to know what they should expect from service providers and supporting an avenue for complaints.

The government acknowledges the matters raised by the Australian Greens on this bill. They were also raised through the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. It's important to recognise that the focus and intent of this bill is to provide for a broad, enduring and effective legislative authority for current and future Commonwealth disability policy and programs outside of the NDIS. This bill includes clear objectives to ensure that programs funded under it are designed to promote and realise the human rights of people with disability in Australia. This bill does not exist in isolation; it sits as part of a broader legislative ecosystem, including the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, which is the primary means of upholding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability. The bill is intentionally broad, and of course allows the seeking of funding for all people with disability without specifying specific cohorts and settings. This is essential to maximise inclusion and to avoid unintended limitations. The bill explicitly includes as one of its objectives supporting access to supports or services that meet the needs of people with disability who experience compounding disadvantage, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Our government is committed to working in partnership with the First Nations People with Disability Network and other First Nations people with disability, consistent with our disability related commitments under the Closing the Gap agreement and Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031.

Throughout the development of this bill the government has demonstrated a clear commitment to consulting with people with disability, their representatives, carers and families, as well as the broader community. This has included two specific rounds of consultation undertaken by my department which supported the drafting of the bill and resulted in improvements to the bill. This consultation will continue in the context of the development of the instruments and implementation. The government is also committed to consulting on the recommendations of the disability royal commission to ensure a well-informed government response. We recognise that there is complexity and diversity in views across the community on central issues, including on segregated settings. In fact, even the commissioners were split on this issue. This clearly demonstrates that it would be pre-emptive to legislate what has been requested by the Australian Greens. I would also note that witnesses at the Senate inquiry highlighted that one of the key flaws in the current Disability Services Act is that it actually embeds exclusion and segregation for particular communities of people with disability, and we have removed that. We have listened to the disability community and have developed an act that specifically speaks about inclusion and which removes enablers of segregation.

The government also acknowledges the comments made by the opposition in relation to the removal of target groups. This differs from the approach taken in the Disability Services Act. When the act was designed almost 40 years ago it included the types of services now captured by the NDIS. This means it was appropriate to target supports—for example, to those with permanent disability that resulted in substantially reduced capacity in specified areas. This target cohort would now be largely captured by significant and permanent disability eligibility under the NDIS. Therefore this targeting is no longer necessary nor appropriate in a legislative framework focused on supporting all Australians with disability, and not just those who are eligible for the NDIS. The Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 represents a clear step forward in providing authority for safe and inclusive supports and services to all people with disability. The bill will provide flexibility to the government to continue to adapt and improve the supports and services available to people with disability, and to build a more inclusive Australia.

In addition, I thank the members who contributed to the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. This of course makes consequential amendments and provides transitional arrangements to support the proposed Disability Services and Inclusion Act 2023. This is in line with the government's commitment to enable people with disability to participate fully in society and to exercise full choice and control over their lives. This bill provides for the repeal of the Disability Services Act 1986 and facilitates the continued provision of disability supports and services funded under that act in accordance with the proposed new enabling legislation.

This will ensure the continuity of service and supports, and will prevent disruption of funding to disability service providers. Together with the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, the consequential transitional amendment bill will deliver much-needed support to Australia's disability service sector. It will ensure a seamless transition in funding arrangements for existing Commonwealth funded disability supports and services outside of the NDIS, demonstrating this government's commitment to the inclusion of all people with disability in Australian society and complementing existing legislation to fulfil Australia's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disability. I commend the two bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston—Minister for Social Services) (18:15): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston—Minister for Social Services) (18:16): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move the government amendment as circulated:

(1) Schedule 3, page 18 (after line 23), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4 — Transitional code of conduct

11 Transitional code of conduct

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules that make provision for or in relation to a code of conduct that, on and after the commencement of this item, applies to the following:

(a) an eligible organisation (within the meaning of the Disability Services Act 1986 as in force immediately before that commencement), where:

(i) before that commencement, the Minister approved the making of a grant of financial assistance to the organisation under Part II of that Act; and

(ii) immediately before that commencement, an agreement with the organisation under section 15 of that Act is in effect in connection with that approval;

(b) a person or body that is a party to an arrangement that was entered into under Part III of the Disability Services Act 1986 before that commencement and that is in effect immediately before that commencement;

(c) a person to whom money is paid before, on or after that commencement under an arrangement made before that commencement under section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997, where the arrangement:

(i) is in effect immediately before that commencement; and

(ii) is for the purposes of a program, or part of a program, that is specified in the rules;

(d) a person to whom a grant of financial assistance is made before, on or after that commencement under section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997, where:

(i) immediately before that commencement, an agreement between the person and the Commonwealth is in effect in connection with that grant; and

(ii) the grant is for the purposes of a program, or part of a program, that is specified in the rules.

(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) or (d)(ii), the program must be a program specified in regulations under the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997.

(3) Without limiting subitem (1), rules made for the purposes of that subitem may make provision for circumstances in which an eligible organisation, person or body breaches the code of conduct because of an act, or an omission to perform an act, by:

(a) a member of the key personnel (within the meaning of the Disability Services and Inclusion Act 2023) of the eligible organisation, person or body; or

(b) another person who is employed, or otherwise engaged, by the eligible organisation, person or body.

(4) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create an offence or civil penalty;

(b) provide powers of:

(i) arrest or detention; or

(ii) entry, search or seizure;

(c) impose a tax;

(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;

(e) directly amend the text of this Act.

A key feature of this bill is strengthening the quality and safeguards for the Commonwealth disability services and support being provided outside the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The government is moving this amendment to the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 to further strengthen the safeguards for people with disability.

This amendment elevates the application of the transitional code of conduct to eligible organisations currently funded under the Disability Services Act 1986 and the relevant items under section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997 into primary legislation, as opposed to doing it with a legislative instrument.

Additional consultation on the bill following its introduction to parliament provided clear feedback that the inclusion of the code of conduct within the primary legislation was an important additional safeguard for people with disability and a valuable inclusion to make in amending this bill. It will mean that, once the legislative instruments are in place, all organisations currently receiving funding whose legislative authority would fall under the new Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 for future funding arrangements will also have the code of conduct applied. This ensures that people with disability accessing Commonwealth disability supports outside the NDIS can benefit from the introduction of the legislative code of conduct during the transitional period and beyond.

Consistent with the code of conduct under the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, the entity that is a party to the agreement or arrangement with the Commonwealth will be responsible for ensuring that its key personnel and employees comply with the transitional code. The application of a transitional code of conduct to existing agreements funded under the Disability Services Act 1986 and relevant items under section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997 will increase protections for people with disability.

We will consult with the disability representative organisations, service providers and unions on the development of the underpinning legislative instruments. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (18:19): The coalition will support this amendment, which was circulated to us yesterday. Strengthening the quality and safeguards for Commonwealth disability services is obviously a key feature of the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, and it's important to get it right. We understand and agree that this amendment will ensure that there's a level playing field, ensuring that existing service providers are held to the same code of conduct as new entrants under the new act. The amendment also ensures that Australians currently accessing Commonwealth disability supports outside the NDIS will benefit from a legislative code of conduct during the relevant transitional period. We are pleased that the government, at this very latest stage, has listened. We will, therefore, be supporting these amendments.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston—Minister for Social Services) (18:20): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms LE (Fowler) (18:24): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Before I delve into this bill, I would like to make it clear that I support good industrial relations policy—policy that will see a productive, engaged, diverse and flexible workforce with employees and employers having the ability to agree and negotiate a fair dinkum work environment and remuneration. No bill is perfect, and this is an example of that. The bill takes a radical approach in reforming the Australian workforce which the government did not really take to the election or indicate that it would do so. This radical industrial relations reform has sent shockwaves through the economy and many businesses that are holding up our country.

Many of us in this House are not industrial relations experts who can read through the hundreds of pages of the bill. Therefore, for me this bill has been challenging to work through. Many stakeholders, from small-business owners to industry bodies, have reached out to share their perspectives and interpretations of the bill, with a mixture of amendments proposed to make beneficial changes, but some parts of the bill have remained murky on its intended purposes. I do hold concerns as to whether the amendments put forward will positively change industrial relations or whether the complexities of the reform will stagnate the workforce, its viability and its productivity in a period where workforce shortages are a critical issue.

This bill will affect a large number of my Fowler constituents, both employers and employees. You see, Fowler is and always will be a working-class electorate, with data reporting that 43.6 per cent of people are active in the labour workforce. Many individuals own their own businesses, whilst many others are working for their local businesses. Within the ever-evolving economy, digital platforms are now also becoming a significant source of employment for my constituents. The bill promises to close loopholes which affect the most vulnerable people within the workforce. By dictionary definition, 'loopholes' are ambiguous practices which can be used to circumvent rules or obligations. Fowler is one of the most disadvantaged electorates in Australia, with many individuals at various stages of vulnerability. People are struggling to pay their bills, put food on the table for their families, have a roof over their heads and have a stable job. So I stand here today in the shoes of those in my community who would be most impacted by this bill.

It's important that we close loopholes, but there must be a balance in how the government proposes to do so. My focus remains on the impacts on the livelihoods of Australians and, in particular, small businesses from the pressure of the cost of living if the workplace reforms drive up the price of consumer goods and services and affect the viability of businesses to keep up with changes. These points came up repeatedly when reviewing the provisions relating to employee life reforms, targeting the gig economy, wage theft and casual employment.

I travelled to Melbourne recently for the Vietnamese Museum Australia's women and unity celebration event and was told by the taxi driver that Uber has now increased their fees, which would mean that he would have to pass on this increase to consumers by about $30. For Uber Eats delivery, he said, it would be about $60. Again, this will have to be passed on to consumers, the end users. He asked me how the Australian can do this to working Australians at a time of a cost-of-living crisis by killing small business's ability to operate.

The gig economy is a relatively new phenomenon, with more and more digital platform entrepreneurs rising into the scene with apps that contract and provide services. Digital platforms create an on-demand workforce at the tips of people's fingers on mobile phones and many other devices. These platforms offer the opportunity for people to choose the hours they work, where they work and when they work. People simply value the convenience of digital platforms, and contractors value the mutual flexibility. Therefore, individuals who sign up to provide their services on these digital platforms and choose to do so with the knowledge of the flexibility the platforms provide ad perceived as independent contractors, not employees. However, the government has coined the term 'employee-like' and embedded this in the bill, and the Fair Work Commission will be given powers to make minimum standard orders affecting the conditions of platform workers, as they would be employee-like. While this sounds like a good idea, the danger starts with the broad definition of 'digital platform work', which captures virtually every single digital platform that offers some form of contracting service. Proposed section 15N reads:

(1) Digital platform work means:

(a) work performed by an independent contractor, where:

(i) the work is performed under a services contract through or by means of a digital labour platform … and

(ii) payment is made for that work …

You could interpret this definition of 'digital platform' to effectively capture Uber, Uber Eats, DoorDash, Deliveroo, Menulog, Milkrun, Mable, Airtasker and many others.

This proposed provision will provide the Fair Work Commission with new jurisdiction to regulate digital platform work, which has been relatively untouched to date. We are talking about orders made by the Fair Work Commission which can dictate penalty rates. As I've provided in an example, Uber drivers and Uber Eats deliveries have already increased their fees to those that they contract with, but, as the taxi driver in Melbourne explained, it will have to be passed on to the end users: you and me.

For digital platform work that is designed purely for facilitating gig work, this policy may be perceived as an attack on the commercial arrangements of business owners and the self-employed. The essence of gig work is that people can be their own bosses and can dictate their own schedule without the intervention of others, especially government. Contractors post their services on platforms like Airtasker and Oneflare, free for all to connect with and engage if they so wish. This is their prerogative. We're treading dangerously towards the boundaries of one digital age that is functional and one that is dysfunctional by putting our hands into the gig economy. There may be some deterrent to entrepreneurs dabbling in the digital space in the future from the administrative burdens and legislative obligations that they will need to fulfil. Consumers would likewise be deterred from utilising digital platforms, as there will be a domino effect on price increases, which I've indicated is already happening. This may also trickle down to small businesses relying on digital platforms to sell their products or services. As an example, this is already taking effect in this space in the case of Uber.

I'm not convinced that these issues are adequately considered through these provisions, as the ministers have advised that small businesses are not affected but there's a real chance that small businesses are not spared. However, I recognise the regulation of specific areas of digital platform work, such as in the care sector, may prove beneficial. I had the pleasure of meeting Jordan and Laura Riley, the cofounders of Hireup, Australia's largest NDIS registered online platform, and their wonderful team. Hireup prides itself on being an employer with a digital platform space. It provides benefits to support workers who sign up and to host organisations that provide the work. Support workers would join as casual workers who would get paid in accordance with Hireup's level of hourly rates and would be covered by workers compensation insurance. According to Hireup, if a support worker were to get injured, they would only receive approximately $1,000 dollars under insurance on their disability support worker hire platform, as opposed to $2,600 under workers compensation insurance.

Hireup's digital platform structure is unique when compared to others in the market, as they are committed to making sure that support workers are not being taken for a ride and are paid commensurate to the level of work provided. This in turn ensures that there are high standards in the care sector. This is something that strongly resonates with me, as many constituents within Fowler are working within the care sector and deserve a safe and elevating working environment. Hireup also pointed out, and I acknowledge, that the care sector does receive a huge amount of government funding through an NDIS support model. It is therefore reasonable that there is regulation in this area of digital platform work, where a large percentage of funds comes from taxpayers. If the government seeks to proceed with regulating digital platform work, I'm of the view that it should be confined to the care sector and that the definition should be similarly revised.

Furthermore, I understand that the government is proposing to amend the definition of 'casual employee' to include the consideration of the real substance, the practical reality and the true nature of the relationship in determining if there is an absence of firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work. The current section 15A of the Fair Work Act provides for a contract driven definition, and states:

(1) A person is a casual employee of an employer if:

(a) an offer of employment made by the employer to the person is made on the basis that the employer makes no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work for the person; and

(b) the person accepts the offer on that basis; …

In essence, the totality of the relationship between the worker and the employer would need to be examined.

Whilst I can appreciate that the government is trying to reduce the risk of workers being exploited and not afforded their rights as casual workers, there are some concerns with this particular amendment. I ask the government to consider the following: the Fair Work Act is already complex enough, so how does the government expect a layperson to understand the lines in the bill about 'real substance', 'practical reality' and 'true nature of the employment relationship'? What do these actually mean? How do you define 'real substance'? What is 'practical reality'? What is meant by 'true nature of the employment relationship'? These terms are so abstract and I would argue they're difficult ideas for business owners and workers to decipher the intent of the legislation about them.

I have a constituent from a Edensor Park, a small-business owner, who voiced his concern about this section of the bill. He noted: 'We're not wealthy. We do not have degrees in law or accounting. We're not HR experts. We're just Aussie battlers.' Therefore, if the government intends this to be included then I urge ministers to spend time explaining and divining what they're talking about—specifically, when they refer to 'real substance', 'practical reality' and the 'true nature of the employment relationship'. That would help people and business owners, like my constituent, to understand their obligations.

Has the government considered the uncertainty that small businesses may encounter when engaging independent contractors? The definition will require examination beyond the contract. The same constituent I just mentioned has raised further that this proposed new definition would reverse the certainty that the High Court, in Jamsek, provided to Australians by adding layers of complexity and liability, and the risk that many may well not understand it. This ruling in Jamsek centres on examining the contract terms to determine the employee-employment relationship.

As I raised earlier, there is some good in this bill. Those need to be acknowledged: the provisions for industrial manslaughter, family violence, discrimination, amendments to the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Act 2013 and wage theft. The provision on wage theft, in particular, sends a strong message to employers who are not doing the right thing that they will face severe consequences if they continue to take advantage of hardworking employees. It will now be a criminal offence for employers to intentionally underpay employees. This will be prosecutable by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or the Australian Federal Police. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or three times the amount of underpayment over $1 million.

There are safeguards available: if employers self-disclose conduct which may amount to wage theft they will not be referred for criminal prosecution. Instead, a voluntary small-business wage compliance code will be developed by the government and the employers group. The business must give evidence of compliance with the code to ensure that they will not be referred for criminal prosecution. In the event that a small business is referred to the FWO due to suspected intentional wage theft, the FWO may enter into a cooperative agreement. These amendments are necessary to ensure that employers understand that they must treat their employees with the utmost human respect for their labour.

This bill itself is a paradox, and difficult to discern meaning in. Accordingly, I call on the government to carve out the provisions mentioned above and to place them in a separate bill. I move:

That all words after "whilst not" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"declining to give the bill a second reading:

(1) acknowledges there are over 14 200 small businesses trading in Fowler—which comprises 99 per cent of the local economy;

(2) recognises one in three small businesses in Australia are run by migrants and refugees

(3) acknowledges small businesses often do not have the resources for legal and HR professionals to dissect complex reforms

(4) recognises small business owners from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds may require additional education and outreach on changes to regulation and compliance;

(5) notes the bill's regulation impact statement does not adequately address red tape and compliance costs for small businesses; and

(6) calls on the Government to:

(a) conduct an in-depth analysis of the regulatory and financial impacts on small business owners before passing the bill through the House;

(b )ensure small business owners from CALD backgrounds have equal access to information, materials and support; and

(c) allow further small business consultation by respecting the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry's reporting date of 1 February 2024".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Tink: I second the amendment as moved by the member for Fowler and reserve my right to speak.

Dr LEIGH (Fenner—Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, Assistant Minister for Employment) (18:39): Short-sighted employers would like to have highly-paid customers and low-paid workers. Wise employers recognise that their employees and their customers are ultimately the same pool of people and that paying workers well sustains strong demand within the economy.

Labor is strongly committed to ending the flatlining of wages that we saw under those nine long coalition years, a period in which productivity growth was appalling, in which wage growth was sluggish and in which household income growth languished. Under the period of the coalition government, Australians found a government for whom keeping wages low was a 'deliberate design feature' of their 'economic architecture'. These were the words of the former finance minister.

When we came to office, we set about changing that. Over our first year in office, our government saw more jobs created in the Australian economy than were created in any first year of a new government. In fact, more were created in our first year than were created in the first term of any former government. We have unemployment sitting below four per cent—full employment by anyone's definition. Since the monthly unemployment series began in 1978, there have been only 19 months in which unemployment has been below four per cent. Sixteen of those 19 months have been under this government. Of the half-a-million jobs created since we came to office, some 85 per cent have been full time. The gender pay gap has fallen to its lowest level ever. The number of days lost to industrial action has fallen sharply.

We understand that there are many employers in Australia who are keen to ensure that we don't have a race to the bottom in standards. Australia's comparative advantage in the world will not be that we have the lowest-paid workers in the world. If companies want to find the place where labour is the very cheapest, they're going to find other countries than Australia. What Australia's economy will do well is to ensure that we have workers who are well-trained and are able to use new technologies, such as generative artificial intelligence, in an environment in which firms are competing based on the best product and service that they're offering, not based on a race to the bottom.

The 'closing loopholes' bill is about fairness to employees, but it's about fairness to employers too. I've spoken to many employers who are sick of finding themselves competing with another firm that doesn't do the right thing—that doesn't pay fair wages. They feel that then they're in a circumstance where they have to look for those loopholes instead, rather than treating their workers well and getting on to grow their market share by looking after their customers. So we're not going to have a race to the bottom under this government. We're not going to have real wages languishing, as occurred under the former government. Instead, we're going to close the loopholes.

I want to go to a number of the ways in which this bill seeks to achieve that—firstly, in relation to wage theft. Right now, if a worker steals from the till, that's a crime—as it should be—but if an employer steals deliberately from a worker, then that's not a crime. That's not fair. That asymmetry doesn't pass the pub test. So, as part of this bill, we're going to ensure that an employer convicted of intentional wage theft will face up to 10 years imprisonment and courts will be able to impose fines of up to three times the amount of the wage underpayment in both civil and criminal contexts.

Now, this change will not affect employers who take reasonable steps to pay the correct amounts. It won't affect employers who make honest mistakes. It will allow the Fair Work Ombudsman to enter cooperation agreements with employers who come forward—a change that was requested by COSBOA.

The enforcement of wage underpayments is a critical issue. This bill will allow the Fair Work Commission to allow a representative to enter a workplace if it is satisfied there is reasonable suspicion of wage underpayment. The bill also contains new protections and rights for workplace delegates which ensure that people are able to speak up about wage theft.

Another loophole this bill closes involves casual employment. Many of us in this place would have worked as casuals. Many Australians would have worked as casuals. But, if you're finding yourself working as a casual year on year, then it is only fair that you have the opportunity to make a reasonable request to be treated as a full-time employee. Flexibility can't only involve the flexibility of employers to decide when workers work. We know now some of the new scheduling software allows employers to make decisions in retail based on the weather and predictions of customer demand, pushing to the last minute the allocation of shifts. That can be good for the bottom line, but it's bad for the household bottom line. It's bad for workers who need to juggle childcare duties and further studies. This sort of one-way flexibility turns into inflexibility on the employee side. The bill also prohibits sham casual arrangements, which will stop employers deliberately and unreasonably misrepresenting to an employee that their employment is casual when it is not.

The bill also closes the labour hire loophole. There's certainly a role for labour hire. Labour hire emerged out of so-called 'temp firms' after World War II, filling unexpected vacancies when employees were sick. But labour hire, in some industries, has emerged as a way of taking whole sections of employees off the books and driving down wages. Normal labour hire involves labour hire workers being paid higher rates, and those cases are completely unaffected by this bill. But, where a business agrees on rates of pay in an enterprise agreement and then asks labour hire workers to work for less, then that's the labour hire loophole that Minister Burke has been referring to. This bill will allow the Fair Work Commission to make an order requiring labour hire workers to be paid at least the minimum rate in a host business's enterprise agreement. It won't apply to hosts who are small businesses. It won't apply to hosts who are independent contractors. It won't apply to training arrangements.

Another important loophole that this bill closes is to do with gig workers. This has been an issue that I've long been concerned with. In 2015, from opposition, Labor set out a set of six sharing-economy principles. One of those principles was that 'new services must support good wages and working conditions'. We made clear that, 'when offering services that involve human labour, sharing-economy companies should ensure that they achieve work outcomes at least equivalent to the prevailing industry standard'. That was some eight years ago. Since then, we've seen a growth in the scale of what we used to call the sharing economy and now call the gig economy.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics brought out estimates yesterday which, for the first time, outlined its best estimate of the size of the digital platform workforce in Australia. They estimated that, over the previous four weeks prior to the survey, the share of people who reported undertaking digital platform work was about one per cent of the employed population, with an employed population of some 14 million people in Australia. That means we're talking about around 140,000 people who are digital platform workers at any given time. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that those digital platform workers are about two-thirds male, with the average age being 38 for men and 36 for women. The most popular digital platform tasks were food delivery at 35 per cent and personal transport at 27 per cent. We know that these can be pretty dangerous occupations. We've had an ongoing spate of deaths of food delivery workers, and this bill ensures that those people are not left without any standards whatsoever. It allows the Fair Work Commission to make minimum standards orders for workers on digital platforms who don't meet the definition of 'employee' but nonetheless have low bargaining power or low authority over their work or comparatively low pay. That might involve people doing work via digital platforms in the NDIS, working in aged care, delivering food to people's homes or transporting us around.

This is not about making these people employees; it is about allowing the Fair Work Commission to tailor orders for those people. For the example the minister has given in relation to rideshare, the Fair Work Commission might go for a five-minute or permanent rate rather than an hourly rate. That recognises you can't logically pay somebody for all the time they're on the app—that'd wreck the form of employment—but these gig workers shouldn't be left outside the protection of our industrial laws. Gig workers will have new rights to seek reinstatement if they've been unfairly deactivated from a platform. There have been accounts of ridesharing platforms that have sought to deactivate those gig workers that have sought to organise. That, now, will be a practice for which those gig workers can seek redress through the Fair Work Commission.

This is a bill which recognises the long history of campaigning to close loopholes among those families who have lost loved ones. In the ACT I think of Kay Catanzariti and Barney Catanzariti, whose 21-year-old son, Ben, was killed on a construction site on the Kingston foreshore when a concrete boom collapsed on him and other workers. I've had the privilege of meeting family members of workers who have gone to work and never come home. Industrial safety is one of the issues on which my party was formed. Labor emerged as the political representation of workers in the parliament. We understand that it is vital that work is safe for everyone. We understand the value and the importance of ensuring that wages grow with productivity. This is fundamental to us as Labor people.

This bill deals with a range of other loopholes too; I haven't gone to all of them today. Road safety will be improved. It expands the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to eliminate silica related diseases in Australia. It simplifies workers compensation for first responders with post-traumatic stress disorder. It'll improve bargaining by giving the Fair Work Commission the power to make enterprise agreement model terms, allowing franchisees to bargain together in the single enterprise bargaining stream. It'll strengthen protection against discrimination for employees subject to family and domestic violence.

Those opposite have scare campaigns, but they won't come out and say what they really believe. They won't come out and honestly say they're opposing this bill because they think that wage theft should continue to be legal. They won't defend the loopholes that this bill seeks to close. If they're not willing to have an honest debate with the Australian people, defending loopholes, then they should back this bill. They should back what this bill will deliver to the Australian people—an Australia which is more egalitarian and more respecting of workers, and whose industrial laws are being updated to deal with the challenge of new technology.

I commend the bill to the House, and I commend the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations for his constructive work with businesses, with unions, with the community sector and with Australians in bringing this important bill to the House and in closing the many loopholes that are open right now and whose presence is hurting too many workers today.

Mr YOUNG (Longman) (18:54): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Longman is an electorate where university degrees are obtained by less than 10 per cent of the population. Most employers, including myself, have a work history where they have started work at the bottom and worked their way up the ladder, finally taking the plunge into small-business ownership. This pathway gives these individuals a unique lived experience of what I would call an all-round perspective, as we have been both an employee and an employer.

I'm one of the few members in this House that left school in grade 10 at 15 years old and started work full-time on a minimum wage. I continued to work full-time on a minimum wage in two of the lowest paid sectors, in labouring and retail, until I was 19. In that time I also met and moved in with a single mum, who at the time had an 18-month-old daughter when I was just 18 years old myself, effectively becoming a single income family on a minimum wage overnight. Over the next five years I received various promotions, eventually becoming a retail manager at age 23 and finally owning my first retail business at age 33.

I explain this to my community so that my constituents understand that, if they are on a minimum wage, I get the struggle because I have lived it. I know what it's like to have Vegemite toast for dinner and to shop at op shops for clothes. It's tough.

Like many on low wages, I was told by co-workers that the Labour Party was the party for people like me on low wages and they had my back. Fortunately, I had good, sensible mentors around me who gave me a different understanding of this way of thinking. I want to state, as an employer for over 20 years and having many contacts with small-business owners, that it's the desire of every employer that their staff members earn as much as possible without sending their business broke. Your staff are your greatest asset and, as such, small-business owners do all they can to retain employees as staff recruitment for small business is an arduous and expensive task.

The problem of course is that Labor are very short on people who have experience in running a small business but lots of members with union experience, so they have a very one-sided view on how the employer/employee relationship should operate. Unfortunately, their ammo is simply to create headlines that appeal to workers and on the surface appear to benefit them but in reality actually hurt them.

I learned very quickly in small business that once you have signed your lease the rent cost is fixed. You cannot control your insurance, WorkCover, electricity, telecommunications and all other costs because they are what they are, with one exception—wages. Wages are the one cost you have control over. I'm not talking about the pay rates that workers receive. The Fair Work Commission determines the minimum wage, and you must pay above that. You have to do it by rostering and how many hours you employ people. So, when Labor try and keep up this myth that they are for the worker, they will implement policies just like the one we are debating today, but we should look at what this will mean in reality. They are proposing that if a casual has been employed on a consistent roster for six months they can be made permanent part-time.

On the surface that sounds good. However, let's look at it from an employer's and an employee's point of view. I've spoken to various employers and employees about how they feel about this, and they don't want it. They don't want it because they like the flexibility of casuals in industries like the one I've been in—retail. You can have a casual that works the same hours for nine months of the year and then, come Christmastime or when a full-time employee goes on leave, they will pick up some extra work during these periods. If things suddenly get tough, like when COVID first hit, employers have the ability to reduce those hours. As tough a decision as that is, it's better than going broke and everyone losing their jobs.

What some employers are telling me is that they will be forced to adapt and reduce hours for casuals or change casuals' rostered days some weeks so the hours vary and they won't be able to go to this permanent part-time classification anyway. This will be another task small-business owners don't need to be lumbered with, and it actually hurts the very person it's designed to help—the worker. For example, Mary, a worker who's been happily working three shifts on a Monday, Tuesday and Saturday, seven hours a day, all of a sudden now will be working Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday every three weeks with five-hour shifts so this ridiculous legislation can't be enacted. Unfortunately, Mary and her employer had agreed on their previous agreement. She has to pick up her kids from school on Wednesday and Thursday, which she will no longer be able to do on this new roster, so both Mary and her employer miss out. The crazy thing is that it looks like Labor might be getting an understanding of this and may amend their own bill to change this, but one can only hope.

Another issue is that, whether we like it or not, we compete in the global market. I grew up in a country where we had a lot of sovereign manufacturing. Ford and Holden cars were made here. When I was in the electrical appliance industry, most things were made here. Everything from Malley's Whirlpool washers, Kelvinator fridges and Victa mowers to Sunbeam frypans were proudly made in Australia. Over 20 years I watched with sadness and dismay as these industries slowly disappeared. There are images of 300 workers now without a job outside the Westinghouse factory in Orange in New South Wales. Some had worked there for over 20 years.

Why did these businesses shut? Put simply, it was a commercial decision as Australia became a country too expensive and too hard to manufacture in due to arduous bills just like this one. These very workers that various Labor governments and their union masters said they were fighting so hard for now have no jobs. The reality is that these companies have shareholders to answer to. They're a business, not a charity, who want a return on their investment and need to be profitable to survive. It's just like when we go to make a purchase ourselves: we look at the price, how easy the seller is to deal with and how simple it will be. If it's too hard or too expensive then we simply take our business elsewhere. This is no different when businesses look at which country to establish themselves in. Sadly, Australia is not in the mix for many of these companies, as we're simply too expensive and there's too much expensive compliance. So, again, rules and regulations meant to help workers actually hurt them.

I also want to touch on gig economy workers and independent contractors. Again, I understand the headline being about standing up for gig workers—but let's look at what will actually happen in reality, because that's what matters. When I talk to gig workers, like the people who deliver for companies like Uber eats and DoorDash, the workers tell me they love the flexibility of getting notification of a job and having the ability to accept that job or refuse it. The decision is theirs. They're concerned that by making minimum three-hour shifts a mandatory thing they won't be able to take that 20-minute job as it won't make the three-hour minimum. So instead of receiving some pay they get no pay. It's another example of a headline that intimates that it's for the workers but, again, it will actually hurt workers. The minister has also admitted that this legislation will drive up prices for employers, which will in turn drive up prices for consumers at a time when the cost of living is out of control. So the employer, the employee and the customer are all worse off. We would expect there would be at least one winner, wouldn't we?

My electorate of Longman is one of the fastest growing in the country. As such, many people earn their living in the construction industry and, accordingly, there are many private contractors. These contractors love the flexibility that being self-employed gives them. Again, Labor despises this as they're small-business owners and, therefore, have no union membership. So they're trying to introduce legislation to reinstate them as employers. They're trying to take away the fairness that's currently in place where the husband or the wife works out in the field as a tradie and the other one does the books. They split their income and, therefore, reduce their tax bill, which is only right. Compare that to the scenario under this legislation—one party is out of work and the other one is earning a higher wage and paying more tax individually. This means that the gross household income goes down, they pay more tax and, therefore, the real, or net, wage after tax—which is all people care about, by the way—is drastically reduced. The flexibility of being a small-business owner—you can choose to take time off for a long weekend or go to your child's sports carnival because you're self-employed—is also gone, as they'll now be an employee subject to the demands and rules of their employer. I thought Labor wanted more flexible working conditions. As usual, their actions don't line up with their words.

Why does this Labor government behave in this manner? They despise the flexibility small businesses have as they are currently very hard to unionise. We know their main underlying ideology is to unionise all workforces. So every decision is based on this outcome in some way, regardless of what the headline says. Why would they want this? Because unions are the major funders of their election campaigns—in fact, $100 million over the past 10 years. That is $100 million of workers' money. It's not the unions' money; it's the workers' money. Labor's policies never have and never will have anything to do with workers. By making it harder and harder for small businesses, contractors and labour hire companies, they are trying to close these businesses so more and more people will be driven to employment with large corporates, which are much easier to unionise.

Australians want more flexibility and freedom to make choices when it comes to their employment. My experience both as an employee and as an employer has shown me that, when governments stay out of it and let employees and employers get on with it, business flourishes. Conversely, the more government interference there is the more everyone loses. Of course, workers should not be exploited, and they have avenues to take their grievances, should they arise, which is only right. But let me contend that a business that exploits its workers and doesn't value them will not be a business that will be around for long.

Labor need to stop creating laws that are designed for less than one per cent of employers who do the wrong thing and penalise the 99 per cent that are doing the right thing. Creating more stifling legislation, red tape and laws is simply not the answer. It will only make things worse, which is the intention—to drive people to employment in heavily unionised corporate companies. Sadly, this will stymie those in our community who have entrepreneurial flair and want to take the plunge of owning their own small business. This is just another ideology of socialism and communism. They are a party that by their actions just destroy aspiration, kill dreams, take away our freedoms and choice and hurt not only small-business owners and contractors but the very workers that they mislead into thinking that they care about. It's reprehensible.

Mr KEOGH (Burt—Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel) (19:07): In my local community, cost of living is biting. There is no doubt about that. The Albanese government was elected on a commitment to get wages moving. A huge part of that is closing the loopholes that are undermining the pay and conditions of people in my community and communities across our country.

There are four key elements to the legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, before us today: cracking down on the labour hire loopholes that are used to undercut pay and conditions; criminalising wage theft; properly defining casual work to make sure that people are not exploited; and making sure that gig workers aren't being ripped off. We're not proposing radical changes; rather, we are making sure that the law works for all Australians.

We want to make sure that there is certainty for business, that there is clarity for the Fair Work Commission and, most importantly, that there is certainty for workers. We want to make sure people are paid properly and that they can make sure that they are protected in the workplace. But we need to make some tweaks. We are standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees, making sure that people stuck as casuals, working permanent, regular hours, get a fair go, because working like a permanent employee with no job security and no entitlements is not a fair go.

Closing labour hire loopholes will simply require an employer to pay rates it has already negotiated and agreed to. This will help more than 850,000 casual workers with more job security. We know, particularly in this climate, that rent is not casual, bills aren't casual and groceries aren't casual. So people who are slaving over their monthly budgets at the dinner table shouldn't be treated as casual when they are not. We need to ensure that people have certainty so that they can plan ahead and so that they can plan for their families and their future.

No-one will be forced to become permanent employees if they'd prefer to keep their casual loading and arrangements, but we want to give people that option, simplifying that pathway to permanency. We're concerned about labour hire loopholes, which some companies use to deliberately undercut agreements that they have made with their workers. Specifically, they've agreed on fair rates of pay with their workers and signed on the dotted line of an enterprise agreement but, rather than honouring that commitment they undercut it by bringing in a labour hire workforce that is being paid less, disadvantaging both permanent and labour hire workers.

Key to this proposal is that employees and unions can apply to the Fair Work Commission for an order that labour hire employees be paid at least the wages in a host's enterprise agreement. Exemptions will apply in the cases of small business, and a three-month exemption period will also apply. This will make sure that surge workforces and genuine temporary replacements are not negatively impacted.

We're extending the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include 'employee-like' forms of work to better protect people in new forms of work such as gig work from being exploited and from being put in danger. Again, we're not going to be forcing anyone to become a permanent employee when they don't want that. I know that many people in our community like the flexibility of gig work, like being a DiDi driver or delivering with Uber Eats. But we also want to make sure that people are not put in danger and are not taking unnecessary risks just to get by. There have been some horrific stories of just that.

The Transport Workers Union shared with me Burak's story. Burak was living in Sydney, working as a food delivery driver. He received a food delivery job request at 12.51. At that same moment, he went under a truck. His phone received a reminder about the job at 12.53 as he lay dying. The company he worked for said his family wasn't entitled to any compensation, because he wasn't working at the moment he was killed.

I went to school with Ash, who worked in food delivery as it was taking off in Australia. Ash talks of the massive pressure to deliver as quickly as possible, knowing that every step of the way, from the time he accepted a job, the race into a restaurant, weaving through traffic, he was being monitored. He says he was monitored by an algorithm that put the pressure on to work quicker. He was not managed by people. He received a serious injury when he was racing the clock. Ash says: 'We need to implement these proposed reforms. It'll make a massive difference to gig workers compromising on safety just to get paid.' We won't become a nation where you have to rely on tips to make ends meet. That is un-Australian.

But also, if a worker steals from the till, it's a criminal offence—quite rightly—but in many parts of Australia, including in Western Australia, if an employer intentionally steals from a worker, it's not a crime. Business owners who knowingly withhold wages from employees should face harsh penalties. Unfortunately, wage underpayment is a real issue across the country in large and small companies. Victoria and Queensland criminalised wage theft on a state level after getting sick of waiting for the former coalition government to do it. We need a national wage theft system to end the rip-offs, to make sure wage theft can be properly investigated and to make it officially a crime across the country.

This bill is also about introducing minimum standards for the road transport industry. It sounds cliche, but, without truckies, Australia stops, so we need to make sure the road transport industry is safe, sustainable and viable. I heard one story recently: of JC, a truck driver killed because of the pressure he was under. He got held up on a shift and called in to say that he'd reached his legal limit of hours on the road and he was too tired to keep driving—doing the right thing. He was told that, if he didn't keep going, the company would lose a contract. Twenty-four hours after he started his shift, JC's truck rolled hit a tree and burst into flames. He was killed instantly. In this place, I think we can all agree that these are not stories we should be hearing in Australia in 2023. Safety at work is a right, and penalties for breaching work health and safety duties should be proportionate. That's why we're introducing a new offence of industrial manslaughter in the Work Health and Safety Act and significantly increasing penalties for the existing category 1 offence.

In Western Australia, in particular, we're a state that digs things up and ships them out, but this can't come at the cost of the people who make our economy strong. One death is one too many. The Australian Workers Union, in Western Australia, has been campaigning to improve safety on mining and resources projects. This legislation will go a long way to making sure that this is taken seriously. The Australian Workers Union has also been running a national campaign, for the last couple of years, to properly address silica-related diseases. They have been relentless, and I thank them for their advocacy in this place and the advocacy for those who, devastatingly, are living with silica-related diseases, and their families.

This legislation will also drive the national coordination of actions to address silica-related diseases by extending the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to silica. We need coordinated action in this space to address the alarming rise in the number of workers developing silicosis and other silica-related diseases caused by the inhalation of silica dust.

As a former workplace delegate myself, I am pleased that this legislation before us will implement a Jobs and Skills Summit outcome to improve employee access to representation for safety and compliance issues at work. Delegates have such an important role in assisting their colleagues to understand their rights and entitlements and navigate the workplace. This measure will help safeguard the important work undertaken by delegates by providing specific protections and positive rights for them to perform their roles at work.

Violence doesn't discriminate, and neither should the law. For many years now I've worked alongside Starick Services in my community as they advocate for, support and provide shelter to women and children fleeing domestic violence. Family and domestic violence can affect all aspects of a person's life, including their wellbeing and productivity at work. Part of the legislation before us now brings forward changes to improve protections against discrimination for those encountering family and domestic violence. This legislation will make sure workers are not penalised in any way if they disclose they have been subject to family and domestic violence.

The final element of this bill that I'd like to draw to the attention of the House is an important change to back our first responders. The legislation will implement a presumption that, if a first responder covered by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act sustains post-traumatic stress disorder, they won't be required to prove their employment significantly contributed to that PTSD for the purposes of their worker's compensation claim. This will include firefighters, Australian Federal Police, ambulance officers and other emergency services. These changes will provide a faster, streamlined claims process that seeks to reduce stress and trauma for first responders when making workers compensation claims.

All of the changes in this legislation will make Australian workplaces safer and fairer by closing the loopholes that exist in the law as it currently stands. It is an absolute travesty that those opposite continue to maintain their opposition to closing loopholes that are so plain on their face.

I commend this bill to the House, and I commend the minister for his tireless work, working with such a broad range of stakeholders, to bring this law forward to close loopholes. It will deliver a better future for all Australians.

Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (19:18): I rise to address the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Can I start by being very clear that, quite simply, this legislation is another Albanese Labor government con job. It's a bill for union donors—nothing more than the member for Watson taking care of union donor mates. This isn't about closing loopholes, but it is a policy full of potholes. It's the Albanese Labor government's attempt to fool the Australian people by proposing to change the name of its signature industrial relations policy but not the policy itself. They stand in this place boasting about this fair work policy, but in reality there is nothing fair about it in its wording, intent or delivery. You may well call it the 'closing loopholes bill'—that's what they're calling it—but really it's about closing loopholes to union membership.

Just yesterday we saw the real motivation of the Labor Party when they failed to support Australian workers and voted against the Senate's recommendations for this bill. In a deliberate opposition and blocking of the passage of this bill, the Albanese Labor government voted not only against coalition senators but against senators from independent and minor parties in the Senate by refusing to agree to splitting the bill. If the government supported the bills, as we on this side of the House proposed, specific measures for first responders, employees of small businesses, victims of family and domestic violence and those affected by asbestos would have passed and been in place. But instead they continue, in yet another shocking example of this government's lack of transparency, to ignore feedback within the industry and businesses it'll affect. At a time when businesses are crying out for staff and a fair go, they're not listening.

The reality is that this government governs for unions. I believe the Labor Party are corrupt in the sense that they govern specifically for unions. Can you imagine if I came into this place or the coalition came in—

Dr Freelander: That's very inappropriate.

Mr HOWARTH: No, it's not. I was talking about the party, not an individual. Imagine if I came into this place and got all my donors and said, 'Righto, let's write laws according to what the donors want.' What do you think people in my electorate would think, or the attendants in this place would think, or whatever? They'd think: 'That doesn't sound right. You can't write laws for your donors.' That's what the Labor Party does every day of the week—and not just here in the federal parliament but in the state parliaments as well, whether it's abolishing the ABCC or whether it's changes to super funds that their union mates, like Wayne Swan, run. The AUKUS deal is not even off limits when it comes to governing for unions.

Here we have a minister, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—has he ever in his life employed one person and actually paid their wages? I'm talking about not all his ministerial staff or the people in his office—the taxpayer pays their wages—but just one person. When I look at his history, basically his history is that he finished uni and was then a political staffer and a union organiser. He was a company director for 12 months before he resigned to run for a state seat and then joined the union. That's the minister in charge. He's never employed anyone. He has no experience. Instead, he writes legislation for his union donors. That's what it's about.

The member for Longman, who spoke before me tonight, is spot on; he actually said the same thing. The member for Longman knows what it's like to employ people. He understands. He'd make a far better workplace relations minister than the Labor Party's minister for workplace relations. Minister Burke gets up in his second reading speech and talks about a better workplace for the gig worker, who currently has no minimum standards. To the member behind me here: have you—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough—had a gig worker come into your office and actually raise these issues with you?

Mr Pike: Not one.

Mr HOWARTH: I've been in this place for 10 years. Do you know how many people have come into my office who are casual workers, gig workers or subcontractors and said: 'Oh, we need to make all these changes'? Zero, none. I'm pretty active in my electorate. If you come to my electorate and talk to people—I do regular mobile offices. I get out there. I talk to people. No-one's raised these issues with me. All of a sudden these people come into this place and speak with authority when it comes to gig workers, subcontractors and casuals—from a bloke who's a minister who's never even employed anyone out of his own pocket. Give me a break! At least this bloke over here has been a doctor. Maybe he's employed someone; I don't know. But the minister hasn't. So it's about a better workplace for a gig worker who currently has no minimum standards.

When you look at the legislation, there are 200 pages of additional legislation that they want to put in. I'm someone who has employed people. I was a company director not for 12 months like this minister but for 10 years. I actually had a staff of 20 people—full-time workers, casuals and subcontractors. I actually understood what it was about. I can tell you that nothing in this bill is going to do anything to help a lot of these people apart from what I named before, which they voted down and wouldn't split on yesterday. The Independents pleaded with them to separate the bill and vote—'Let's get this through and get a committee to look at the rest of it.' But, no. Because they are governing for their union donors, they don't want a bar of it. It's disappointing.

The coalition is serious when it comes to standing up for Australians employed in the job market. The government's Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 seeks to strip independent contractors of their ability to build their businesses. In question time today, the minister said, 'These gig workers are actually classed as small-business owners.' There are actually advantages to being a small business and working as a subcontractor. There are deductions. There are advantages. But, no. Everyone has to be the same. According to the Labor Party, we can't have casuals because they are not signed up to unions. We can't have subcontractors because they are not part of the union movement—this is the way they govern the country.

The stuff they're bringing in to this place they brought in 30 years ago. They're rehashing it. They're bringing it back again. We're going to get rid of some of this stuff when we come in because it's not in the interests of all Australians. It's not. We're going to get rid of it. Do you know what? When most of us are dead and gone, in 50 or 100 years, the Labor Party will still be trying to save Medicare. They'll be saying, 'We invented this 200 years ago,' or whatever it is. They will still be coming in here saying, 'We've got to support unions.' That's what they do. They just rehash old policies. It does not matter what times we're in. It doesn't matter what our constituents actually say to those of us in this place. What matters to them is the union donors who pay and elect every single one of these members. All their funds come from union donors.

Government members interjecting—

Mr HOWARTH: Don't wave your hands, members over there. Where did you get your funding from? From the unions. That's why you are legislating for them now. You actually come into this place and you legislate for your donors. If that isn't corruption, what is? I know if I did it for my donors, it'd be all over the place.

What has the Australian Industry Group's Innes Willox said? He said the government hasn't gone far enough in ensuring that this law 'isn't able to be used by unions to challenge and interfere with a raft of other commercial arrangements'. That's what AiG said. They went on about wage theft.

Members opposite bring up people that have died at work. Do you know what? Every single death at work is an absolute tragedy. Are you telling me that this legislation is going to stop people dying at work? Can you guarantee that? Of course, they can't. But they bring this bill in and spend hours debating it and making out that they are the saviours of the Australian people when it comes to workplace relations. Well, they're not. A lot of them have had a very narrow employment history in this place.

We see under this government that productivity has fallen through the floor for three consecutive quarters. For the first time since 2005 we have experienced the deepest three-quarter fall on record. As a family business, you can never get those hours back. I understood that when I was employing 20 people. I sold my house, bought into my old man's business and grew the business from three staff to 20. I was involved in the pest control business, which is a bit like a trade. I had operators out there every day of the week. But if I had one job booked in for the day, I could never get those hours back. That's lost productivity. When you have lost productivity like we are seeing under the Albanese Labor government, guess what? It pushes up the cost of living. If those members opposite were serious and they had not been debating the Voice, which got voted down in every state in Australia, for the last 18 months and were actually listening to people, they'd understand that cost of living is going through the roof. It is through the roof. The reality is that productivity has fallen through the floor. When productivity falls through the floor, small businesses have to increase their prices. When you increase your prices it affects people. They have less money in their wallet, they have no money in their pocket, and they're living week to week.

Debate interrupted.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) (20:00): The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fowler be agreed to. I call the member for Petrie in continuation.

Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (20:01): When it comes to subcontractors, you would think that the minister would actually talk to subcontractors. How many subcontractors—electricians, plumbers and carpenters—did the minister or his staff get out and actually talk to? I'd love to know how many there were, other than those that the union just brought in.

When it comes to casuals, the proposed changes risk severely undermining the employment contract and potentially risk casual workers having their hours significantly changed. The coalition, while in government, took confusion out of being a casual. We made changes that were to the benefit of the worker and the employer, but, in true Labor style, the current Albanese government want to relegislate the confusion.

Members might think of people in their own electorates—maybe a 19-year-old uni student or a 17-year-old school student in year 11 or 12. Back when I was a kid, people of my age would know that you worked as a casual on Thursday night and Saturday morning. Now, with longer trading hours, people do different hours. If you're a uni student, perhaps you want to work every Wednesday night, every Tuesday night and every Saturday because you've got study to do and it actually helps your family time and study time to know that you're doing those set hours. Or, if you're a year 11 or 12 student and you want to work Thursday nights and every Sunday or Saturday morning, those set hours might work around family time and other commitments that you have with sport. But not with the Labor Party. You can't have regular hours as a casual because they want to make you permanent part time or full time. They want to take that flexibility away from young people who want those hours. That's the problem with the Albanese government. They have no idea because they've employed no-one and don't know what it is actually like to employ people and the ramifications for people in their electorates.

What does the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia say in relation to this? They say:

The small business community reject the intrusion of so much more complex regulation into the ability to be productive and flexible, let alone just getting on with being in business and employing more people … The complexity and breadth of impact doesn't solve problems . It will confuse everyone …

…   …   …

The proposed changes will also increase the costs of all impacted businesses, leading to an increased cost of living.

This is right in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis which the government don't know about because they've spent 18 months talking about the Voice. Higher rents, higher energy bills, higher prices for goods, higher mortgages and higher food prices are a result of the Albanese Labor government. There have been 13 increases in interest rates. That's their legacy, and they want to put more costs on top of small business.

Do you remember when they were talking about same job, same pay? According to the National Farmers Federation, 'same job, same pay' is the bill that all Australians will have to pay. I agree with them, as most people in my electorate and around this country would agree: yes, there are minimum standards and minimum awards, but not everyone deserves to be paid the same. Some people work harder than others. Some people get there early, work longer and do extra hours, and they actually deserve to be paid more—but not with this mob. Same job, same pay: you're all going to be paid the same, true communist style.

Let me finish up by quoting the Australian Industry Group:

There is nothing in the Federal Government's latest workplace relations proposals that would create a single job—

not one—

add to job security, drive sustainable wage growth, raise productivity—

which we know is falling through the floor under the Albanese government—

encourage a person to start a business, encourage an employer to grow their business or would simplify our complex workplace relations system.

(Time expired)

Mr LAXALE (Bennelong) (20:05): The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill is an important piece of legislation that stands as evidence not only of this government's commitment to fairness but also of our commitment to ensuring that all workers, regardless of their circumstances, are treated with dignity and respect. The labour market in Australia and across the world has undergone profound transformation in recent decades. Particularly since COVID we have completely reshaped the way we work, the way we live and the way we relate to employment. These changes, also driven by technological advancements, globalisation and evolving economic conditions, have undoubtedly made our lives more convenient, but they have also ushered in a new era for Australian workers. As our labour market evolves, so too must our industrial relations laws. They must adapt and improve to ensure they safeguard workers' rights and wellbeing effectively.

The gig economy has become a prominent player in our country's labour sector, offering flexible employment opportunities to a diverse range of workers. The flexibility of gig work benefits many, providing the freedom to work when and where they choose. However—and this is important—this flexibility should not come at the cost of workers' basic rights and protections. It's crucial to strike a balance between supporting this new-found flexibility and safeguarding the wellbeing of those who participate in this growing sector in our economy. That balance between rights and flexibility currently does not exist in our industrial relations system. There is an imbalance, and this legislation seeks to fix that.

With this bill, the government will preserve the benefits of the gig economy whilst ensuring that those who gig work have the rights that they deserve. Many gig workers value the flexibility and autonomy that gig work provides them, and the government has no intention of altering the fundamental aspects of their gig employment. Our goal is not to force individuals into becoming employees when they do not wish to do so. The gig economy offers a wealth of opportunities and flexibilities, but the benefits of gig work should not come at the expense of below-minimum-wage pay. We must ensure that gig workers receive fair compensation for their efforts. We must eliminate the risk of exploitation that can occur when wages fall below acceptable standards. We do not want to see a future where workers rely on tips to make ends meet. We do not want an American-style wage system here in Australia. I'm proud that Australians and Aussies are stingy tippers, because that shows that our workers are well paid, and long may that continue.

On this side of the House, we envision a future where every worker is treated and paid fairly and justly, one where tips are not essential to make ends meet. To achieve this balance, we propose to extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to encompass employee-like forms of work, ensuring that workers in this sector are afforded the same rights and protections as their counterparts in traditional employment arrangements. This is not radical. It's about fair work, fair pay and fair conditions. This change will allow the Fair Work Commission to make orders for minimum standards for new forms of work such as gig work, creating a safety net for workers in that field. It will also provide crucial protections against unfair deactivation for gig workers where digital labour platforms have them regularly engaged for six months.

As we navigate this rapidly changing employment environment, we must ensure that small businesses are given the necessary support and flexibility to thrive in an ever-changing labour market. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and their resilience and determination contributes significantly to our nation's prosperity. I grew up in, and running, a small business. My first pay cheque was from my family's small business—and, yes, it was an actual cheque that I had to go to the bank to cash out. I get small businesses, and I'm glad that this legislation acknowledges small businesses' important role in our economy. Within this legislation, we are not only recognising the importance of small businesses but also providing them with the support they need to succeed and grow. That's why this legislation implements transitional arrangements and total exemptions to help small businesses get where they need to be.

In our commitment to supporting small businesses, we are taking a proactive step by developing a voluntary small business wage compliance code, in partnership with employer and employee groups. This code will help small businesses navigate the wage compliance landscape, ensuring they understand their obligations and rights under the law. Evidence of compliance with this voluntary code will not only demonstrate a commitment to fair industrial practices, but it will also shield small-business owners from criminal prosecution by the Fair Work Ombudsman. Instead of punitive action, the Fair Work Ombudsman will have the authority to issue compliance notices that require workers to be repaid if underpayments are discovered, or it may take civil action, if necessary. It's important to note that civil action is not the default for small businesses, nor should it be.

This approach is designed to foster a collaborative environment in which small businesses can thrive, while ensuring the fair treatment of our workers. This approach in this legislation exemplifies the Albanese government's commitment to finding practical, supportive solutions that empower small businesses rather than imposing unnecessary burdens. Further, it's helping small businesses support their employees. In the face of economic strain on their business, many businesses sometimes need to downsize. In the case that that business then becomes insolvent, employees who have remained employed during the downsizing lose their redundancy pay entitlements through no fault of their own. It's an issue that warrants attention and resolution.

This legislation seeks to amend the Fair Work Act to address an anomaly in the way small business redundancy exemptions operate in insolvency scenarios. Key elements to the proposal include amending section 121 of the Fair Work Act and introducing provisions that modify the application of the small business redundancy exemption when an employer goes bankrupt or enters liquidation. This modification is designed to ensure that employees who are faced with insolvency related downsizing are not unfairly deprived of their redundancy entitlements. Importantly, the proposed amendments will not change the operation of the small business redundancy exemption for solvent and viable small businesses that will continue to enjoy exemption from redundancy pay obligations. The proposed amendments are specifically designed to prevent the loss of redundancy entitlements for employees whose employers have downsized due to insolvency. This will not affect businesses that have successfully restructured or those wound up in solvent circumstances, excluding liquidations resulting from a member's voluntary winding-up.

In a nation that upholds the principles of equity and accountability, we must ask ourselves a fundamental question. If a worker steals from the cash register, it's considered a criminal offence. But when an employer pilfers from a worker's hard-earned wages, it often goes unpunished. The wage theft epidemic has plagued our nation for years, and the previous government's inaction allowed it fester. It took them years to even acknowledge the existence of this problem, and, when they finally introduced some half-hearted legislation, they voted against their own proposal when it reached the Senate. Employers who knowingly and intentionally steal from their workers pay packets should face the full force of the law. To be a country that stands up for workers' rights, we must hold those who knowingly withhold wages to account. We are taking steps to do that by introducing criminal penalties for wage theft. This will apply to employers who intentionally engage in conduct that results in underpayment and aims to address the Fair Work Act entitlements while not affecting contractual entitlements or superannuation. To ensure that criminal sanctions are reserved for those who intentionally underpay, the proposal includes mechanisms to encourage businesses to self-disclose underpayment. This bill is not about punishing employers who genuinely make a mistake. It will, however, encourage businesses to do the right thing.

The Voluntary Small Business Wage Compliance Code, developed in partnership with employer and employee groups, supports compliance and offers evidence of adherence to prevent the Fair Work Ombudsman from pursuing criminal prosecution. Instead underpaid workers will be repaid, and non-punitive actions may be taken, such as the issuing of compliance notices. In addition to the code, a cooperation agreement provides another pathway to encourage compliance. Employers who disclose potential wage theft to the Fair Work Ombudsman can enter into such an agreement, which will safeguard employees' timely repayment while ensuring that criminal proceedings are only used as a measure of last resort. Furthermore, the proposal extends liability for wage left to the Commonwealth, ensuring that the government adheres to the same standards it imposes on the private sector.

When we talk about wage theft we cannot ignore the genuine impact on its victims, like David from Ryde in my electorate of Bennelong. David had been working full time for 18 months when he resigned on 2 November 2021. Little did David know that he would become embroiled in a distressing battle against his former employer, who he later learnt had a continuous reputation for not paying his employees' entitlements, including superannuation. Since October of the previous year around 15 employees had left David's former workplace and are yet to receive their rightful entitlements.

This non-payment pattern not only jeopardises individual workers' financial security; it also contributes to a culture of exploitation, which has no place in our society. David's personal losses in this ordeal include unpaid superannuation of up to about $45,000. However, the total outstanding debt owed to the 15 individuals is staggering, reaching an estimated half a million dollars. These are not just numbers on a ledger. They represent the financial wellbeing of individuals and their families who work just as hard as we do. In response to these grave injustices, David lodged a complaint with the ATO, and the ATO, recognising the seriousness of the situation, issued a debt notice to the company's director. Yet David's former employer continues to ignore and deny the debt, perpetuating the cycle of exploitation and disregard for the rights and dignity of workers.

David's story is a stark reminder of why legislative changes like this bill are so urgently needed. This legislation is necessary, and it is the right thing to do. It's designed to protect Australian workers and to correct the injustices that have persisted for far too long. It aims to close loopholes that have allowed unscrupulous employers to exploit hardworking Australians, depriving them of wages that they have rightfully earned and the conditions that they are entitled to. It's a critical step towards safeguarding the rights of workers and ensuring that all Australians can enjoy the benefits of a fair and just workplace.

The fair work amendment bill is a significant step towards building a more just and equitable society. It closes the gaps in our existing labour laws, ensuring that all workers are protected from exploitation, discrimination and unfair treatment. This bill promotes fairness, job security and equality, while fostering a dynamic and competitive business environment.

Fair and equitable workplaces are not only what's best for Australian people; they're what's best for our economy. When workers are empowered and treated fairly they contribute to a thriving economy, strengthening businesses and building a more prosperous future for all of us. By closing loopholes in our industrial laws, this proposal ensures that every worker can confidently step into their workplace knowing that their rights are protected and that their contributions are valued. This bill is a testament to our commitment to building a society where everyone, regardless of their background or circumstances, has an equal opportunity to succeed.

Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (20:19): I proudly represent an area with a strong entrepreneurial spirit. There is an abundance of small businesses scattered across the electorate, owned and run by Northern Tasmanians who are driven to make their own way and create local employment opportunities. With just under 9,000 small businesses in Bass, I've engaged and met with many of them through my time in local government and now as a federal member, actively supporting more than 150, and counting, through my weekly small business shout-outs. I've also had the fortune of meeting many employees who are part of these businesses and who rely on these jobs for either full-time, part-time or casual income.

I consider each piece of legislation that comes before me very carefully before making a decision on how I will proceed in the best interests of the community that I represent. With 200 pages for me to examine, can you imagine the pressure on employers, as the onus is again back on them to further wade through these changes in a space that is already incredibly complex? Despite a few worthy areas that I do support, which I'll highlight later, the substance of this bill is not strong enough, at this point, to secure my vote. For the thousands of businesses in my electorate, I could safely say that there wouldn't be many, if any, who would be aware of these changes that are coming. They are too busy struggling with a number of challenges around employee shortages and rising costs—impacting their ability to keep their doors open, let alone grow—to understand what is coming their way. As their federal elected representative, I take the role of consulting with relevant stakeholders seriously, and I'm incredibly frustrated that the government has not done the same.

Business confidence in Tasmania is going well, but there is cause for concern on the horizon, as we are entering even tougher economic times and cost-of-living pressures continue to impact almost everyone. Yet the federal government keeps ducking these issues which are having a domino effect on small business owners, while also pulling vital funding for critical programs that support our community to start their own businesses. I'm not sure how that fits into the rhetoric of worker-friendly rights, when the government is actively pulling away support which provided an opportunity to build a business and an income stream. A great example of this is the Entrepreneurship Facilitator Program, which, in my electorate, had enormous success helping members of the community—overwhelmingly, women, those living with disability or those with a migrant background. In this year's budget, the Treasurer announced the program was to be cut on 30 June, just over six weeks later, without any consultation with the team behind the program.

Not that long ago, I was in one of my favourite areas of Northern Tasmania, Beauty Point, visiting a popular fish and chip shop, where the owner shared with me his frustration over increasing prices and his worry about how he will keep his shop going. Just in the last two years, a two-kilogram bag of chips has gone from $6.85 to $9.85. Cooking oil has gone up from $83 for a 20-kilo drum to over $117. And gas has increased from 85c a litre to $1.35 a litre. The owner said: 'We've only made minor price rises. If I raised prices to the level necessary to make a profit, I'm pretty sure no one would eat here.' He continued: 'We employ three people, two of which are on traineeships. I've sacrificed personally not to have to reduce their hours. We provide a tremendous amount of value to the community in terms of donations and other assistance, but I would give us less than 12 months if these costs continue to rise. We would simply be out of money to contribute.' He went on: 'This is an insane situation. Throughout Australian history, the suburban fish and chip shop has been one of the safest businesses you could possibly be in. Now, in Beauty Point alone, we've had three other food businesses close in the past two years and two more teetering on the edge.'

In addition to this stress, I do worry how this employer and a number of other small businesses will be impacted by changes to legislation—particularly around casual workers, as so many hospitality and retail businesses rely on casuals to get through their busy periods. And, let's be honest, there are many workers seeking casual employment to support them through a particular life stage where casual employment is the best option for them. As I said last year during the same job, same pay debate, I've spent the majority of my working life in casual, contract and insecure work, and, for me and many of the colleagues I worked alongside in those jobs, the casual arrangement was suitable for us at that time. But I've also lived through situations, as an employee in the hospitality industry, where employers chose not to open because of increased costs. The changes in this legislation will add additional cost to businesses, which is a no-win situation for everybody.

We all want better outcomes for workers, increased productivity and protections for both employers and employees. But the bill doesn't outline how it will successfully deliver on these key markers.

Will Cassidy, Executive Officer of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce, one of the oldest and most successful chambers in the country, expressed his concern last year over the lack of consultation on the same job, same pay bill. On this legislation he told me:

I will say that I'm concerned about the changes to the definition of casual. With the current staff shortages in just about every industry in northern Tasmania, if someone can be found to employ on a casual basis, it should be a straightforward process—not one that might cause uncertainty for a business owner—particularly in the current climate where there may not be the future capacity to convert a casual employee to a permanent position.

A few weeks ago, Robert Mallet, CEO of the Tasmanian Small Business Council, addressed the recent visit to Tasmania by the Senate Education and Employment Committee to discuss this legislation. The visit was:

… an opportunity to let legislators know that the bill is not welcome and will, through its complexity, put at risk many more Australian workers.

He went on to say:

Changes to definitions of casual labour, role of participants in the gig economy and arrangements defined by the legislation as Same Work Same Pay will do nothing to simplify an already complex minefield for employers to navigate.

In particular, the ongoing crusade by the government to convert casual employees to either full or part time arrangements.

The Bill fails to recognise that many people consciously choose to work casual hours to meet their family's or personal circumstances or needs. Inferring that they are missing out by not being part- or full-time employees will preclude possible employment elsewhere, severely impact their lives and livelihood, and effectively reduce the available labour force when there are acknowledged shortages across Australia because they may not choose to engage.

He continued:

… that the government should choose to bring forward this plethora of IR changes indicates that it doesn't trust Australian employers to do the right thing. It appears to presuppose that the government thinks that employers are out to squeeze every last advantage out of employees with little regard for their welfare.

He concluded, 'Nothing could be further from the truth.'

We've heard already from other members that business industry groups remain concerned, but their words are worth repeating here today. Jennifer Westacott said:

Australians should have safe jobs, well paid jobs and rewarding jobs, but the government's radical shake-up of the industrial relations system will not deliver that.

These changes will create confusion and extra costs for consumers, make it harder to hire casual workers and create uncertainty for employing anybody.

Any government that's serious about cost of living would not do this.

They should not add cost and complexity at a time when people are struggling to pay their bills.

The government needs to go back to the drawing board, so we are clear about the problem we are trying to solve and we're clear about the ramifications.

We need a system that takes us forward not backwards.

We need a system that drives productivity, not stifles it, because that will stifle wages growth.

The case has not been made for this radical shake-up.

The Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia chair, Matthew Addison, said:

At a time when small businesses are managing increased costs of supply, of rent, of power, of wages; we don't need changes that detract businesses from their sales and service delivery. Small businesses seek to employ and properly reward their workers. They seek to innovate and adopt new technology.

We seek IR changes that enhance productivity and opportunity, not broad impacting confusion about what they are and aren't allowed to do.

Small business reject the proposed legislation. A full impact assessment of the changes must be conducted before the legislation is properly considered. The cost to implement any changes, the cost of advice, the loss of productivity as workforce flexibility is challenged by these changes.

We seek adequate time to properly analyze the detail that is now available. We argue that Government does not seek to rush these changes into law. There is a significant increase in the questions to be answered by each small business by the proposed changes. Small Business will need to spend time and invest money in obtaining advice to ensure they are not captured if these changes were to become law. This comes at a time when 43 percent of small businesses in Australia are not profitable.

He was concerned that the reforms would 'disrupt' the small-business environment.

Of course, like anyone in this place, I abhor wage theft or underpayment on any level. While I have particular concerns that those who have tried to do the right thing but fallen short through a genuine mistake may be caught up under the wage theft provision of the legislation, I, like the Tasmanian Small Business Council, have concerns over the wording and the outcome. The language it uses is offensive, where it deals with wage theft. The TSBC does not condone, in any way, the deliberate underpayment of wages, but to brand any underpayment, particularly if it's inadvertent or a mistake, as theft is nothing short of rude. In their submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee they said, in part:

Suggestions that small-business owners widely and knowingly engage in what is described as 'wage theft' are unsubstantiated. The suggestion that this illegal practice is so widespread as to warrant blanket legislative action is unwarranted and, we believe, derogatory.

Despite the government promising that small businesses will not be referred for criminal prosecution if they can show compliance with the new Voluntary Small Business Wage Compliance Code, this provides little comfort as the code is yet to be written.

Of course I am supportive of a few measures, including the changes to the antidiscrimination laws and of the amendment to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, which will simplify workers compensation and will also mean first responders have easier access to support measures and structures to help them have adequate resources to deal with their condition—an extremely worthwhile change.

Lastly, the small-business redundancy changes under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee will ensure that employees don't miss out on redundancy payments if their employer becomes a small business as a result of bankruptcy or insolvency. I would have hoped that the government would have allowed these changes to be voted on separately, as they are worthy of support. But, even so, I want my backing of these measures put on the record today.

We all want better outcomes for employees that also allow for employers, businesses and particularly small business to flourish and to increase our productivity output, but, once again, this legislation falls short.

Dr ALY (Cowan—Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth) (20:31): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the government's Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. This is a bill that will help meet our pledge to get wages moving again after a decade of low wages under those opposite. It is a bill that builds on this government's ambitious and robust agenda—and we make no apologies for being ambitious with our industrial relations reform agenda—by raising the floor and by improving working conditions and the rights for workers right across the country. This is a bill that will reach into every workplace in this country and make a real difference to the lives of some of our most vulnerable workers, including many young Australians.

This bill is about closing loopholes that are currently built into our industrial relations system. These loopholes undermine pay, conditions and, quite frankly, the work, health and safety of Australian workers. Some of the things that this bill will do are criminalise wage theft, introduce minimum standards for workers in the gig economy, close the forced permanent casual worker loophole and close the labour hire loophole, among other things. They will strengthen the current workplace relations framework and, indeed, provide certainty, fairness and a level playing field both for businesses and workers.

I want to use my time in this debate today to highlight a number of measures in this bill that will make a difference to young workers, who we know are overrepresented in casual work, gig work and other insecure forms of work. I do this in my capacity as the Minister for Youth, but, importantly, I do this because I have had the opportunity to meet with young workers who have spoken to me of their experiences being in insecure work, and of their dreams, hopes and aspirations for their employment. I'll highlight some of those stories as I go through my contribution to the debate today.

But, just to set this up, for so many Australians this bill will actually be life-changing, particularly for young people, because young people continue to face disproportionately high unemployment and underemployment, workplace exploitation and poor working conditions. We know that for over 40 years the youth unemployment rate has been well above the overall unemployment rate.

For those young people who are employed, more than half are casual employees. That's double the rate of the rest of the working population. And nearly half of all young workers are employed in accommodation, food services or retail industries—some of the lowest paid industries across the economy. And so many of these young people are being underpaid and are subjected to unsafe working conditions. In fact, the Grattan Institute found that 20- to 30-year-olds are almost six times more likely than 30- to 40-year-olds to be underpaid by more than $3 an hour in comparison to the minimum wage. These conditions have long existed, and they continue to have a significant impact on young workers: on their standard of living, on their wellbeing and, importantly, on their mental health. The young workers that I have spoken to have described to me the toll that being in insecure work and being in underpaid work takes on them, particularly if they're juggling study and work, as many have to these days.

For so many of them wage theft and exploitation are not an abstract concept, it's not just something that we talk about here in this place. It's actually a reality for them. Last year, I had the opportunity to host a delegation of young workers right here in Parliament House for the UnionsACT youth forum. Some of the young workers there shared their stories with me and I want to relate some of those stories today, just to show the importance of this legislation to the lives of those young people and the difference that it will make to the lives of those young people.

At this forum I heard from a 19-year-old who was picking strawberries on a farm in regional Victoria. They were being paid per container picked—per container picked!—rather than the hourly rate that they were entitled to under their award. So in effect this young person was having their wages stolen from them by their employer, who should have known better. I heard from a 21-year-old cafe worker right here in the ACT. This cafe worker noticed that her 15-minute paid break was being deducted as a 30-minute unpaid break. She had to discover that herself. And she noticed that it was also happening to all of her young colleagues in her workplace. I heard from another 21-year-old, also from the ACT, working in retail who was refused the opportunity to convert to full time despite working full-time hours. Being kept a casual meant that this young person was missing out on leave entitlements. Taking a sick day or taking a day to see family would have put him at risk of not being able to afford the rent or pay the bills.

I have personal experience of that as a young mother returning into the workforce. I worked as a casual. I was working full-time hours working as a casual and so I know what it's like. I know what it's like when your children are sick and you cannot take a day off to look after them because you know you will not be able to put food on the table that week when you miss that day. Nobody should have to live, exist at that level of insecurity because of these loopholes that currently exist in industrial relations laws.

These are just some of the many examples that were shared with me by young workers, who, for too long, have been systematically exploited in their workplaces. These are young people who feel they can't speak out for fear of retribution from their employer. These are young people who need their jobs in order to be able to study, in order to be able to live independently or even live with their parents—young people who don't have rich parents, so to speak. And for many of them, what they spoke to me about on that day was that fear that speaking out would lose them their jobs, but also the fact that they were the ones that had to find out what their rights were when their employers should have been upholding their rights for them.

The stories that I have just shared were highlighted to me by young people, who asked me not to use their names today, and are very clear examples of a system that's failing to protect these young people. And it's those young people that will benefit most from this bill. It's a bill that actions what this government talks about, which is protecting workers. It doesn't just talk about protecting workers; it actually does something to do that.

When I attended the event that I mentioned earlier, some of the young workers there also presented me with a time capsule. It's a little see-through container. Inside that time capsule they wrote down on pieces of paper their hopes and aspirations for employment, and they gave it to me and they locked it. That time capsule sits in my office. It's a reminder both of the progress we're making and of the work that is still left to do. I'm heartened that we've managed to tick off so many of the hopes that are iterated and expressed in that time capsule and that this bill will tick off so many more. I'm proud to stand here today as part of a Labor government that's delivering on a number of the things that are highlighted in those hopes.

Here are some examples. Molly, who's 23 years old, wanted to see more secure work in retail and hospitality. Well, this bill will help achieve that by replacing the definition of 'casual employee' to better capture the reality of many young people's employment in casual work. William, who's 20 years old, wrote in the time capsule that he wanted to see increased penalties for wage theft. That's what this bill does. It increases the penalties for wage theft—increasing maximum civil penalties for contraventions of the Fair Work Act. As many of my colleagues have said before, if a worker steals from the till, that's a criminal offence. It's widely accepted that that's theft. But, in many parts of Australia, if an employer steals from a workers' pay packet, why is that is not considered theft? Why is that not considered a criminal offence? Employers who intentionally—and I mark that word 'intentionally' because I've heard some of the arguments from the other side—steal from their workers should face criminal penalties. It's a no-brainer. If you steal it's a crime. You should face penalties.

The previous government did absolutely nothing to stop wage theft. It took them years to even acknowledge that there was a problem. Then they brought in some legislation, and, lo and behold, they voted against their own legislation in the Senate and ended up tearing it up. They couldn't even get their own legislation through. We're sending a different signal. We're sending a different signal to business owners and we're sending a different signal to people who are affected by wage theft. We are saying that business owners, employers, who knowingly withhold wages should face the harshest penalties, and under this legislation they will.

Nicholas, who's 25 years old, said he wanted to see the system better cater to different working situations and styles. Now, I recognise that flexible work arrangements are part of a modern employment system and some people, yes, do prefer casual work and prefer gig economy work as well, but others don't; others do it because they have to. My dad didn't choose to be a casual bus driver when he came to Australia. He did it because he couldn't get a job in his field of engineering, and that's the case for a lot of migrants. Mohamed the neuroscientist driving the Uber didn't choose to be an Uber driver. He's doing it even though he's a neuroscientist.

Why shouldn't those people have minimum standards like anyone else? Why should they be treated as small businesses, when their conditions are those of employees? And why shouldn't we have rules in place to protect them, just as we have rules in place to protect anyone else? Again, to me that's an absolute no-brainer. Sure, there are people who choose to work in the gig economy for the flexibility of it, there are people who choose to be in casual employment for the flexibility of it and there are people who choose to be in different types of employment for the flexibility of it. We want them to retain that level of choice, but we also don't want them to be the lesser. We want them to have the same standards. We want them to have the same rights. We want them to have the same work health and safety that any other worker gets.

These are not radical changes. They are necessary changes, which will benefit more than 1.5 million workers across the economy. In my home state of WA, more than 160,000 people will benefit from these reforms. Under a Labor government, the more than two million young workers below the age of 25 across the economy can feel reassured that we take their workplace rights seriously. Under a Labor government, young Australians will continue to be valued, continue to be heard and continue to be respected, because we know that young people's inclusion in decision-making leads to better outcomes for young people, for their communities and for our entire country.

For those young workers who have given me the privilege of their time and the privilege of sharing their stories of how the loopholes in the current legislation have a real and tangible impact on their lives, on their wellbeing and on their mental health, I say, first of all, thank you and, secondly, I am proud to stand here and support a bill that will close those loopholes and improve the working conditions for you and future generations.

Dr RYAN (Kooyong) (20:46): The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 will amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to enact several measures. Possibly the most notable of these are the changes to the definition of casual employee and the employee choice pathway for eligible casual employees to change to permanent employment.

The bill also aims to reinstate a multifactor test to determine if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. It protects workers from having their wages undercut by labour hire and introduces a criminal offence for intentional wage theft. It will allow the Fair Work Commission to set standards for some, but not all, gig economy workers and road transport industry workers. It also includes measures related to workers compensation claims and protections from discrimination for employees who have been or who continue to be subjected to family and domestic violence.

It's generally accepted that there is an urgent need for minimum standards for gig workers. By and large, these workers are currently engaged as contractors, and they're consequently often not entitled to minimum wage protections. This bill creates a new class of employee-like workers, who will gain the protection of the Fair Work Commission on minimum standards. Independent contractors on digital platforms will be covered—they will be deemed employee-like—if they are receiving pay at or below the rate of an employee performing comparable work. Workers can also be deemed employee-like if they have low bargaining power or low control over the performance of their work.

At the heart of this bill is a desire to protect workers—especially gig workers, those in the care economy, those in aged care and those in the National Disability Insurance Scheme and other services where low-paid contractors can undercut full-time employees. We know that they need these protections. For example, there's extensive evidence of low-pay incentive-based payment methods and related poor safety in the road transport industry and in food delivery services.

It is appropriate for the government to concentrate on wage theft as it has done. However, employees and employers have expressed concern to me that many parts of this bill operate on the basis that they will apply to all employees and workplaces by default, requiring people to go before the Fair Work Commission to prove why something shouldn't apply to them, instead of having others needing to prove that it should.

Small-business owners are concerned about the complexity of these laws, and they fear large penalties should they get it wrong. It's the loss of flexibility in work arrangements which I think is one of the major issues with this bill. In my comments today I will focus on those sections which, of course, are of most concern to members of my electorate of Kooyong.

Climate change is the most demanding and important structural challenge to our economy. The actions that businesses will have to take to adapt to anthropogenic climate change, either of their own volition or in response to government policies, will require changes to historical work practices and changes in the way that they operate now. Climate change will change the nature of our markets and the nature of energy supply, and the ways in which energy is delivered will be transformed. Climate change will increase business costs, at least in the short to medium term. Climate change will require that markets change as new technologies come online. Businesses will have to develop new skills, and they'll have to deploy them in different and innovative ways. It's clear that technologies are going to continue to evolve rapidly. We're also seeing changes, though, in the social norms of workplaces, and those changes will change the demands that workers will make on the businesses for which they work. To help play their role in addressing climate change, businesses will need to change the way that they operate in response to each of these pressures. Businesses will need flexibility as they seek to be productive, competitive and profitable to take advantage of changes in markets, costs, skills, technologies and social norms so as to find better ways to serve the needs of their shareholders, their customers and their employees. Without that flexibility across the board, businesses will struggle to adapt how they operate, and changes may well be more costly and more distressing for them and may take longer.

For any given set of climate change policies and economic conditions, businesses will be less competitive, profitable and productive if they lack sufficient flexibility to be able to change and adapt. That flexibility has several dimensions. Firstly, businesses require the flexibility to adjust the size and nature of their workforces. Businesses already employ workers on a full-time, part-time and non-permanent basis. They rely on those non-permanent workers to adapt their operations to short-term economic or business fluctuations or to fulfil workplace needs without changing the size and nature of their permanent workforce. Secondly, they need flexibility of their working time. This is typically used to address short-term economic or business changes—for example, by increasing or reducing overtime. The third dimension is functional flexibility, which is the ability to change workplaces and practices in response to opportunities and threats that climate change poses. In each of these dimensions, business will always require the ability to change, and that should be exercised against a background of solid minimum wage requirements, bargaining over actual wages and employment conditions, and legislated protection of employees against the various forms of unfair treatment in the workplace.

In recent months I've met with a number of large- and small-business owners, industrial relations experts and constituents to discuss this bill and what it means for their workplaces. Many have expressed concerns that the proposed changes will limit job creation and reduce the flexibility of their workplaces. During the many disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitality and other industries were dependent on the ability to flex up and down with casual staff. Had those industries not had that flexibility, many more businesses would have failed than was the case. Most recently I spoke with the owner of a large hospitality group, who gave me a number of examples of untenable changes to her workforce management which would result from the proposed legislation.

The government's industrial relations reform represents a significant opportunity for workplace reform in this country. Given the number of people engaged in gig and casual work, it is critical that the government gets this reform right. Many large business organisations and peak bodies have told us that they're still working through the hundreds of documents accompanying the bill in order to fully understand its implications, and many have expressed concerns regarding its complexity. There are some parts of this bill which are not controversial, and I would suggest that they should be carved out and passed immediately. I've welcomed the suggestion by senators Pocock and Lambie to split this legislation, creating four private senators' bills, so that crucial elements of this bill can be passed promptly.

Workplace safety should be the most important consideration for all employers. These separate measures will improve safety, they will protect vulnerable workers and they will support first responders in doing their jobs in times of national crisis and emergency. It's particularly crucial that we get them in place before what looks to be, unfortunately, a very challenging summer.

The measures that relate to post-traumatic stress disorder and compensation for first responders, expansion of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, improving protections for employees subjected to family and domestic violence, and clearer rules around small-business insolvencies should be passed immediately. Splitting the bill is a sensible approach which will ensure that the uncontroversial and broadly supported elements of this bill can be passed without delay.

In its 18 months, this Albanese government has exhibited a disappointing tendency to lump large and complex pieces of legislation into omnibus bills. Complex changes to the important aspects of our economy are, by this process, largely reduced to a binary choice, with very large pieces of legislation being put to a yes-or-no vote. It remains unclear to many in the community whether the government's proposed changes to regulations regarding casuals, labour hire, employee-like provisions, delegate rights and wage theft will actually result in the stronger productivity and better wage outcomes that have been predicted. The government is continuing to amend important aspects of this bill in response to pressure from industry and from this House. We shouldn't be designing a plane as it takes off.

This legislation is too important to get it wrong. I urge the government to pass the important safety elements of the bill, which do have broad support and which will immediately benefit vulnerable workers, while we await the results of the Senate inquiry into the more complex and contentious parts of this bill. At this time, though, and in this form, I'm not able to support this bill.

Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (20:57): Let's rewind the clock and take a look back to the year 2006. I do this because I really think it is important, in this debate, to contextualise the history of how we got to where we are today. I want to take the example of Sally, a mum in my electorate. It's 2006 and she has two children, aged five and nine. She's a single parent who works two jobs to make ends meet. She works at a cafe during the day, from 7 am through to around three, and she has also been able to pick up work in a reception job at a local dental clinic. She does this because she wants to keep her head above water without relying solely on Commonwealth assistance. Sally has worked in these two jobs for around 16 months as a diligent employee, and never takes time off. She is admired by her colleagues for her wonderful dedication. But, WorkChoices, which was introduced by the Howard government in 2005, is about to take a huge toll on Sally's livelihood and ability to earn for her family. Her daytime employer, the cafe, has asked her to sign an agreement stating that she must work every day from nine through to five. This adjustment to Sally's working pattern will severely impact her, as her other employer, the dental clinic, requires her to be in her reception role by 3:30. Thanks to WorkChoices and the Howard government, Sally must either sign the new agreement or face losing her job.

WorkChoices introduced Australian workplace agreements, known as AWAs, which were individual contracts between employers and employees. These agreements allowed employers to set employment terms and conditions directly with individual employees, bypassing collective agreements or awards. WorkChoices significantly impacted the landscape of employment in Australia for years through significantly reducing the role of industry awards in setting minimum employment conditions, including wages and working conditions. Also, employers had greater freedom to set their own employment conditions through AWAs. Simplification of the termination process made it easier for employers to dismiss employees. It introduced a no-fault termination system, allowing employers to terminate employment contracts without specific reasons.

Significantly, when we're talking about this, it feels like it wasn't that long ago, but in the next few years it'll be 20 years since those changes were made by the Howard government. How time flies! But it certainly didn't fly for people, like Sally, who were incredibly distressed by the AWAs, because they significantly limited unfair dismissal protections for employees, they lowered minimum wage protections, they reduced the role and influence of industrial tribunals in resolving workplace disputes and they extended working hours for employees with virtually no negotiation.

Sally wasn't the only one impacted. Casualisation of employees is rife in my electorate, with many in the education, manufacturing and mining industries, just to name a few, complaining to me that they are placed on perpetual contracts, which afford these employees no stability, no security and no voice to challenge their employment conditions. In the mining industry, it's known as 'trying to get a permanent shirt'. If you get a permanent shirt, it means that you are no longer employed under short-term contract job provider arrangements. Getting a permanent shirt means that you'll be employed by the pit, and many people seek those permanent shirts.

In 2009, under the leadership of the Australian Labor Party led by the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, the Fair Work Act was enacted by the Australian government. The Fair Work Act replaced the previous Workplace Relations Act of 1996 and introduced significant changes to Australia's industrial relations framework. It aimed to provide a more balanced approach to employment relationships, with a focus on workers' rights and protections, as well as ensuring fairness in the workplace.

As we have heard, in 2005 we had WorkChoices, while in 2009 we had the Fair Work Act. There are several ways in which the Fair Work Act helps people. The act sets out the National Employment Standards, referred to as the NES, which provide a minimum set of employment conditions for all Australian employees. These standards include provisions for maximum weekly hours, flexible work arrangements, parental leave, annual leave, personal and carers leave, public holidays and notice of termination. These standards ensure that all workers receive certain basic rights and entitlements.

There is also protection from unfair dismissal. The act includes provisions that protect employees from unfair dismissal. It establishes a framework for determining whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and provides remedies to employees who have been unfairly dismissed. The Fair Work Commission also comes under and was established under the act. It serves as an independent body responsible for resolving workplace disputes, setting minimum wage rates and making decisions on a range of workplace matters. This commission helps ensure that workers have a forum to address employment related issues.

In terms of modern awards, the Fair Work Act introduced modern awards, which are industry specific employment standards that set out minimum pay rates, conditions and other entitlements for different industries and occupations. Modern awards help protect the rights of workers in specific sectors, ensuring they receive fair wages and working conditions. Collective bargaining was also important to the Fair Work Act. The act promotes collective bargaining by facilitating enterprise agreements between employers and employees. These agreements lead to improved wages and working conditions through negotiations between workers and employers. Also, flexible work arrangements mean that employees have a right to request flexible working arrangements under certain circumstances, such as caring for children or family members. The act helps people achieve a better work-life balance by supporting these requests.

Protection for vulnerable workers was also included in the Fair Work Act. It aims to protect vulnerable workers, such as migrant workers and young workers, from exploitation and unfair treatment in the workplace, helping to ensure that all workers, regardless of their background, are treated fairly. Workplace health and safety was also incorporated into the provisions related to workplace health and safety, helping to create safer work environments and reducing the risk of injury and accident on the job. It also has anti-discrimination provisions, including provisions to prohibit workplace discrimination on various grounds, including race, sex, age, disability and more. These provisions help create a fair and inclusive work environment. Regarding access to information, employees have the right to access information about their employment conditions such as pay rates, hours of work and leave entitlements. This transparency empowers workers to understand and assert their rights. In relation to compliance and enforcement, the Fair Work Act includes mechanisms for enforcing its provisions, including penalties for non-complying employers. This helps ensure that employers adhere to their legal obligations.

In summary, the Fair Work Act 2009 helps people by establishing a framework that provides basic employment standards, protects workers' rights and ensures a fair and balanced employment relationship between employers and employees. It seeks to create more equitable and just workplaces for all Australians.

I stand before you today to address a pressing issue that affects every corner of our society—the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill. That's what we're really talking about tonight, but I felt it absolutely necessary to provide a framework of history so that people can understand why these changes are necessary and how this evolution has taken place since the Howard years. I want to take this opportunity to explore the significance of the bill, its key provisions and why it's crucial for our nation's future. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill—remembering that we're amending legislation that was brought in by the Rudd government—is a milestone in our journey towards achieving fair and decent working conditions for all Australians. It comes at a time when the labour landscape is evolving rapidly, with the rise of the gig economy, changing employer and employee relationships, again, and growing concerns about income inequality. This bill is not just a piece of legislation; it's a beacon of hope for workers who have been marginalised and exploited due to gaps in our existing labour laws.

To fully appreciate the importance of this bill we must first understand the context in which it's being proposed. Our Fair Work Act, enacted in 2009, was a significant step forward in protecting workers' rights and promoting industrial harmony. However, over the years, certain gaps and ambiguities have emerged, allowing unscrupulous employers to exploit these loopholes at the expense of their employees. One of the primary challenges this bill seeks to address is the impact of the gig economy on workers' rights. The gig economy has brought flexibility to the labour market, but it has also given rise to precarious employment conditions. Many gig workers are classified as independent contractors rather than employees, depriving them of fundamental protections such as a minimum wage, paid leave and unfair dismissal rights.

Let's go back to Sally, who I was talking about at the beginning. She was working at the cafe. Under the Fair Work legislation, she was to receive a certain amount of standards, even though she had signed the workplace agreement—the AWA. If she was delivering food from the cafe in the gig economy, she would not be receiving very much security at all. That's where we've gone in those years since 2005 and then 2009. So here we are, in 2023, trying to really bolster the protections and drag the legislation into the current landscape of employment in Australia.

The first key provision of this bill is the definition of employment status. The bill provides a clearer definition of employee and independent contractor status, leaving no room for ambiguity. This will prevent employers from misclassifying workers to avoid their legal obligations. It also changes entitlements through minimum wage protections. All workers, regardless of their employment status, will be entitled to a minimum wage that reflects the cost of living. This provision is vital in ensuring that no-one is forced to live in poverty due to their work.

The bill guarantees paid leave entitlements for all workers, including sick leave, annual leave and parental leave. No-one should have to choose between their health or their family and their job. It strengthens the unfair dismissal protections, making it more difficult for employers to terminate employees unfairly, without proper justification. The bill promotes collective bargaining by simplifying the process for workers to join unions and negotiate for better wages and working conditions.

To combat wage theft, the bill introduces stringent penalties for employers who underpay their workers or fail to provide entitlements. I want to say that, in this bill, we're not looking to penalise employers who make honest mistakes. We all know that payroll can be exceptionally complicated. It's often a whole world of pain for employers, in its own right. So, where someone has made a mistake, genuinely and honestly, there will be a way to rectify that. Also, we're talking about businesses with over 15 employees. A small business is a business with 15 employees or under, and I think that's a really important point to make in this.

The reason this bill matters is that the proposed changes will result in reducing income inequality. The widening income gap in Australia is a pressing concern, and I do have a fear at the moment that we have a bit of a two-speed economy running. I think that this bill is going to be a crucial step towards reducing income inequality by ensuring that all workers are paid more fairly for their labour. It's going to protect vulnerable workers, including those in the gig economy, who often have very little bargaining power. It's going to empower them by extending basic labour rights and creating a more level playing field, and it's further going to promote economic stability. Fair and equitable working conditions are essential not only for individual wellbeing but also for economic stability, and—dare I say it—also for community. People need to know when they're going to work, when they're going to be able to look after their children, how they can coordinate with their friends and family for child care and how their lives are going to go. In my experience of life, the more you can plan or at least have a clue about where you're going to be and what you're going to be doing, it does make it a lot easier to live and see out the logistics of life, as we like to call it in our family.

This bill is determined to enhance social cohesion. A fair work environment fosters social cohesion by reducing resentment and inequality in our society. It sends the message that we value and respect the contribution of all workers, regardless of their job type or employment status. I've always believed that a great test of character when you're with someone is how they treat children, animals and those that serve them. So, in this bill, I hope that those that serve us and keep our economy going will have a better sense of fairness and will feel valued. At the end of the day, employers are winners as well, because they foster that sense of belonging to a business. It fosters loyalty. In that sense, productivity and many other gains can be made. I fully support this bill and recommend its passing to the House.

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (21:12): I would like, before I commence speaking to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, to say: we started in this chamber over 12 hours ago—no, sorry; over nine hours ago. See, I'm already delirious and tired! You have to question why we had to cancel a sitting week and why we could not have worked through this bill in an orderly fashion at an orderly time, rather than having people at quarter past nine, until 10.30 tonight, giving their speeches. However, I digress.

In speaking on this bill, one could be forgiven for having a sense of deja vu with this legislation, referring not to the specifics of the legislation but rather to the tactics that have been employed. For all the ideological differences between the major parties, they both, when in government, have synonymous form for trying to pass contentious legislation by intentionally bundling everything together and putting it in the same bill—omnibus bills. And here we are again. Before us, we have a very complex and overreaching bill with some very draconian measures for both employers and workers. The government, conscious of this, is using the good elements, such as stronger protections against discrimination and for people subject to family and domestic violence, as leverage to obtain support for a raft of what I think are very bad and somewhat dangerous changes. This approach by successive governments is disingenuous, and the Australian public are, I think, sick and tired of political point scoring through wedge politics of this nature.

We had the opportunity this week, just yesterday, to pass four bills that were supported in the other place, each of which were a mirror of the non-contentious components of this bill. And yet these bills were not supported by the government. I'd like to say I was surprised; I think I was just disappointed.

What does this tell us? It tells us that the government is aware that it does not have community, employee, employer or political support for this bill in its entirety and that the only way it believes it will secure the passage of this bill is to combine the contentious provisions with the non-contentious provisions. Good policy stands on its own merit and should not be leveraged to pursue ideological commitments. Good policy stems from objectifiable needs—for example, a problem that requires addressing, or systemic failures in economic, social and environmental matters that may benefit from legislative intervention. It is in this context that I wish to address the schedules in this bill.

Schedule 1 proposes substantial changes to casual employment, including changes to the definition of a casual. I ask the question: why is there a need for change? According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the percentage of casually employed people in August 2022 was 23.5 per cent. In August 1997 it was around 23.5 per cent. It's the same. Why do we need to change this? Why is there such urgency? In a quarter of a century, the level of casualisation in the workforce has remained the same, and this is despite monumental changes in the industry, technology and employment sectors. What is the problem that we're trying to fix here? If this bill passes we regress from a current and well-understood definition of what a casual employee is to a more complex and confusing definition that has at least 12 detailed, yet ambiguous, tests. This will lead to an increase in disputes and costs, and will most likely result in employers not engaging casual workers.

I wonder if there's a problem with the number of casual workers in the workforce or if there's a problem with trade union membership, which has been in a serious decline over the same period—from 32 per cent in 1997 to around 12 per cent in 2022. Unions appear to be the only beneficiaries that I can see associated with these changes. More contentiously, the bill proposes significant changes to the employment of casuals. We currently have pathways for casuals to move to permanent employment. Casual loadings and rostering flexibility suit many workers and, in some cases, are necessary for their home, study and work-life balance. However, this bill will take away that flexibility and will reduce their take-home pay at a time when the cost of living is at an all-time high. It is a perverse outcome which is creating a problem rather than fixing one, if the premise of the problem is accepted. This change will affect thousands of workers who have no issue with their current arrangements. For example, one of my children chooses to work as a casual and has regularity in her shifts. It suits her and it suits her employer. Despite this mutually-convenient working arrangement, this proposal requires changes that are not suitable to either party. How on earth is that good policy? It gets worse, though. If an employer incorrectly engages an employee as a casual and then, according to the myriad ambiguous tests proposed, they are by definition a permanent worker, that employer may be fined.

Business already operates in a complex and confusing workplace relations environment. We should be simplifying this, not making it more complex. It is a consequence of the existing and increasing complexity of the industrial relations system that I move my second reading amendments. I move:

That all words after "reading" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"(1) is concerned that the industrial legislative landscape is already complex and difficult for small business employers to navigate;

(2) notes that the legislation imposes even more onerous requirements for small business employers while at the same time taking away employee rights; and

(3) calls for the establishment of an authoritative body in order to:

(a) provide no cost unambiguous advice to employers in relation to the interpretation of awards, enterprise agreements and the Fair Work Act; and

(b) provide protection for employers who have acted on the advice provided".