|
representatives vote 2022-11-10#10
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-11-17 14:41:33
|
Title
Bills — Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022; Consideration in Detail- Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 - Consideration in Detail - Exclude farming
Description
<p class="speaker">Bob Katter</p><p>I move the amendment as circulated in my name:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-10.58.1) introduced by Kennedy MP [Bob Katter](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kennedy/bob_katter) (Katter's Australian Party), which means it failed.
- ### What does the amendment do?
- Mr Katter [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-10.58.1):
- > *I'm moving for the exclusion of farming here. I'm supporting the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, but, in the area of farming, it's just not like it is everywhere else. To give you some idea, the banana industry employs about 6,000 people. I'm in the pub drinking and I say, 'What do you do, Mick?' He said, 'I work in bananas. ' I said, 'Well, you're not working today.' He said, 'I don't work on Tuesdays.' I said, 'Do you work later in the week?' He said: 'Sometimes I work on Thursdays. If you turn up at 6.30 in the morning at the corner of Eden Street, a bus picks you up and takes you out there. If you're not there, well, you're not there.' This is not the ordinary sort of arrangements—and I think everyone here are from cities—that you consider in a city. I just think it's so enormously different.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, item 660, page 229 (after line 18), after Division 1, insert:*
- >
- > *Division 1A — Application generally*
- >
- > *55A Amending Act does not apply to farming employment*
- >
- >> *The amendments of this Act made by Schedule 1 to the amending Act do not apply in relation to farming employment. Farming employment will be under general uniform base wage and conditions.*
- >
- > *55B Amending Act does not apply to certain businesses*
- >
- >> *The amendments of this Act made by Schedule 1 to the amending Act do not apply to businesses that employ under 50 full time equivalent employees in regional, rural and remote Australia.*
<p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 660, page 229 (after line 18), after Division 1, insert:</p><p class="italic">Division 1A — Application generally</p><p class="italic">55A Amending Act does not apply to farming employment</p><p class="italic">The amendments of this Act made by Schedule 1 to the amending Act do not apply in relation to farming employment. Farming employment will be under general uniform base wage and conditions.</p><p class="italic">55B Amending Act does not apply to certain businesses</p><p class="italic">The amendments of this Act made by Schedule 1 to the amending Act do not apply to businesses that employ under 50 full time equivalent employees in regional, rural and remote Australia.</p><p>The last speaker spoke about interference on construction sites. I represent Mount Mulligan where 72 human beings ceased to exist in the space of five seconds. I represent Mount Leyshon. My own son worked at Mount Leyshon where 23 human beings ceased to exist in the space of five seconds. One in 30 of the people who worked in the cane fields died in the cane fields. One in 30 people who worked in the mines died in the mines. So don't take lightly the importance of trade unionism. My family—I make no apologies—is a very rich and powerful family, but they could see clearly, as I think all decent people saw clearly, the necessity for some protection and power for the employee class.</p><p>I'm moving for the exclusion of farming here. I'm supporting the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, but, in the area of farming, it's just not like it is everywhere else. To give you some idea, the banana industry employs about 6,000 people. I'm in the pub drinking and I say, 'What do you do, Mick?' He said, 'I work in bananas. ' I said, 'Well, you're not working today.' He said, 'I don't work on Tuesdays.' I said, 'Do you work later in the week?' He said: 'Sometimes I work on Thursdays. If you turn up at 6.30 in the morning at the corner of Eden Street, a bus picks you up and takes you out there. If you're not there, well, you're not there.' This is not the ordinary sort of arrangements—and I think everyone here are from cities—that you consider in a city. I just think it's so enormously different.</p><p>If someone gets sick, the harvester can't harvest, so he drives around to an old mate of his who's long since retired and he comes out of retirement for a few days. If we're short in a muster, you just go into the pub and drag someone out. I really don't think the sorts of things we're talking about here apply in the farming situation. In some areas it does apply, but I use the word 'farming' not 'agriculture', because agriculture would include the sugar mills and industrial undertakings in farming, and I don't think they should be excluded from the ambit of this legislation. But farming itself, as opposed to agriculture, has to be excluded. Like so many of my colleagues, once again, I move that it be under 50. I think there's a good argument that it should be under 100, but I think really, Minister, 15 is too low. In the Senate, I think you've got to consider raising that a bit.</p><p>I want to give some insight into small business. There was a cafe in Hughenden—I think the owner would be happy for me to use his name. It was Jimmy Marendy's cafe. The union bloke came around and said, 'What hours are you working?' The lady told him her hours. He asked: 'How much are you getting paid?' He said, 'Because your hours don't overlap, you should have got another 50 bucks a week off your employer.' So the owner had to pay them backpay. The owner of the cafe was earning less than the employee, which is pretty common in small business. There are some tax benefits, but really I think a lot of small-business owners are earning less than employees. So he shut the cafe and we had no cafe in Hughenden, and six people had lost their jobs. So this is not a shoe that fits all feet. It's just simply not. I think you've got to exclude to a certain level— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>I thank the member for Kennedy and acknowledge his extraordinary connection to the agricultural and farming communities in his electorate. I've been with him with beef producers and canegrowers, and I've been in those same those banana-packing sheds that he referred to. Some of the greatest areas of underpayment and exploitation and low wages that we have dealt with are not necessarily in that part of Australia but have actually been in the agriculture sector and, often, in horticulture. I would be loathe to create a situation where those workers weren't able to have the chance of the benefits of some of the provisions that are in this bill. For that reason the government won't be supporting the amendment, but understands exactly why it's being moved by the member for Kennedy.</p><p>Just in closing—because this will be the final moment of the debate—and for those who are wondering about the consideration in detail stage: this bill will have had the longest consideration in detail on any bill since the marriage equality debate in 2017. You would have to go back to the previous Labor government before that to find a consideration in detail stage on any bill that has gone for as long as this one has. With that in mind, I request that this amendment now be put to the ballot.</p> <p class="speaker">Rebekha Sharkie</p><p>I rise to support the member for Kennedy's amendment. I too represent a regional community, and I have to say that running a business in a regional community is very different. There are pressures on regional businesses that are not experienced in metropolitan areas. I'm talking about fires, floods and droughts, and the impacts those have on regional communities. That's why we have the rural business support scheme, a scheme that I support very much.</p><p>But I just want to tell the House very quickly about one small business in my electorate of Mayo, in my hometown of Mount Torrens. Many years ago, the centre of town had a really big stone shed; it's where we used to make ice cream, AMSCOL ice cream. That business closed and for many years, right in the heart of town, this huge, great big building was empty. Then we had Elders move in there for a few years and then, again, it was closed—for many, many years. It's not like in metropolitan areas, where one business moves out and another business moves in. This really ended up being an empty shell full of rats and everything else. We then had a business move into the town, Coopers of Mount Torrens, and I have to say that the whole town celebrated. That is a small business that would be very much impacted by this industrial relations legislation that we have before us. I just don't think that the government is really thinking deeply about the impact of this legislation on regional businesses across Australia. I would very much urge the government, perhaps in the Senate, to have a look at regional Australia and our small businesses, to try to provide some protections for them.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Kennedy. As he has rightly highlighted in his contribution, the primary industry sector is enormously important to Australia's prosperity. Indeed, there is a goal of achieving export income of $100 billion. There has been very significant progress towards that over the last few years and the coalition strongly supported that when in government.</p><p>Of course, what needs to be recognised—and the members who have contributed have made this point very effectively—is that farming, primary industry, has some characteristics that are very different to other kinds of businesses across the economy. Many farming enterprises are family businesses, being built up over generations, and many farming businesses take substantial risks: if there's a drought, that could go for a year, or two years—or four or five. The harvest could fail, and that can happen, year after year after year. Families in many cases there are really hanging on, and it's very, very tough. It's a boom and bust industry: of course there are other times that are good—global commodity prices are high, the weather is good and the harvest is good, and farmers receive a substantial sum of money for their harvest.</p><p>But of course that cyclicality, that boom-and-bust nature, is something that's unlikely to be looked on in any receptive way by aggressive unions seeking to push into territories that they presently do not have a strong presence in. And we know that's one of the agendas behind this bill: it's to expand the role of the union movement to support it to get greater coverage, across many different parts of the economy, and there's no doubt that farming is one of the sectors in their sights. So, this government is of course dancing to the tune of the union paymasters.</p> <p class="speaker">Government Member</p><p>A government member interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I hear a member opposite, a former union secretary, like so many of them on the other side. These people are not disinterested. These people don't bring an unbiased and objective perspective on this. This is a collection of former union officials, and we've just heard one bellowing out, in the normal way that he does. All those years of standing there on the picket line with the bullhorn: 'What do we want? When do we want it?'—that's what we're seeing, all that training coming into play now. This is a bill that is about supporting the interests of the union bosses. There are farming enterprises—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will ensure that his remarks are directly relative to the amendment of the member for Kennedy.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I do make my remarks directly relevant, as you rightly counselled me, Mr Speaker, to the excellent amendment moved by the member for Kennedy, which goes to the specific and distinctive characteristics of farming enterprises and of enterprises in regional and remote Australia more broadly. His amendment covers both farming enterprises and businesses in regional, rural and remote Australia. Again, we know that businesses in regional, rural and remote Australia have characteristics that make them different to businesses in metropolitan Australia. Supply chains are longer and more uncertain. A flood can knock out supplies for weeks. Power can be less reliable. And there's a requirement in any—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>I call the member for Kennedy on a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Katter</p><p>Yes, I'm being misrepresented here. I'm not opposing the ambit of the bill in rural and rural areas. I'm opposing the bill's ambit for farming.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>That's not a point of order. If you claim to be misrepresented—</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Katter</p><p>I was misrepresented. He was saying—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Okay. Resume your seat. I will call you when the member has finished his speech.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>In the remaining time available to me, I enthusiastically repeat the opposition's support for the excellent amendment of the member for Kennedy. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Does the member for Kennedy wish to take a misrepresentation?</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Katter</p><p>No, I just want to make the point that I want the benefits of this bill to flow into rural and regional Australia, but in farming I just don't think we can cope with it.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The member has not claimed to be misrepresented.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Pearce</p><p>I rise to support the farming amendment proposed by the member for Kennedy, and I take on board his comments delineating the exact meaning of his amendment. But as I do so, I do so not only as the representative for Braddon but also as a beef producer and crop grower from the north-west coast of Tasmania. The point I want to make today is that there's an old saying that an old farmer once used, and that is that you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. The point I make from that is the fact that here in this place we live in a very different environment, a very sterile—</p> <p class="speaker">Government Member</p><p>A government member interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Pearce</p><p>You're obviously getting a feed! Thank a farmer. But the point I make—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The member for Braddon will resume his seat. Those remarks are not helpful or indeed part of the debate. I'm going to ask him to withdraw that comment and direct all his comments through the chair, not directly to other members.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Pearce</p><p>I withdraw. The point I make—and it's a passionate one—is that the farming communities we have right across this nation live in a very different place to those that live and operate in this place. This is a sterile place. This is a place where decisions are made on numbers. However, the risks that are encountered by the farming community are immense.</p><p>All across the electorate of Braddon this morning, before four o'clock, farmers got up and milked their cows. One employee would go out on an ATV or a UTV and get the herd of 300 or 400 cows into the dairy, and a crew would come in to milk the cows. There would be a team to wash the teats of those animals, there would be another team to put the teat cups on, there would be another team to take the teat cups off, there would be another person there to apply Redene disinfectant to the animal. Then another person would take that herd back out to the paddock and another employee would get on a tractor with a fertiliser applicator to fertilise the pasture. After that, someone would come along and grab the spray rig and they'd go out to apply spray to that piece of pasture. But the point I make is that each part of that labour chain requires a person, and the total number of these casual employees doing very specific work adds up to an aggregate, which is exactly, I think, where the member for Kennedy is going with his point about the peculiarities of farming.</p><p>The corporatisation of farming means that we need a more specialised labour force. It means that we need to have casual labour coming in from time to time, depending on the weather, depending on the season. Again, that's peculiar to farming. We're coming in to harvest time in the state of Tasmania.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|